Question

Gerri was hired through a welfare-to-work initiative at Memorial Medical Center. The purpose of this work initiative was to offer immediate job placement to a Temporary Assistance for Need Families (TANF) recipient. Memorial Medical Center is getting grant funding from the state to participate in the program by offering employment to TANF recipients. Memorial Medical Center has the responsibility to work with the state to find suitable TANF recipients to fill the entry-level positions that require minimal or on-the-job training. Gerri is a divorced mother with four small children all under the age of 6 and a TANF recipient. During her first month of employment, Gerri was absent from work on three separate occasions and reported to work late several times.

The employee handbook states that the probationary period is a time for the employee to adjust to the organization, and the employer must quickly socialize the employee. It also states expectations for punctuality and attendance. According to Memorial Medical Center, employees who do not fit or adhere to the policies may have their employment terminated at any time during the probationary period.

Alarmed by the pattern of lateness and absenteeism, Gerri’s supervisor, Mitch, approached her to discuss the situation. Gerri explained her childcare issues and lack of social support to Mitch. Mitch noted that the quality and quantity of her work were exceptional for a new employee, and because of this he decided not to fire her, although it would have been allowed during the three-month probationary period. Mitch warned Gerri that continuing this patter would lead to her termination, because the organization has a strict attendance policy, which states that “three or more absences during the probationary period is grounds for suspension and even termination.” Gerri did not come to work the next day, so Mitch fired her.

Utilizing your decision matrix, answer the following questions supporting your reasoning:

1. Did Mitch do the right thing in firing Gerri according to the facility’s policy?
2. What ethical implications should be taken into consideration in this case?
3. Could Mitch have done something that could have helped Gerri with her issues?
4. Should the fact that Gerri is a single mother with small children be considered in Mitch’s decision?

Answer 1

1. Mitch did not do the right thing in firing Gerri according to the facility's policy as the quality and quantity of her work were exceptional for a new employee. There are several facts supporting this argument. These are:

• Even though Gerri was absent from work on three separate occasions during her first month of employment, and reported to work late several times, she was an employee with exceptional quality and quantity of work for a new employee. If she can perform exceptionally well during the initial one-month probation under so much stress and humungous expectations, she is certainly a good staff and needs to be made permanent, which would have been a value-addition for the Memorial Medical Center.
• The employee handbook states that the probationary period is a time for the employee to adjust to the organization. It can be inferred that adjusting to the new facility needs time and the probationary period is the time to adjust, and it won't be a loss for the facility if it made an employee with high quality and productivity permanent rather than firing her.
• It also states expectations for punctuality and attendance. This is the only negative point in the case of this employee with high quality and productivity. Terminating this employee resulted in great loss for the facility from any point of view. Gerri's supervisor must have given her some more time to adjust to add her to the employee-assets group.
• Gerri is a TANF recipient, hired through a welfare-to-work initiative, and Memorial Medical Center is getting grant funding from the state to participate in the program by offering employment to TANF recipients. The facility has the responsibility to work with the state to find suitable TANF recipients to fill the entry-level positions. By terminating Gerri, a TANF recipient with high quality and productivity, the facility has made a move against this.

2. There are several ethical implications that need to be taken into consideration in this case. Gerri is a divorced mother with four small children all under the age of 6 and a TANF recipient and the supervisor/facility should have given her a chance to survive and to prove her abilities. She is, beyond doubt, a highly motivated but less fortunate employee, which is evident from the facts given about her personal and professional life. She is a talented person who works really hard to make both ends meet and could have made everybody proud with a little support. The termination could only make things worse, which might make her more negative in her attitude along with contributing to issues like depression etc. With the change in attitude, no professional will be able to maintain good quality and productivity scores even with another work environment and this could make her condition even worse by leaving her as a jobless single mother with 4 little kids.

3. Mitch could have considered her one month's performance other than the leaves and late coming and had given her some more time to rectify the issues so that the facility won't lose a high caliber employee.

4. There is no need to consider the fact that Gerri is a single mother with small children in Mitch’s decision. She qualifies as a highly-skilled and able professional with her one month's performance and that alone can be considered for allowing her to continue. Other than that the facility gets a grant from the state for TANF recipients and has an obligation to retain good TANF employees.