View RALI news and insights to keep up to date with the latest on trend developments relating to future leadership capability and experience requirements and the future world of work.
About 35% of current jobs in the UK are at high risk of computerisation over the following 20 years, according to a study by researchers at Oxford University and Deloitte. Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34066941 and type your job title into the search box below to find out the likelihood that it could be automated within the …
Companies spent years dragging employees back to the office, but forgot to tell them what to wear. The result is confusion stretching from junior employees to the executive suite.
One of Grant Alexander’s longtime clients is the COO of a big privat…
“We’re at-will. Just let them go.”
Leaders in the U.S. say these words, or something like them, with regularity. Because employment here is generally “at-will,” many assume they can terminate someone for any reason. But that misunderstands what at-will employment means—and what else is at play.
An employment decision doesn’t end when someone walks out the door. Even in at-will employment, every termination is judged in three courts: the court of law, the court of social media, and the court of public opinion. Each one can impact your business more than you realize.
The court of law
Despite what many people believe, at-will is not a magical shield against any legal liability. It doesn’t override other applicable laws, including those prohibiting discrimination, retaliation, or violations of whistleblower protections.
Most employees who leave an organization, even if they were fired, don’t sue their employer. But when they do, and if it gets to a trial, the question often isn’t whether the employer had the right to terminate them. It’s why they did.
Just ask the Society for Human Resource Management, the world’s largest HR association. In December 2025, a federal jury found SHRM liable for race discrimination and retaliation against a former employee. SHRM maintained that it followed appropriate procedures, even after the employee raised concerns of racial discrimination during her employment. But testimony and evidence at trial showed that the same individual who was responsible for investigating the employee’s complaints was also advising leaders on communications with her behind the scenes, and the employee’s termination paperwork had been drafted the same day she reported retaliation.
The jury awarded her $11.5 million. And the costs didn’t stop there.
In addition to the jury’s award and its own legal expenses, just this month, SHRM was ordered to pay more than $534,000 in attorneys’ fees for the plaintiff. Much like at-will employment, many leaders assume insurance covers everything. But SHRM’s insurer has sued to avoid paying $10 million of the verdict.
SHRM is appealing the decision. But regardless of the final outcome, it’s a reminder that employment decisions can carry significant costs in money, time, and reputation.
If it can happen to the organization that describes itself as “the global authority on work, workers, and the workplace,” it can happen to any employer.
The court of social media
Unlike a courtroom, social media doesn’t have rules of evidence or filing deadlines. There are headlines, screenshots, recordings, and sections that can shape public opinion in hours.
For many employees, a lawsuit feels intimidating and costly. Posting online does not. It feels—and is—accessible. A recorded layoff call, a screenshot of a termination email, or a “Day in the Life of Getting Fired from My Corporate Job” TikTok can reach more people in an hour than your organization reaches on LinkedIn all year.
By the time leaders start asking whether a recording is legal, it’s too late. People have made their conclusions, and continue to do so when you respond. While your lawyer may advise, “We don’t comment on personnel matters,” the public isn’t judging your legal defense. They’re evaluating whether your response reflects the values your organization claims to stand for.
After SHRM’s verdict, its CEO called it “just a blip in the history of SHRM.” That one word, “blip,” made headlines on its own.
Because in the court of social media, perception often shapes reality.
The court of public opinion
This court may have the smallest reach, but the longest memory.
One thing I learned as an employment lawyer and HR leader is that every employee is a walking billboard for your organization. People talk—to former colleagues, to friends, and to candidates, directly and on Glassdoor. And those people pay attention to what’s said, especially when a situation feels unfair.
The story spreads through their personal and professional communities. And there’s no formal appeal process in this court. Just your reputation is decided, one conversation at a time.
Use the 3-court test
None of this means that you can’t let someone go. You can, and sometimes that’s the best path, for your business and even that person. But it means that an employment decision—especially a termination—should be one that you’re comfortable defending in all three courts. Before you move forward, pause and ask:
- Would it hold up in court? Look at the record: Did this person recently complain or take protected leave? Look at consistency: Are there others who’ve performed the same, or worse, and what happened to them? If a performance review says “Exceeds Expectations” but the termination notice says “Poor Performance,” that inconsistency won’t just concern the employee. It can raise real questions for a jury as well.
- Would it survive a headline? Explain the decision in one sentence, as if someone who’s a complete stranger to your organization would read it. The decisions that are hardest to explain can be the ones most likely to go viral.
- What will the team think? Not what an official statement says—what others will actually believe. Especially if the person leaving was a respected or vocal team member.
When you have doubts in any of these three areas, slow down and take a closer look.
When HR or Legal raises concerns, they’re usually not trying to create delays. They’re helping ensure the organization follows a process that is fair, defensible, and consistent.
The difference can be significant: between a fair process and Exhibit A.
A few extra days spent asking hard questions may prevent years of litigation, reputational damage, or rebuilding trust. Because at-will tells you what you’re allowed to do. It doesn’t tell you what you should do.
So, the next time someone in the room says, “We’re at-will,” ask the follow-up: “But would we win in all three courts?”
When Enron, which Fortune named “America’s Most Innovative Company” for six consecutive years, collapsed in 2001, there was no shortage of blame to go around. Many blamed corruption and greed, others hubris, and still others incompet…
From AI and private brands to premium products and wellness-focused shopping, grocery retailers face new opportunities—and hard choices.
After Orlando knocked the Bulls out in 1995, Michael Jordan asked to train the next day. Tim Grover now sells that standard.
Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 claim to offer superior performance at a lower cost, as the AI industry price wars rage on—and Anthropic barrels toward its IPO.
Fans of Tesla and the Cybertruck criticized Musk’s vision for a future with fewer private vehicles.
While Nvidia has launched an independent investigation into bombshell reports that Chinese intelligence targeted CEO Jensen Huang—and that Huang had an affair with an alleged Chinese spy—early indications suggest that the company’s board may be unwill…
OnePlus 16 could launch in India after new reports suggest a change in plans. Here’s what we know about its rumored price, specifications, and availability.
The post OnePlus 16 India Launch: New Report Suggests a Surprise Release appeared first on Tech…
