manager dislikes his new employee, firing an employee who went viral for attacking football fans, and more

by Alison Green on November 13, 2024

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. I manage a manager who dislikes his new, qualified employee

I run a small nonprofit. I’m less than six months into the position and have inherited some HR challenges. One of the directors I manage, Dave, is, frankly, a terrible manager. He only manages three people, but in the six months I’ve been here, one person quit and one was fired after a dramatic meltdown. Dave just hired a new person, Julie, who he wants to fire within the first 45 days. She has excellent experience, more than he does in the program he is running. She has raised some concerns directly to him about the quality of the work via email; I saw the message, and she approached it professionally.

He said she has been late three times and refuses to do the data entry that is a part of her job. She says she hasn’t been adequately trained. My assessment is that they just don’t like each other and are now looking for things to justify their positions. She thinks he’s incompetent and he thinks she’s rude and undermining his authority.

They both came to me about this situation last week. I’ve been sitting on what to do next because I do not want to lose the new employee. While Julie is not perfect, she does have excellent skills that we need. How do I deal with this situation?

You need to manage Dave much more closely — and you need to lay out for him very explicitly that you’re concerned about the situation in his department and that, having just lost two people in quick succession, you’re not going to fire a third simply for being late a few times. Moreover, given that you know Dave is a terrible manager, I’d be inclined to believe Julie that she hasn’t been adequately trained and that her frustrations with Dave are well-founded — which means that you’re going to need to get much more involved in the situation than you’d normally be doing, including reviewing the training plan with both of them and coaching Dave pretty intensely on your expectations for how he manages people. Plan to spend at least a few weeks intensively involved with both of them, so that you’re setting expectations about how you want things to go and also so that you’re getting a more detailed sense of exactly how Dave operates and what’s going wrong. Stay open to the possibility that you shouldn’t have Dave managing people at all, but you’ll have a better sense of that once you spend a few weeks more enmeshed and have a stronger feel for exactly what’s going on.

If you’re thinking you don’t have time to roll up your sleeves and dive in like that, the alternative is letting Dave keep cycling through employees, which will slow the organization down more in the long run. If you absolutely can’t make time for that in the next few weeks, consider having Julie report to someone else temporarily until you do have time to dig in more.

Related:
how do I get my direct reports to be better managers of their own teams?

2. Firing an employee who went viral for attacking football fans

I just saw an article about a Baltimore Ravens fan who was seen in a video attacking two men who supported an opposing football team. He was identified and fired from his job the next day.

This happens regularly when moments go viral. But can companies do this? Is it because there is video proof? I thought we couldn’t necessarily let someone go even from an arrest. They are still innocent until proven guilty, right? In this case, the guy hadn’t even been arrested, just had a really stupid, violent moment go viral. Can he come back and say he was unfairly fired, as the moment didn’t even happen at work?

In most states, employers can legally fire you for behavior you engage in outside of work, as long as the firing doesn’t violate a specific legal protection you have. (For example, most people couldn’t legally be fired for attending a union protest, because unionizing is a protected right.) There’s no legal protection for physically attacking an opposing team’s fans. In this case, the company likely figured that they don’t want to be associated with someone who publicly engaged in vile behavior that went viral, and that’s their legal prerogative.

You mentioned laws that prohibit firing someone for being arrested, but federal law actually doesn’t prohibit that; it’s dependent on state law. Some states do limit what an employer can do in response to an employee’s arrest, depending on the nature of the crime and how it might relate to their particular job. But in this case the firing was about the behavior itself, not an arrest.

3. My employee is accessing files from our previous employer

In my industry, movement between companies is fairly common. So I am now supervising someone who used to be a peer at OldCompany, which is a direct competitor of NewCompany.

Today, my direct report shared a “helpful” reference document that I know for certain is a proprietary document from OldCompany. We are working on a project very similar to what we worked on at the previous employer, so it’s sometimes tempting to bring in ideas from our old work. However, this was not simply referring to an idea, but sharing a link to an internal, unpublished document from OldCompany. The relative obscurity of the file she shared makes me think that either she somehow saved everything we worked on at the old job, or else she might still have access to her old account somehow.

I told her right away that we cannot have access to documents from OldCompany at NewCompany. I also let my current boss know, since I don’t want there to be legal issues with it somehow coming out that NewCompany employees are accessing competitors’ IP. Do I need to notify my old boss from the previous employer that my current employee still has access to their files? With my employee, does this warrant more than one clear conversation about this being not okay?

To me, this feels like a big violation, but my current boss didn’t respond as if this is a huge deal. For example, my boss didn’t ask which employee of mine it was, just told me to make it clear it’s not okay. In my mind, though, this is a serious judgment issue with my employee. My employee apologized and said it won’t happen again, but I’m not sure if this is something I should drop. What do you think?

You addressed it and she said it won’t happen again. You don’t need to go back and repeat yourself unless something about her response made you think she didn’t take you seriously or didn’t understand that you meant all OldCompany documents, not just this one. If either of those is the case, then yes, go back and say you want to make sure you were clear about the scope of the prohibition and how seriously she needs to take it … but otherwise, it sounds like you’re equating repeating yourself with pounding in the seriousness of the message and, assuming you communicated clearly the first time, you don’t need to do that.

4. I don’t want to be called by a shortened version of my name

I’ve been at my job for over five years now and everyone there calls me by a shortened version of my name. I didn’t say anything at first because it was only some people, some of the time. Gradually everyone shifted to the nickname, even people who were meeting me for the first time. Is there a way I can get people to call me by my actual name?

Yes! “I actually prefer Valentina, thank you.” You’ll have to say it a lot, but eventually it will stick with most people. Just be straightforward and prepared to have to reiterate it. If you want, you can also acknowledge that you didn’t speak up earlier — “I don’t know why I didn’t say this earlier but I go by Valentina.”

5. Should I tell a recruiter I’m pregnant?

I’m currently 16 weeks pregnant (yay for secondary fertility!) and in a job where I’m really not happy. A recruiter from a placement agency reached out to me for a general interview. I know talking to a recruiter doesn’t mean I’ll actually be offered a job, but I was wondering if the advice to not tell an employer before you’ve received an offer still stands if a recruiter is involved.

I feel like if I tell them they’ll be less likely to try to place me, but I also don’t know if having them involved would change what happens if I do get an offer. If I were to get an offer and then disclose my pregnancy to the company, is it easier for them to pull the offer and say it has something to do with the agency even if the real reason is I’m pregnant? Not sure how to proceed but I would really like a new job, even if it means changing while I’m pregnant.

Nope, working with a recruiter doesn’t change the advice. Wait to disclose until you have an offer. The company will have the same legal risk pulling the offer at that point that they’d have without a recruiter involved.

You may also like:
{ 300 comments }

{ 300 comments… read them below }

    1. NotAnotherManager!*

      This. Why is Dave being allowed to manage people if he’s so bad at it? He’s costing you time and money and harming the organizational mission. The way it’s described here, Julie has a good reason for disliking Dave, and Dave is reaching for petty crap to complain about re Julie.

      I have a Dave, and my Dave was removed from people management and put in a position where his skills could be applied to projects and minimized his contact with anyone below him in the org chart. I’ve seen this happen a lot over my career when an individual contributor hits “management” level but has (and is not trained on) any actual management skills. (My Dave also feels threatened by people who he worries might know even a fraction of what he does and hence be as valuable as he is. Unfortunately, he has a niche set of skills that are not available in the market and one of the only people (in the country, not just our org) with the knowledge to train someone up.)

      1. BellaStella*

        Same here. I have seen this happen in other roes and in my current role. The role Dave is playing here in OPs letter is an issue. OP needs to deal with Dave as he sounds threatened by Julie and clearly sounds like a bad manager. OP the cost of not doing anything is high here as more people inc Julie may leave. Further Julie may be having issues because she sees how bad Dave is and is tired of dealing with incompetence in general. I know in my case I am tired of it and hope soon my Dave gets removed too.

      2. GammaGirl1908*

        “Julie has a good reason for disliking Dave, and Dave is reaching for petty crap to complain about re Julie.”

        ^^^This part.

        Dave is blustering around about his authority; Julie — who has more and better experience — is asking for effective training on skills. Dave is nitpicking butt-in seat time; Julie is asking questions about the quality of the work.

        Dave is focused on the wrong things. He is the FAR bigger problem here. Julie’s complaints aren’t even about liking or disliking Dave. She probably DOES hate him, because he’s terrible, but she is still trying to get the work done.

        Also and not for nothing, Dave is trying to fire a newly hired woman who is more qualified than he is, and who is noticing and calling out his errors. That is … not a good look.

          1. Rex Libris*

            Yep. The simplest solution here is to fire Dave, and put Julie in as interim director and see how she does. Dave is clearly threatened by her competence, and the OP admits she has more and better experience.

            1. AnonInCanada*

              ^^^^ This! Dave is grasping at straws regarding Julie’s competence/experience and is doing whatever it takes to sabotage her performance/abilities to protect himself.

              OP#1: I think this is a slam-dunk decision. Fire his ass and give Julie his job. Yes, this may mean you’ll have to roll up your sleeves to train her on the things Dave should’ve done, but based on what I’ve read, I’m sure Julie will catch on quickly.

              1. MigraineMonth*

                It’s not a decision, it’s a recommendation to the letter writer. It’s the the obvious one when the letter pretty much states “employee A is terrible at his job (and has been causing issues)” and “our new hire employee B is more qualified”.

                It sounds like Dave is not cut out for management (at least at this time in his career/with his current level of training) and needs to be removed from that role. Maybe the OP could demote them/move them to an individual contributor role, but most people who receive demotions quit anyways.

        2. MsM*

          Yeah, is Julie refusing to do her share of the data entry (for reasons other than that she hasn’t gotten adequate training), or is the problem that Dave thinks Julie should only be doing data entry?

          1. But what to call me?*

            Or for that matter, did Dave never bother to train Julie on what data entry needs to be done and how, so rather than just taking a guess at it and hoping any mistakes don’t blow up in her face Julie decided to focus on the parts of her job she does know how to do unless and until someone resolves this training situation?

      3. ferrina*

        Yes to all this! Management is a skill that needs to be developed, and just like any skill, some people are naturally good at it and some people are not. Some people just won’t have the skill, and that’s okay. But don’t put someone in a role where they don’t have the skills to do the role.

        And a bad manager will poison the well. OP already knows that Dave is hemorrhaging people, and he wants to fire another person for spurious reasons. Why on earth are you letting this person run a team, OP?!?

      4. Bruce*

        I had a cranky peer who almost got himself fired, my boss told me to take over his team and that he was going to be fired if I did not make a case to save him. I told my boss I was willing to take him on. He knew he was on thin ice, and accepted the change in management (we didn’t cut his pay). He’s retired now, but was much less cranky as an individual contributor, I made it clear to him that his 20 years of experience with our products still had value. I don’t regret going to bat for him.

    2. Limdood*

      Yep, If Dave is a terrible manager that goes through employees, and action hasn’t been taken to rectify the situation, then the problem goes higher…to Dave’s manager who is currently dropping the ball in managing Dave.

      for the LW…if you read this same letter talking about 3 other people….Bob who’s a terrible manager, the employee Cindy that he’s butting heads with, and Bob’s boss Jim….wouldn’t you be reading that letter wondering where Jim is when all of this is happening and why is Bob getting away with this over the course of months?

    3. blueberry muffin*

      Maybe LW is embarrassed to admit that Dave is a bad manager to Dave and Julie and is actively looking for another “solution”?

      I’ve seen a manager do everything but address this situation head on because saying they messed up too much to admit so they let the situation fester hoping the victim will learn to deal with “Dave.”

      I hope Julie leaves.

      2. Crencestre*

        Julie sounds as if she’s a very real asset to the organization and should be kept on if at all possible. Dave, on the other hand, sounds as if he should be put on a strict PIP, closely monitored and let go if he doesn’t improve ASAP. Why should LW’s organization lose another good employee because one manager is incompetent?!

      3. Dust Bunny*

        The LW says she’s relatively new at the job; I’d be more inclined to think she feels she can’t do anything about Dave since he’s been here that long. I don’t know if that’s right in the “this organization doesn’t fire problematic people and won’t back me up” sense or the “I do not have the authority to fire him” sense, or if it’s something else, but it’s worth clarifying.

        1. iglwif*

          Yeah. I can definitely imagine feeling like you’re too new to fire a long-standing employee, that you need to understand the situation better, that it’s a bad look to come crashing in and immediately start getting rid of people … but this 100% sounds like Dave needs to be fired (or at least moved out of a management role!). The question OP needs to be asking isn’t how to make Dave and Julie get along, it’s who she needs to get onside to get Dave out of there and how to go about it.

          Firing a terrible employee is not necessarily easy! But as Alison says, you’re setting yourself up for more tsures if you don’t.

          1. Dust Bunny*

            Oh, yeah–I agree that Dave needs to go, but sometimes the office politics mean that someone else should have done it sooner and the LW will need to make sure her ducks are really in a row before she handles what is basically her predecessor’s mess.

      4. LK*

        LW 1 here. I inherited an absolute disaster of a management team and let three directors go in my first 30 days for gross incompetence. However, nothing was documented by my predecessors, and I had to build a case for each person. He is a bad manager, and if I hadn’t already let the three worst offenders go, I would also fire him. But he is also the front face of one of our programs, and as a nonprofit, we are already looking pretty shaky with all this turnover. In good news/bad news, I put him on a very strict PIP for his management this morning he blew up at me in a way that I now have clear grounds to fire him. I’m not averse to firing bad employees, especially bad managers, but also walking a thin line with destroying the organizations morale by firing so many people as the new boss. It’s not great.

          1. Ellie*

            Yeah given the blow up, I’d fire him. There’s no way he’s going to make it through your PIP with that attitude anyway. It may as well be now rather than in a few weeks time. And if you let him leave on his terms, he could take people with him.

    4. Falling Diphthong*

      It’s like a theme this week. “We have an absolutely terrible manager. How can we get their subordinates on board with this?”

    5. Antilles*

      I don’t know what OP was waiting on.
      But it felt wild to me that OP leads off by directly saying Dave is a terrible manager and a full paragraph listing reasons he’s a a terrible manager…then somehow pivots to end the letter with “I think they just don’t like each other” as though there’s blame on both sides rather than this being 100% on Dave being a terrible manager.

      1. Ally McBeal*

        Yeah. I’ve spoken about this guy before but I once had a boss where “we just didn’t like each other” but it was because he was a terrible boss.
        –Made me complete his onboarding forms that included his base salary (more than 10x mine) because he was too lazy to do it himself
        –Took me out to lunch so he could monologue about how he was vastly underqualified for the job he had before this one and only got it because his boss died unexpectedly and he decided to shoot his shot
        –Asked for constructive feedback based on the work I’d been doing with his peers andd then got insulted & tattled to the CEO that I was unfavorably comparing him to his peers
        –Had no respect for the necessary processes for booking client events (turns out you can’t start selling an event featuring a particular speaker until you have actually confirmed that the speaker is on board for the event), etc.

        Fortunately I was reassigned and he burned out and quit while I was still working there, so I got to tell my CEO “I told you so.”

        My current job is the only one I’ve EVER had (in 20 years) where, when I quit, it will be because of management and not my boss. “People don’t quit jobs, they quit managers” is almost always the case.

      2. Box of Kittens*

        This!! Reminds me of the type of manager who wants employees to work things out themselves, even if the issue is something like harassment. There are so many people in leadership positions who will agree that someone is a problem and commiserate with other employees but throw their hands up and refuse to use their authority as if they can’t do anything about it. Yes, you can.

    6. Elbe*

      Exactly!

      The situation with Julie is making this more urgent, but this should have been actioned long ago. Dave is a terrible manager, and that’s a problem even if Julie wasn’t here.

      If Dave is so bad that he’s running people off (or trying to have them let go) then this is a massive issue. The company has a moral obligation to their other employees, who depend on them for a living. This is affecting people’s livelihoods, and it’s serious enough that it should have been looked into a while ago.

      1. Elizabeth West*

        It’s also affecting the company’s bottom line, because it’s expensive to keep replacing people.

        OP can PIP if they feel they have to, but I doubt he’ll use that time to shape up if he’s gotten away with this for so long. I’m with those who suggest letting him go and putting Julie in his role.

    8. Alan*

      Came here to say this. Dave really needs to not be managing. He’s demonstrated that he’s hopeless (IMHO).

    9. Annony*

      At the very least, make it clear to Dave that him staying in a management role depends on keeping Julie. If she is fired or quits then he has failed as a manager and the company cannot afford to keep cycling through employees.

    10. Pizza Rat*

      I think Allison’s advice is way too kind to Dave for just that reason. I wonder if there’s a way to demote him to individual contributor if he does valuable work.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        I think Alison’s advice is important because she is explaining what the LW needs to do different in their management (get way more involved) rather than just saying “Dave’s the problem, get rid of Dave.” The latter would let the LW off the hook for doing the tough work of managing closely enough to recognize what needs to change and make their own decision to do so.

    11. Artemesia*

      This. Dave needs to be demoted if there is a place for him and you think he might be able to do other work well OR most likely he should be fired. It is nuts to keep a poor manager in a role where he can continuously damage the morale and productivity of other employees.

  2. John*

    For reference for question #3, recently a slot machine company got in legal trouble because one of their employees had previously worked for a competitor and used a file from that competitor while working on a project. They were forced to remove all their machines of that project, probably will have to pay millions, and their stock price took a 20% dive.

    So definitely not something to be messed with.

    1. Felix*

      It’s also a question of how they are accessing the old documents. This doesn’t apply if they just have a stash of old material, but it could be very serious if they are actually going into OldCompany’s system. It would be a form of hacking – the digital equivalent of using an old key to go into an office at night because they didn’t bother to change the locks. It’s would be bad security on the OldCompany’s part, but still a crime for the employee. If OldCompany had reason to suspect bosses at NewComapny knew they were doing this, they could get into a heap of trouble as well.

      1. Rusty Shackelford*

        I’m wondering why the LW suspects the new employee is still accessing files at Old Company. It seems a lot more likely that she just saved them before she left. Which is still serious, but not quite as “breaking and entering” level.

        1. amoeba*

          Yeah, was wondering as well! My first thought was that it was something that they know was newer than the end of employee’s tenure there, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. I think we kind of regularly see “can I take this useful document from my current job when I leave” questions here, so while the answer is mostly “no”, I don’t think it’s super egregious. If they still had access though… well, I would mostly be shocked about old company’s lack of security, tbh! I really, really cannot imagine that happening here, outside of some *serious* hacking skills…

        2. Name (Required)*

          They said “but sharing a link to an internal, unpublished document from OldCompany”. I read this as a link to a document still on OldCompany’s server, but could me misinterpreting that.

          1. Jamoche*

            I assumed the employee put a copy up on the new company’s internal servers, because directly linking to another company’s internal servers should require logging in to that system, and *that* would be a very obvious problem for new company.

      2. Annony*

        That might be the one thing they should circle back to with the employee. Directly ask how they got the document and then tell them to either never access OldCompany’s system again or tell them to delete the files. You can’t make sure they do it but it will make it clear where the line is.

      3. Kevin Sours*

        Keeping a “stash of old material” from a previous job is pretty close to a definitional trade secrets violation. Hacking or no this is a big deal.

    2. Jamoche*

      It’s happened to video games too – I know of one online game that was taken down completely because something that really had no impact on game play was determined to be identical to something from another game.

      What #3 could do is check whether the onboarding process discusses this, if it’s that common. I work in software; people get used to sharing code and need reminders of what’s not sharable.

    3. Athersgeo*

      See also the Spygate mess in Formula 1 from 2007, which earned the team concerned a $100 million fine! Granted, that fine is a tad (!) overinflated due to the personalities involved, but the chap who actually committed the IP theft was sentenced to jail time in Italy so it was taken very, very seriously.

    4. Richard Hershberger*

      Then there us the case of Chris Correa, who was an analyst for the Houston Astros. Then he got hired by the St. Louis Cardinals, where he hacked into the Astros’ database. He got caught, and 46 months in the clink.

    5. Skitters*

      The words “corporate espionage” come to mind. I’m a bit confused as to how she never had to sign an NDA about proprietary information and documents at the previous company.

      1. Nebula*

        Is it standard practice to sign an NDA relating to that sort of thing? Genuine question, I’m in the UK, and wording about not sharing intellectual property etc. often forms part of the contract for a job, so an NDA wouldn’t be necessary.

        1. Great Frogs of Literature*

          In the US, and I wouldn’t expect an NDA in any industry I’ve worked in. We mostly don’t have contracts, but you’re just told to not do it.

        2. Turquoisecow*

          I’ve never signed an NDA but I think it’s pretty universally understood that using old company’s data or whatever at new company is unethical to say the least!

        3. YetAnotherAnalyst*

          In my industry in the US, signing an NDA is pretty standard (and covers both “don’t disclose our info” and “don’t endanger our work by using info from other places”), but contracts for anything but the top talent are exceedingly uncommon.

        4. Strive to Excel*

          In my experience it’s rare to have an explicit NDA regarding intellectual property, but it is common to have language in the employee handbook or other onboarding documents that talks about all company information being proprietary.

        5. Emmy Noether*

          Companies like to put it in writing (contract or separate agreement) and make employees sign to remind them of the seriousness, but they don’t have to. Stealing trade secrets and other IP is illegal whether you signed something or not. In the same way you don’t have to sign that you won’t steal equipment – it’s illegal either way.

      2. Katie*

        Just because someone signs an NDA doesn’t mean that they still can’t disclose something and/or steal their documents.

        1. anon here*

          Bingo! We just went through the mill with someone who thought their NDA and the 1-year non-compete clause just meant that they had to wait for a year before actually using the huge mass of proprietary data from the files they stole before they left. (They had lied on resignation — claimed to be needed at home, but were already setting up their own shingle in direct competition.)

        2. rebelwithmouseyhair*

          Sure, but you have in writing that the person knew very well that they weren’t allowed to do it. They can’t plead ignorance.

      3. Judge Judy and Executioner*

        I’ve worked at multiple companies in the US and have rarely been requested to sign an NDA. Usually it’s just been at software companies. At one non-software job, I had to sign an NDA that was specific to a project that involved shutting down facilities in location 1 and opening a new facility in location 2. They didn’t want us telling our friends and colleagues of the closure before it was made public. The only other time I’ve seen “don’t share or leverage your knowledge of confidential information” was in a severance document in a layoff.

      4. Smithy*

        I work in a field where this kind of template and even whole document sharing isn’t uncommon. In some cases that kind of sharing is given stronger caveats around discretion – but keeping those documents from one job to the next, and then using the templates in a new job is behavior I’ve repeatedly seen. The point at which it becomes proprietary and inappropriate to use are far far more case by case determined.

        This isn’t to say that because that’s the case in my industry, it applies to other ones. But I do think it could be a situation where this OP’s employee had managers with a different perspective on this in the past. OR worked in a field/sector with a different perspective. It’s that interpretation of “sharing best practices” vs “sharing proprietary knowledge”.

      5. Kara*

        The only time I’ve ever had to sign an NDA is when I was working directly with the team that was negotiating a new contract. The contract being negotiated was announced in an international press release when it was finally inked – so a big deal and it was important to keep all elements of it as secret as possible. I wasn’t even allowed to discuss it with my spouse. But it was very much a situation specific NDA.

        Other than that? I’ve never had to sign an official NDA for just my regular work. It’s just part of our onboarding and our continuing internal education that proprietary information is proprietary and we’re expected to abide by that.

    6. Bruce*

      The most extreme example I can think of: In the early 00s Avanti was caught using code stolen from Cadence, I believe at least one of the people responsible went to jail… Synopsys got Avanti and paid off the plaintiffs in the multiple lawsuits that were a corporate death sentence for Avanti. I used to work down the street from the Avanti headquarters, it went from a bustling corporate campus to a ghost town in the space of a couple of years…

    7. Ama*

      I’m late to this but my husband had a very panicky day at work a few months back because one of their clients reported they were getting data from a competitor through the product my husband’s team supports. Legal was looped in basically immediately since this was a back-end product in tech and any data pulled would be proprietary. What was extra confusing was the competitor wasn’t a client of my husband’s employer so they couldn’t figure out how the product was even getting access to the data.

      It turned out the client had a freelance contractor who also did work for the competitor who had not properly set up his computer to keep his clients’ data separated, so he was using the product and it was pulling data on his computer from both clients. At that point my husband’s employer was off the hook but I don’t know if there were consequences for the contractor.

  3. periwinkle*

    #3 – At my employer, sharing IP owned by another company with fellow employees is grounds for discipline including dismissal unless explicit permission has been granted. Sharing IP of one customer/supplier/partner with another is even worse. You do not do this.

    It’s no doubt industry-dependent on what’s considered a serious violation of intellectual property right, and perhaps the OP’s industry is less stringent. In mine, the OP would have had to report this to the ethics department (part of the legal function) and the owner of the IP would be notified of the incident.

    We get training on this every year.

    1. Adorkable*

      This. My company also does the annual refresher on ethics: what is intellectual property, what counts as bribes and corrupt business practices and the like. Every new hire spends a fair chunk of their first weeks going through all this training as well.

    2. Snow Globe*

      I’m glad you mentioned Ethics Hotline. If that exists in the OP’s company, the OP might want to report this, if they feel the boss isn’t taking it seriously enough.

    3. Nicosloanicota*

      I just want to offer the opposite perspective; in my field, this would be no big deal and the boss would seem overly dramatic. I’m in direct services (nonprofit). So I think it varies really widely by field and by the value of what you’re producing.

      1. Silver Robin*

        +1 I am also in nonprofits and while we generally ask the orgs to share stuff first, it is so common to share stuff among one another that I would not be surprised if somebody moved and then used a document they still had a copy of to support a project in a new job. Nobody would blink an eye

      3. Paint N Drip*

        Same, in my work it would be the same as using a Canva or Word template and changing the copy – choosing not to do it that way is valid, but a big ethics meltdown it is not

      4. NoMoreFirstTimeCommenter*

        And also different companies in the same field can have very very different rules about this kind of stuff. If there isn’t any official training about this in the new company, it’s easy to understand how someone could just presume that they can keep doing things the same way as their previous employer has instructed. In my country most employment contracts include a pretty standard phrase about business secrets, but employers shouldn’t just trust that signing the paper will automatically make a new employee understand what exactly this particular company thinks is a business secret…

      5. Smithy*

        Absolutely – I will also say that my role in nonprofits (fundraising), there are really strong guidelines around sharing “donor data”. But that’s mostly related to payment data. Obviously credit card/banking information, but then also things like mailing lists with home/email addresses.

        However…..if you happened to have a number of WealthX screenings conducted at one job, printed those out, saved them and then used that information at another job, the level of how bothered anyone would be would vary. It’s that situation where the wealthier anyone is, it’s almost like the less proprietary information there is? Like showing up with a WealthX screening on Makenzie Scott or Melinda Gates almost runs the line of just being public information.

      6. Kitry*

        Very industry dependent. I’m a veterinarian and when I left my first job, my boss actually reminded me to make sure I copied any files I wanted to take. I left with over a hundred useful documents- client handouts, exam templates, note templates for doing medical records, and a bunch of quick-reference material. In this field it would be regarded as incredibly strange to get territorial about any documents other than actual patient records.

    4. fhqwhgads*

      I don’t necessarily disagree but given the nature of how it went down, I almost wonder if it might’ve been a situation where “if you have the link you have access” and since the person had access, they genuinely thought “this is just a thing on the internet”. It’s equally possible that’s not what happened and the framing of “this useful resource” was just making a bad choice in reusing the OldCompany stuff while well aware it was private OldCompany stuff. But this is why talking to the employee is important in this kind of situation.
      Not that you can’t still get fired for being ignorant instead of malicious if the offense is big enough, but sometimes “don’t ever do that again” is sufficient.

      1. Allegra*

        This is my thinking, particularly if the employee is younger (I say meaning younger than me, and I’m in my early 30s)–I think especially with Google Drive these days, it’s important to know a lot of young people haven’t actually been taught how file systems work because they were just expected to intuit things as “digital natives” (and because their high schools stopped getting funding for librarians to teach things things but that’s a digression for another time). I have had to teach younger coworkers how to use and organize file folders instead of just searching for things all the time. If it was a Drive link that someone had saved a copy of for themselves (or just still had share access to), it may not have even occurred to the employee it wasn’t a persistent resource they were fine to keep accessing. I think talking to the employee and figuring out their thought process is important and determining what, if anything, they were taught about this and making sure to clear up any important knowledge gaps if proprietary information is a big thing in your industry.

    5. Abogado Avocado*

      Thank you, Periwinkle. I was just coming this way to reference intellectual property issues.

      If the information that Julie shared is Old Company’s intellectual property regarding a proprietary process or product, then I think LW#3 may wish to take further steps. First, in addition to advising Julie in writing that proprietary information from Old Company cannot be used at New Company, LW#3 should instruct Julie in writing to delete all information from Old Company on New Company’s computer system, and to not upload, access or use any information from Old Company in performing her job at New Company. This protects New Company should it ever be sued by Old Company for infringing on Old Company’s intellectual property.

      Further, if the information shared is proprietary, LW#3 should ask her manager whether a consult with New Company’s legal department would be advisable. Trust me: Legal would rather know about this up front instead of after New Company is sued by Old Company or another competitor for infringement.

      Next, Periwinkle brings up IP training, which is a necessity for all companies that deal in proprietary information. If New Company doesn’t have such training, LW#3 may wish to suggest that the Legal or HR have regular IP training for employees.

      Finally, personally, I don’t think Julie should be disciplined over this. It seems likely that New Company doesn’t have clear policies or training about IP. Rather, this situation is an opportunity for LW#3 to work with her New Company managers to tighten procedures.

      1. Kevin Sours*

        If they have a legal department they should 100% be looped in.

        The only answer to “Do I need to notify my old boss from the previous employer that my current employee still has access to their files?”, which I don’t think Alison addressed is “consult an attorney qualified in trade secrets law”.

    6. Pescadero*

      There is definitely some gray area, in that not all “intellectual property” is actually intellectual property that is protected in a legal sense.

      I’ve definitely worked places where documents were labelled as IP and confidential, and were in fact publicly published documents the company had just copied off the internet without permission of the actual IP holder.

  4. Jill Swinburne*

    #4 – five years! Can you just send out an email to people you work a lot with to the effect of ‘I’ve reached the conclusion that I actually prefer to be called Amanda, not Mandy – can you please consider me Amanda from now on and let other people know if it comes up? Thanks! Amanda’

    It’ll seem super awkward because it’s dragged on so long but I doubt if you present it as a recent revelation it’ll be a big deal – at least it’ll save people from feeling like they’ve spent five years putting their foot in it.

    1. Nodramalama*

      For LW2 people often talk about “innocent until proven guilty” as a reason for people to not be held accountable or face consequences in other aspects of their lives (see: being ‘cancelled’). But the second half of that sentence is “in a court of law”. Not, in every aspect of your life. You can let people go for a myriad of reasons that has absolutely nothing to do with whether they committed a crime, let alone if they are CONVICTED of a crime.

      1. MK*

        More to the point, this principle refers to the poenal system, as in, the government cannot sentence you until you have been found guilty in a court of law. Society, and private companies, don’t have to adhere to that, and in fact it would be unreasonable to expect them to; if a person is accused of something, do you really expect the people who interact with them to withhold judgement till the trial? That said, I think applying the spirit of the principle in everyday life is a sound choice, in the sense that one shouldn’t be uncritical of hearsay, but that can’t go as far as “we can do nothing till they are convicted”. Even the peonal system doesn’t apply the principle absolutely, it’s not uncommon for accused persons to be held till their trial.

        And this is really the reason this is happening more nowadays; th pertinent word in your post OP3, is “video”. This man wasn’t fired over some unsubstantiated report; the company was able to see exactly what he had done. It boggles my mind that you used “just” next to “stupid, violent”. Is being stupid and violent irrelevant and unimportant traits? If being stupid and violent isn’t enough to get you fired, what should be?

          1. Paint N Drip*

            Right?? I suppose in any situation we can wait to hear back on the legal verdict to make our own judgment, but in this case… why? You can SEE with your own eyes the senseless violent actions this person took. I don’t care what exact legal charges he gets, I can personally judge him on his actions.

        3. EchoGirl*

          I think the “just” in that context was in the sense of “he wasn’t even arrested, just caught on video”, not about the incident itself. But I agree with the rest of what you’re saying.

          1. EchoGirl*

            Replying to add: Also, if anything, him not being arrested may have ironically made it easier to fire him. If he had been arrested and he happened to work in one of the jurisdictions where you can’t fire someone for being arrested, then there might be some concern about running afoul of said law. But since he wasn’t arrested, there’d be no need to worry that there could be legal issues later.

        4. HB*

          The principle is actually more about burden of proof. In the US justice system, the prosecution has to prove that you’re guilty. The defense *doesn’t* have to prove that you’re innocent. That might sound like a distinction without much meaning because most people like to think of things as a binary: either you’re guilty OR you’re innocent and so proving or disproving one proves or disproves the other but that also requires that you over simplify what the person is guilty of. When you’re charged with a crime that crime has particular elements (like intent) and the prosecution has to prove *each* of those elements in order to secure a conviction. This is why the prosecution usually includes lesser charges – so that if they can’t prove all the elements of one charge, they might be able to secure a conviction on something else. I don’t remember all the rules about charges, but it’s not as easy as throwing in 6 completely different types of charges and hoping one sticks… they have to be somewhat related. For example if to prove First Degree Murder you have to prove premeditation and intent, but for some other Murder charge you just need to prove intent… you could probably include both of those charges… but you couldn’t include a Homicide charge that is based on reckless endangerment because that means you’re trying to prove two entirely different theories.

          So to use the specific scenario here… he is still “innocent” until proven guilty… the question is “of what”. Unless there’s a possibility that the person has an identical twin, or supernatural doppelganger, he’s not “innocent” of being involved, because being involved isn’t the charge. But he’s innocent of aggravated or simple assault because the prosecution has to prove each element, and the defense can simply attack one or more of the individual elements to disprove guilt rather than trying to prove innocence.

          1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            I say this on here a lot when someone says but I don’t have enough proof to act. This isn’t a court of law, you don’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

            In this specific case, Maryland is an employment at will state. There are no protections for an arrest (that I am aware of), or even requirement that you must be arrested first before your employer can act. He was in a job that had no union protections, but did require a high degree of trust and good judgment – finance. So taken all in all, the company acted in its best interest.

            Don’t want to lose your job, don’t get drunk and high and then threaten opposing team fans. It’s really pretty simple.

            1. Rex Libris*

              This. I think “stupid and violent” are excellent reasons to fire someone in most circumstances, actually.

          2. John*

            We do live in a world of deepfakes now. Unless someone bears a grudge against this random guy, it’s much more likely he committed the violence than that it was some kind of deepfake, but it’s worth remembering that just being on video is no longer incontrovertible proof.

        5. Smurfette*

          Right? LW2 seems almost sympathetic towards this person who was (quite rightly) fired. This type of behavior is unacceptable wherever it takes place. Would customers and coworkers feel safe if they were came face-to-face with a known football hooligan in the workplace? No! And keeping him the staff would reflect incredibly badly on the company.

      2. pandop*

        A lot of people in the UK lost their jobs over their recent involvement in the riots, and we tend to have quite stringent rules on what you can fire people for.

        1. Mongrel*

          I think many companies have a social media policy that boils down to “We don’t care what you do outside of work as long as you’re not linked to us.”. Some professional bodies also have a “Bringing the profession into disrepute” clause that will see you losing your license and therefore your job.

          1. Ellis Bell*

            I honestly think it goes beyond reputational concern. If someone settles their frustrations with violence, they are a worrying person to have in the workplace.

            1. Clisby*

              Yeah, this is not just acting in a “disreputable” way. That would be an employee invading the town Christmas parade and doing a strip-tease next to Santa. Violent assault is at a whole other level.

            2. Turquoisecow*

              100%. If this person is getting upset enough over a sports event that they resort to violence, what happens if I’m late giving them the TPS reports, or their pet project loses funding, or the boss denies their raise? I think it’s valid for the company to be concerned about the safety and comfort of the rest of the employees. I would be a little nervous about sitting at a desk next to someone who was caught on video violently assaulting people, and I’m sure I’m not the only one!

              1. Light Spinner*

                I came here to say exactly this, Turquoisecow! Who in their right mind wants to work alongside someone who’d assault people NOT in self-defense but over a sports game?!

                AAM has already covered at least two cases of assaultive employees who got away with their violent behavior. One was a man who pushed a colleague in front of a moving car in his haste to get away from a small bird that he feared. The colleague wound up in the hospital with her arm broken in two places (!) and the man who’d caused her injury wound up keeping his job. The other involved an employee who, invited to a coworker’s wedding, got roaring drunk at the reception, knocked small children to the floor, yelled obscenities, and hit the groom; he too was allowed to keep his job. So…would anyone here like to work with these people, knowing that YOU could be the next one shoved in front of a moving car or slugged because your colleague was spitface drunk? Ahh…me neither!

                1. John*

                  I wouldn’t call someone panicking and trying to get away from their phobia ‘assaultive’ or ‘violent behavior’. I think that’s not really fair to lump in with someone getting drunk and attacking someone else or someone attacking people at a sports game.

                  I can speak from experience too – I’m terrified of dogs and someone had a really aggressive, off-leash dog that was trying to attack me when I was hiking with my wife. I almost fell off the mountain trying to get away from it and apparently I shook the owner and yelled “what’s wrong with you?!” but I have essentially no memory of anything after it approached and the panic state began.

                2. Meep*

                  Politely, John, assault is assault, regardless of the reason. Both you and the person described above are very lucky no one pressed charges.

                3. MigraineMonth*

                  Pushing past someone while in the middle of a panic attack is not at all the same situation as taking a swing at someone while drunk or throwing a stapler at your employer.

                  It’s awful that by shoving past her, the man with the bird phobia pushed his coworker in front of a car and she was seriously injured. She has every right to be furious and never forgive him. The difference is, he never made the choice to hurt her, any more than a woman having a PTSD flashback makes a choice to react violently if you touch her during one.

                4. Joron Twiner*

                  The bird phobia letter is a lot more nuanced than that. The dude had a legitimate phobia which caused him to act irresponsibly. The woman who got injured demanded he be fired or she wouldn’t return to work. The company was not willing to fire him for how he acted due to his phobia, and the woman chose not to return to the company.

                  It is not the same scenario as the others you mentioned or as this one here, where a person was irrationally violent and unprovoked.

                5. Limmy*

                  Violently assaulting a woman then claiming you have a phobia that means you have zero control over “not being able to commit attempted homicide” is absolutely something that should be dealt with legally.

                  It’s a miracle the woman wasn’t killed, when the bird phobia guy shoved her into direct traffic. He didn’t just jostle her.

                  Male violence is a serious issue. If he genuinely does have actual medical documentation of this phobia that predates the attack, then he needs to be in psychiatric care to protect others from him. If he doesn’t have proof, turn out have a man who is just walking round feeling empowered to attack women.

              2. Observer*

                If this person is getting upset enough over a sports event that they resort to violence, what happens if I’m late giving them the TPS reports, or their pet project loses funding, or the boss denies their raise?

                Yes. This 100%

                It reminds me of the letter about someone who attacked a supervisor and broke her cheek because he was angry that he didn’t get a day off. Who needs that kind of thing in the workplace. I’ll post a link separately.

            3. Observer*

              Exactly.

              Smart management might bring up the reputational issue. But they are not going to totally hang their hat on that. Because even if they could keep the connection a deep dark secret, do you really want that kind of person working for you around other people? In a role that requires judgement and the ability to deal with stress?

          2. Curious*

            While loss of a license doesn’t require a criminal trial, it would require some due process (in contrast to “employment at will,” where you can be fired without any process at all.

      3. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

        Yeah, it’s amazing to me how people seem to think that “innocent until proven guilty” is like Schrödinger’s cat. The person both did and didn’t commit a violent act until the jury opens the box and it collapses into one or the other. No, the guy attacked another human being without justification. Whether or not he is ever arrested for it or convicted of it, it happened. People have been acquitted of murders they committed; that doesn’t mean the murders didn’t happen, it means they got away with something they shouldn’t have. Just like convicting an innocent person doesn’t retroactively mean they committed the crime.

        Further law-geek note: if you want to think of it in legal terms, what the employer is doing does not affect the yahoo’s freedom, but his income. In that, it is much more like a civil trial, where the standard is “preponderance of the evidence”–i.e. it is more likely than not. This is why OJ was acquitted but lost the civil trial brought by the victims’ families.

        1. anotherfan*

          We had a thing here where a person running for office made some terrible remarks about a person’s ethnicity, it was reported in the local media and the person was called out for it, lost the election because of it and eventually lost their job over it. Part of it was doubling down on the remarks and then saying they were the victim because they didn’t do anything so terrible, but that didn’t stop their employer (a hospital) from firing them. There’s nothing criminal in what they did, just reprehensible. A business doesn’t have to keep reprehensible employees on staff just because they are employed there.

    2. pandop*

      I had a colleague who was always (this had been going on for years) called by the shortened version of her name, think ‘Steph’ even though she always signed her emails ‘Stephanie’. As a result of a major reshuffle she ended up in a new team, and was asked if she preferred being called ‘Stephanie’, which she did, and even those of us who had been calling her ‘Steph’ for years soon got it right more often than not.

    3. Nicosloanicota*

      #4 I deeply sympathize. I have one of those names people want to nickname, and *one person* of my acquaintance begged to be able to shorten it, claiming it was a cultural thing. I said sure. Literally half of my acquaintance picked it up from this one person and I spend my whole life answering to a nickname I actively dislike, lol. I wish I could go back and at least pick the less-disfavored version for that one person, but I had no idea how quickly it would spread. Anytime we meet new people I ask whoever knows me by the nickname to please introduce me by my actual name, but no dice.

      1. Nicosloanicota*

        Adding to this: I don’t know if it’s just a Western Cultural thing, but here definitely the permission to give a nickname indicates warmth and familiarity, so if I meet someone and ask them to call me “Katherine” when other people are calling me “Katie,” that will make the new person feel shut out. It also comes out as icy to correct a “Katie” when offered.

        1. ecnaseener*

          As we saw in the letter from the other day with the person who wanted some select coworkers to use her nickname and the rest to use her full name!

            1. Hlao-roo*

              I think it was a post on a recent open thread, not a letter. The commenter “Noodle Bug” posted on the November 8, 2024 open thread about a coworker who was OK with her close work-friends calling her “Katie” but wanted her other (not-close) coworkers to call her “Kate.”

              I’ll link in a follow-up comment.

          2. Beany*

            I missed that one (thanks to Hlao-roo for linking it in the thread).

            I have a life-long family nickname that happens to start with the same letter as my given name, but isn’t actually connected to it at all. When I moved to the US, I was annoyed at the standard US English pronunciation of my given name, so I encouraged my colleagues & friends to use the nickname instead. Now, 25+ years later, I’ve (a) got better at enforcing the correct pronunciation of my given name and (b) stopped caring so much when acquaintances get it wrong. But half the people I know, work or play with use the nickname, and half have never heard it. It still causes confusion when they meet.

        2. Workerbee*

          Well – perhaps if you think of it this way: Why can’t you give yourself _at least_ the same amount of consideration you are giving other people?

          You actively dislike this nickname. You feel resigned to having to endure it for the rest of your life.

          It’s past time that you put in the effort to reclaim the name that is actually yours.

          It will take work! But you’re already doing work: You’re putting in effort to manage other people’s feelings so that they get to use this hated nickname for you.

          So just alter the nature of the work:
          -When someone addresses you as your nickname: “It’s Nicosloanicota, not Slo.” Repeat ad nauseum.
          -When introduced with your nickname: “Thank you, Flutterbutt, for the introduction! It’s actually Nico-slo-ani-cota. Nicosloanicota is my preference.” Repeat ad nauseum.
          -When someone gets confused: “Yeah, someone nicknamed me “Slo” ‘way back, but I prefer Nicosloanicota. Thank you for understanding!” Repeat ad nauseum.

          Keep it calm & matter of fact, like OF COURSE the other person would want to get such an important part of you right.

          And (hardest of all, but worth it), just downright refuse to react/answer to your nickname. People will eventually get it if you stick to it. They won’t if you waffle. And the moment you find someone who gets it, enlist them as a vocal ally.

          And for the ones who claim “But it’s CULTURAL!” as somehow sacrosanct over your feelings and preferences, well, they can go sit elsewhere with their mindless phrase at the expense of building true rapport with you.

          (Because that person who begged to shorten your name ‘way back is not someone you need to keep catering to, whether directly or in effigy. And remember, cultural things aren’t in a vacuum. They had to start somewhere. They had to be adopted & accepted. Just like you accepted the nickname in the first place. See how it works? Therefore you can adopt & accept & start a new cultural thing, as it were.)

          I know all of the above is easier said than done, but your comments just made me boil with righteous indignation on your behalf! I’ve actively stopped friends and colleagues from nicknaming people who did.not.want.it.

      2. cosmicgorilla*

        I don’t understand the cultural argument for SOMEONE ELSE to shorten your name. Your name is YOUR culture.

        “I prefer that you use my whole name. It’s a cultural thing, thanks.”

        Yes, in the United States and other Western countries, we may bestow nicknames as a sign of affection and closeness, but it’s not a hard and fast rule. And you are absolutely allowed to say “my name is Name, not nickname.” There is no expectation that you accept the nickname, no thought (by rational people, at least) that you are rejecting the nicknamer and rejecting friendship if you say you prefer your full name.

        And honestly, nicknames don’t even necessarily denote closeness and friendship. Sometimes you received that nickname in childhood, and you keep using it. Some folks know a Davy or a Bob or a Katie, and they stumble over the mental gymnastics of a David or Robert or Katherine because they’re used to the other form. They can learn, though!

      3. AnonEMoose*

        I sympathize, too. I also have one of those names with umpteen nicknames attached, and I don’t want to be called any of them. Call me my name. Nothing else.

        When I was in my 20s, I was forever dealing with people trying to use a nickname and getting butthurt when I expressed that I wanted to be called Full First Name, not a nickname. I learned to stand my ground and not give an inch on that one, because if I allowed one person to use a nickname, it’d go viral in no time. It was better to insist on what I wanted to be called, and let people be pissed off about that if they wanted to. For the record, even my late mother called me what I wanted to be called, and my husband either uses the version of my name I prefer or an endearment.

        I really dislike it when people insist that nicknames are “friendlier” – it doesn’t make me feel friendly when people try to rename me!

    4. Quinalla*

      Yes, I would go this route and present it like you are that it is a new thing #4 wants to change. It isn’t, but a little white lie to make everyone feel better is fine.

      For a summer school class in high school, teacher called out my full name (I usually go by a nickname) and I did not correct them. No one in the class knew me (big school) so I was called by my full name all summer. Then when school started again, people from that class figured out I usually went by nickname and wondered why I didn’t ask to be called that in summer school. I considered both my name so I just didn’t bother for a summer school class, was interesting!

      1. Elsajeni*

        Yes, I think I would avoid the “I don’t know why I didn’t say something sooner” — if people ask or if you feel you need to explain, “I’ve decided to go back to using my full name” seems like it covers it. (And it’s true! Never mind that you decided it 4 years and 11 months ago and are just acting on it now — sometimes a decision has to percolate for a while.)

    5. Not a Raccoon Keeper*

      This email would work, but I can see that it could be awkward. OP could also see if they can track down one or a few colleagues to spread the word of her preference – in my office, there are a a few people that would be perfect to do this. I have dominant culture name privilege (aka just about everyone around me pronounces my name correctly), so it doesn’t bother me at all when people mispronounce my name…but I have good friends who have shown me how much it bothers them, so I’m one of the people checking pronunciations and correcting everyone, including leadership in our very hierarchical office.

      I also *just* realized that I like it when people shorten my name as a nickname? It’s not a name that really invites it, and never a way I’d introduce myself. But it feels like they’re inviting me into a level of coziness that feels very warm, and I appreciate that invite…hmm.

      1. Hot Dish*

        This is all so interesting to see how things play out. My mother has a name that gets nicknamed which she doesn’t like, so she was adamant about giving us all names that don’t have any official nicknames (but some people will shorten anything). I gave my child a name with a bazillion associated nicknames. We use a nickname at home, daycare has given them another nickname that I do not prefer but has stuck, and it’ll be interesting to see what they want to be called as they go to school. I’m already assuming as a teenager, they’ll go by other nickname options anyway, but we’ll see how it shakes out as they grow up and into adulthood. I hope that people in general get better about calling people by the name they prefer for whatever reason. It shouldn’t be that big of a deal. In theory.

  5. NotAnotherManager!*

    Re #3, do not recommend reaching out to your old company yourself. Leave that to your current organization’s counsel to determine how to approach them, if it is necessary.

    Also, just because the boss didn’t get visibly worked up about it or ask for a name doesn’t mean it’s not being handled internally. A lot of times, the first step is to fly the basics up the chain of command and let them determine what actions to take. Especially if I have someone who’s got strong feelings about a situation or is overly invested in it (which may not be the case here, but the tone of the letter makes me think it’s a possibility), it can be better to have a more neutral party do the necessary fact-finding and follow-up.

    I’ve seen all sides of this particular situation, and it ranges everywhere from “eh, enjoy the documents” to a settlement (certify deletion of all copies, pay a fine, and/or agree not to work in the industry for X years) to scorched earth litigation that dragged out for years because OldCompany owner wanted their pound of flesh (and also did some insane things outside of court to punish the former employee to their satisfaction).

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      Or at least been held to some sort of higher degree of accountability?

      Dave has been a missing stair for some time, methinks.

    2. MsM*

      Based on my small nonprofit experience, there are a few possibilities that spring to mind:

      1. Dave has some kind of specialized knowledge that’s really hard to hire for, especially at a nonprofit salary. If that’s the case, shunting him off to a position where he doesn’t have any direct reports is the obvious and best solution.

      2. Dave is really well-liked by a board member, funder, or other important stakeholder. If that’s the case, he can still be shunted off, but it needs to be done with particular care so he doesn’t complain about being demoted. That, or OP really needs to weigh whether the cost of placating Dave and his protector(s) is higher than dealing with the fallout of letting him go, and prepare for the latter if the math doesn’t work out.

      3. The nonprofit has a culture of “we don’t fire people as long as they’re doing the work and committed to the mission.” If that’s the case, OP needs to reexamine that attitude and pivot to a culture where people who use the mission/their expertise as a cudgel to not be team players have it made clear to them that’s not going to fly if they want to stay part of the team.

    3. Sara without an H*

      “My assessment is that they just don’t like each other and are now looking for things to justify their positions.”

      OP#1, you’re in danger of overlooking everything you know about Dave’s track record as a manager and dismissing this problem as a “personality conflict.” It’s much more serious than that.

      Yes, I know that nonprofits tend to cut people a lot of slack if they seem really committed to the mission. But you can’t run a stable organization where one of the managers has this kind of turnover. You need to dig in and get to the bottom of this.

      Julie really hasn’t been there very long, so I’m not going to agree with previous commenters who automatically assume she’s right. The question of who’s right and who’s wrong really isn’t the issue here. You have a work unit that’s being poorly managed. That is the fact. You need to find out why and make a plan to deal with it.

      I agree with Alison that you need to be much, much more hands-on with Dave and his team. How do they communicate with each other? What is their understanding of their goals and their role in the mission of your organization? Does Dave set clear expectations and goals? (I doubt it, but you need to find out.) Are there regular performance reviews and, if so, what do they look like? How does Dave give and receive feedback?

      Some commenters upstream have suggested moving Dave to a role where he could be an individual contributor, rather than a manager. This may turn out to be your solution, but it’s too soon to tell. Right now you need to manage Dave and Julie in a very hands-on way, setting clear goals and objectives for them, and providing them with feedback and accountability. Take the time now, or you’ll pay for it later.

      Good luck, and please update us.

      1. LK*

        LW 1 here. I shared this above, but my real challenge is that I had to come in and clean house with three truly terrible managers (think falsifying data on grant reports), and firing yet another front-facing manager is going to add to the perception that our organization is failing. There is also zero documentation on anything so even though I know this person is a terrible manager from the many stories, it’s all anecdote. I’ve put him on a PIP, which has not gone well and given me actual grounds to fire him. But it’s risky from an organizational perspective to let him go. I need to. And also will take a pretty big hit in public perception.

        1. anonymous 5*

          obviously I don’t know enough to guarantee this, but I will toss it out there: if it’s so bad that you needed to clean house, it’s very possible that getting rid of Dave would *improve* your public image. I hope so. Sorry that you’re having to ddeal with such a mess!

        3. coffee*

          In my experience, if you’ve fired three people, a fourth won’t raise eyebrows much further. Maybe ripping the bandage off is the way. Also you’ve lost two staff underneath him and you’re on track to lose a third – won’t that also add to the perception that your organisation is failing?

          However, leaving that aside, if you have to keep him, you don’t have to keep him in the same role. Take him out of the management structure and move Julie to report somewhere else. That way you’re keeping Dave’s front-facing skills but not his bad management skills.

          Longer term, I would also check out whether his front-facing skills are actually all that good, since his people skills with his direct reports are so bad. Does he just look ok because the bar is so low?

  7. Luna*

    Everyone has a cell phone and if you act out in public you can be sure you’re being recorded. Violent guy’s behavior is on him and his firing is justified.

    1. Learn ALL the things*

      And frankly, if I was one of his coworkers and I saw the video, but my boss didn’t fire him? I’d be looking for a new job immediately. I don’t want to work alongside a violent person who can’t control himself, that doesn’t feel safe. My employer does have an obligation to keep me safe, and sometimes that might mean firing people who have proven that they have violent tendencies and a lack of self control.

      1. Trillian*

        Or rather, won’t control himself.

        It’s time to push back on the narrative that violent behaviour is always due to a loss of control or instability. I wouldn’t be surprised if the guy who was fired behaved professionally at work.

        1. LaurCha*

          PRECISELY. People who choose to be violent in their private life very often manage to keep a lid on it at work. Barring serious mental illness (i.e., psychosis), violence is always a choice.

        2. ScruffyInternHerder*

          Ding ding ding!

          Won’t. That’s the key word.

          They don’t need “anger management” classes because they CAN and do manage when to behave like violent idiots.

      2. Gladiola*

        This. Absent some extreme provocation (I don’t know the incident in question), anybody who is ready to assault other people for the crime of “being in his vicinity and liking another sports team” is almost certainly a person who has other anger management issues.

        1. NotBatman*

          Agreed. If this person needs a reason for their firing, that’s it right there: “You’ve proven that you’re not a safe person to be around. For the good of your coworkers, goodbye.”

      3. iglwif*

        This. I don’t want to work with someone who behaves like that, and if I have a choice, I don’t want to work for a company that knows he behaves like that but doesn’t consider it a problem.

    2. FricketyFrack*

      Yeah I don’t like the way the LW framed that as “just” having a “stupid, violent moment” go viral. It’s not “just” anything – he didn’t push another fan or run his mouth, he punched multiple people repeatedly. According to court documents, he was also on a “two week alcohol and cocaine bender,” so he’s clearly making great choices. There are other people who have gone viral where maybe they shouldn’t have lost their jobs, but this one is a pretty clear case of someone who is volatile and not someone I’d feel safe working with, or even being around.

      1. Summer*

        Yeah I really didn’t like how LW2 framed the question. I saw that video and the guy was a real POS. He punch multiple people, unprovoked, and gloated about it while being filmed. He’s a dangerous moron and I’m glad he got fired.

  8. Indolent Libertine*

    Re #2: “innocent until proven guilty” obtains in a court of law. The government has to make a good enough case for a jury of your peers to find you guilty before they can punish you with a fine or imprisonment etc. An employer does not have that same obligation or have to go by that standard.

    1. Jenesis*

      Given that I live in the US, an arrest isn’t the “proof” that a lot of people make it out to be, especially if the employee is Black, poor, or otherwise marginalized. If an employee does good work, isn’t habitually late/mysteriously absent, and gets along well with others, I will probably give them the benefit of the doubt if they’ve been arrested for something based solely on the word of the arresting cop. On the other hand… if a third party with no ulterior motive has caught them on video acting like a fool in public, it’s a lot harder to be on their side.

      1. doreen*

        I agree that an arrest itself isn’t proof of anything – but what disturbs me about this and similar situations is that people so often misunderstand the laws about how to treat people with arrest/conviction records. There are definitely states where you can’t discriminate against someone simply because they have an arrest or conviction in their past and some that limit how you can treat an employee with a pending criminal case but there is no state where you cannot ever fire an employee for stealing or assaulting someone or vandalizing a car. And that’s what has to happen in those states that don’t allow firing based simply on the fact of the arrest – the employer has to conduct some sort of investigation , in which case the person may be fired for the underlying behavior. It’s not uncommon these days for there to be video proof of that behavior , which is pretty much the end of the investigation. But employers never need to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard to fire someone – in fact, that standard is only used in criminal cases where there is some possibility of incarceration.

      2. Lizzianna*

        I work in government, so can only fire people for cause. An arrest by itself isn’t usually cause for termination, but it’s reason to dig deeper. We don’t have to wait for a conviction if the proper chain of command finds its more likely than not that the person did what they are accused of doing and it’s serious enough that it impacts their ability to do their job. If someone went viral on a video, I could consider that regardless of what the police or courts did.

        1. JM60*

          That’s just because the charge is named in a way that can cause confusion. Whether someone is guilty of a charge depends on the charge’s elements, not it’s name. Very often, “resisting arrest” would be more accurately named “resisting detainment”, as it often includes behavior of someone who is not currently under arrest (such as fleeing a traffic stop, or refusing to pull over when a cop is trying to pull over).

          Someone who is arrested solely for “resisting arrest” may have done something for which an employer would be justified firing them over (provided the employer has evidence that they did do the action in question).

    2. MassMatt*

      I thought it was strange that, assuming this was an employer in the US, that the LW didn’t know virtually everyone is employed at will and can be terminated for any reason short of legally protected status (barring discrimination on age or religion, for example).

      Where do people get this notion that employers need some reason proven in court to fire someone? It has no bearing on reality. Yet we seem to get letters every month asking “can they fire someone for this?”

      1. H.Regalis*

        A lot of people think they have a better understanding of the law than they actually do.

        The law is complicated, it’s not intuitive, it varies a ton by jurisdiction, legal writing is difficult to read and understand, and even then there are things like, “XYZ law is on the books but not enforced anymore” or variations due to which judge you get for your case.

        I’ve seen so much idiotic legal advice by people who clearly have no idea what they’re talking about. “If you get pulled over and have drugs in your car, put them in an envelope with a stamp and an address on it. It’s against federal law to open someone else’s mail.” Lots of stuff like that floating around out there.

      2. just some guy*

        I think part of it is a binary mindset wherein things are either Proven or Not Proven, with no room to accommodate concepts like “proven to a standard that’s adequate for some purposes but not all”.

    3. Statler von Waldorf*

      I came here to say exactly this.

      It’s also a discriminatory dog whistle in my experience. It always seems to work out that there are certain people who it applies to, and certain people who it doesn’t, and most of the time skin color is the only thing that divides them.

      And look, the fan who the LW is so concerned about getting fired is white. Funny that.

  9. Bob*

    letters like this drive me nuts. “I have a problem employee that keeps doing the same thing, I’ve hired an excellent new working that is claiming he’s repeating this proven behavior, he claims he’s not.. who do I believe!!!”

    1. GammaGirl1908*

      More accurately, he knows good and well what he’s doing, he just thinks it’s not a real problem because it’s been tolerated this long.

      (But a new employee — and a woman — calling him out? Oh no! Surely THAT won’t be tolerated! Doesn’t she know he’s the golden child around here, and she’s under him? She’s gonna learn today! He’s going to put her in her place!)

      3. Pizza Rat*

        All of this. He’s insecure and threatened by Julie’s competence. That’s not what you want in a manager. A good manager wants their employees to succeed.

    2. Falling Diphthong*

      Bit of a recurring theme.

      “Our terrible employee thinks he’s untouchable, and that if he continues on doing what he’s been doing there will be no consequences!”

      “… Yes. He is correct about that.”

      1. Peanut Hamper*

        Yep. The “this is a terrible thing and we’ve done absolutely nothing to address it, so why does it keep happening?” pops up in a lot of advice columns.

      2. Elbe*

        I hate to say it, but it sounds like the LW could brush on their own managerial skills. This doesn’t seem as confusing as the LW is making it out to be.

    3. Paint N Drip*

      I was distressed in this letter that LW described Julie as having excellent skills even more than Dave and ‘she says she hasn’t been trained’ and then still landed on ‘they don’t like each other’… come on! You’re so close!!

      2. Myrin*

        Not to mention that both things can be true simulatenously! (Julie is right about her assessment of Dave’s work and she doesn’t like him.)

        2. GammaGirl1908*

          Right! Julie almost certainly hates him NOW, because he is spending his energy nitpicking her arrival times, campaigning against her (…for being more competent than he is…), trying to force her into menial work, being terrible at his job, and being a bad manager. I don’t even work there and I hate this guy.

          But he started out on day one hating her, mostly just because she is a threat to his way of life*. There is no indication she started out on day one hating him. She came in ready to work.

          *Ha, that reminds me of the scene in Revenge of the Nerds where the “cool” fraternity full of football-playing jerks got riled up against the nerds because now that the nerds were in the Greek system, had fixed up a house, and were getting some social traction, the nerds were a threat to their way of life. So, of course, they proceeded to trash the nerds’ house. Sound familiar?

  10. Irish Teacher.*

    LW1, why are you assuming they just don’t like each other? If Julie were the only person to have difficulties with him, that would be a reasonable assessment, but since it seems like virtually all his reports have issues with him and you yourself describe him as a terrible manager, it’s pretty clear the issue is with him. The odds are Julie is at least 90%, if not 100% in the right here and you will lose her if you don’t do something about Dave. And not just her. He has three reports and this is the third you are at risk of losing due to his poor behaviour.

    At some point, you have to decide it’s better to lose Dave or at least move him out of managing people.

    2. Gladiola*

      It’s not either/or, after all–Julie can dislike Dave AND have good reasons for work difficulties with him.

      2. MassMatt*

        Yes, the two things can be separate. I’ve disliked several people I had to work with and yet our work was successful and productive. I’ve also worked with people that I liked personally and found we didn’t work well together.

        The issues Julie is raising seem substantive (quality of work is poor, I have not been trained) whereas those Dave is raising seem petty (she was late x times) or defensive (“she’s undermining me”).

        Put this together with the fact that LW themself calls Dave a terrible manager and the turnover on Dave’s team and I have to wonder why LW has not been managing Dave.

    3. Sparkles McFadden*

      Ineffective management 101: Labeling everything involving two or more people a “personality conflict” so you don’t have to deal with it.

      The reason ineffective managers think this is OK? I think I can explain it with a direct quote from a former manager: “I realize that you have to keep fixing Fergus’ mistakes and that you have a heavier workload because of that, but the real problem here is that, for some reason, you don’t like Fergus. If you liked him, you’d be happy to help him. If you realized what a great guy his is, you would *want* to help him and it wouldn’t seem like a burden.” (See also: “You need to be more of a team player”)

      1. MsM*

        Wow. I feel like the immediate follow-up question there is “So are you refusing to help me find a solution to this because you don’t like me as much as Fergus?” (Not that you can actually ask that, unfortunately.)

        1. Sparkles McFadden*

          What was interesting about that discussion was that I never even mentioned Fergus. I was meeting with my boss to discuss how to prioritize my unmanageably large workload. The boss had moved Fergus’ failing projects to me, but I already had a full workload. I was asking him which deadlines could be pushed back because that really was his decision. He never gave me an answer. Just that lecture on how I should want do be doing Fergus’ work for him.

          Spoiler alert: I moved to a new position shortly after that.

      2. SchoolHouseRockStar*

        Is your old manager my current one? I’m having a similar situation with my own Fergus and it’s so annoying. Even more so that they thought we should have a mediation to resolve the “personality conflict” without bringing work into it because my frustration with doing most of Fergus’s work, on top of my own, must clearly be because “personality conflict”.

        1. I Have RBF*

          It’s just like being labeled “change averse” because you don’t want to try to implement a risky change on a timeline that is too short to do it right. It’s not that you don’t like “change” (or Dave) in general, you don’t approve of this “change” (Dave) because of X, Y, and Z.

          Objecting to incompetence is not about whether you “like” someone or not. I can like someone just fine, think they are a nice person, but still get annoyed at them not being competent. How many sweet, happy, nice idiots have we heard about here? “Andrew is a great guy, he does special needs kitten rescue in his spare time, but he is completely incompetent with basic Excel and I have to keep fixing his work so I can do my own.” A person can be nice as anything, but if they can’t do the work there’s still a problem.

          Dave can be a warm and wonderful person, but still be an incompetent jerk when it comes to work. This will eventually lead to people not liking him at work, but the dislike is a consequence, not a cause, of the problem.

  11. BellaStella*

    Regarding the violent viral attacker, his reputation now at work is toast even if not fired. Who wants to work with an unstable violent person?

  12. Magdalena*

    If Dave’s is by your own admission a terrible manager then WHY O WHY are you trying to paint it as a personality conflict?
    Also notice this attitude is screwing over your female employee while letting a male employee get away with toxic behavior.
    Solving workplace problems is literally your job. Please do not let Dave continue abusing his staff.

    1. Space Needlepoint*

      Unfortunately, there could be a lot of different reasons.

      Conflict avoidance on the part of the LW, in which case they shouldn’t be in management. They need to be managing Dave and rein in his behavior. Like or dislike is irrelevant, as has been noted all over the commentariat.

      The mistaken belief that having to fire someone is a sign of personal and professional failure.

      LW might not be sure she would have support to initiate disciplinary action. Office politics could be tying the LW’s hands. If Dave has friends in high places, it could be difficult to put him on a formal PIP. The LW has only been in their position for six months and could be unsure of their footing.

      I hope LW can address things with Dave and documents the hell out of all efforts. I suspect Dave is going to be resistant.

  13. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

    2. The whole ‘innocent until proven guilty in a court of law’ thing is dependent upon the situation.

    You don’t need someone to be convicted and jailed for sexual assault before you fire them for example. You don’t (or shouldn’t) need to prove in a court of law that your partner is abusive before being allowed a divorce.

    Someone who physically assaults another isn’t someone you want in the workplace anyway.

  14. r..*

    LW3,

    if this genuinely was a proprietary/not-for-public-release document of her former employer you have another problem at hand beyond the immediate risk of legal exposure: Your employee demonstrated extremely poor judgement and hence cannot be trusted with company-confidential data, because at some future point she will be your former employee, and then what happens to whatever confidential data she had access to while she was employed at your company?

    Right.

    So she needs some serious training on that matter, and until that training has been completed (and possibly some time has passed to ensure she internalized the training material) she should be cut out of any work that involves company-proprietary or privileged information. If that leaves no suitable work available for her then quite frankly I’d consider letting her go over it. People certainly were fired over much smaller violations of trust.

    1. LB33*

      I wouldn’t fire an employee over one incident like this, but also what training is really needed? “Don’t access stuff you’re not supposed to” should be enough

      1. I Have RBF*

        The training would cover the definition and determination of “not supposed to”. Some people really don’t know what’s proprietary and what’s just generic.

        Example: A StackOverflow example code snippet versus an entire script to build and release a proprietary software package. The first is public (published), the second is not.

    2. ecnaseener*

      I don’t think that part is on LW to decide. They’ve reported it up the chain, the company will take whatever steps they think necessary.

      1. Bruce*

        LW needs to be thinking about it, this is their employee. The range of consequences is wide, but may extend to legal problems for the LW themselves.

    3. Bruce*

      Yep, it is very possible that someday they will copy all the IP of their current employer and walk out the door with it.

    4. Anon for work*

      I would say that it could depend a little on where in their career this person is. I know that they worked together previously, but if they’re still relatively new in the workforce (within the past several years), they may just truly have not known and clearly laying out guidelines for them may be sufficient. We hire lots of folks who have never really been taught what is and isn’t IP. They’re often not too far out of school where it was common to use something from a previous class as a foundation for the next one (think using the format of a lab report from a previous class as the starting format for your next class). I’ve had to tell employees before that things they created in other workplaces cannot be used here and 99% of the times they just didn’t really realize. Think of the number of letters on this site that ask if documents created for work belong to the workplace or the creator. However, I also worked somewhere that had an executive take a bunch of documents with her to a new workplace and that executive and their new workplace both got cease and desist letters from our legal team. Intent and experience make all the difference!

  15. Jenga*

    #2 Legal thresholds and workplace thresholds are different.

    If someone is in a viral video physically attacking other people, will the company’s other employees feel safe working with that person? Will clients feel safe working with that person? Will clients want to stop using the company’s product because of the actions of that person?

    1. PatM*

      Legal thresholds can vary widely depending on what kind of law is being practiced. The civil standard of “a preponderance of evidence” is much lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

  16. Atlantis*

    LW2,

    “In this case, the guy hadn’t even been arrested, just had a really stupid, violent moment go viral“.

    “Stupid moment going viral” and “violently attacking two people” are not equivalent, and it’s a little concerning that you seem to think it was an overreaction to fire him over video proof of him doing such a thing. It wasn’t harmless dancing on a TikTok video. He assaulted two people for wearing clothes supporting their football team. I wouldn’t want to work with someone who would do that, and am not surprised that his employer made the same call. Actions have consequences, and even though he wasn’t charged legally, these are his consequences.

    1. Allonge*

      Exactly. I really, really understand the need to be careful about what arrests or other police / justice actions mean, but this is not about that! He did what he did, was physically violent toward others. It’s on video. It’s about sports – not really a topic that brings ‘acceptable violence’ to mind (not that a lot of things would justify violence, but there are some that justify it more than ‘I hate your club’). All point to really bad judgment and a concern for coworkers.

      It having gone viral is likely less of an issue with him in particular, but it does not help for sure. These days, that’s just how things are sometimes.

    2. Ellis Bell*

      Yeah, if I hear a story about two strangers being attacked for what they are wearing, my empathy is never going to even consider how hard this must have all been for their attacker.

      1. WellRed*

        Right?! How does OP think the victims, out for a fun event and (presumably) minding their own biz feel about this?

    3. Somehow I Manage*

      He may not be in legal trouble… yet. But that doesn’t preclude someone from being dismissed from their job. While I don’t know specifically what this guy’s job is, there’s a good chance that his employer doesn’t want his bad actions to be associated with the business. He may end up not facing any sort of charges, but the business may just not want to have a noted hothead who violently attacked someone just because they support a different football team working with customers.

    4. Peanut Hamper*

      I looked it up, and this guy has admitted to daily cocaine use for the last four years, including the day of the attack, got probation for an alcohol-fueled assault in 2021 where he beat a man unconscious, received probation in 2020 for another assault, and the defense attorney has the nerve to call him a “24-year-old kid”. (Checks picture, oh yep, he’s white.) The video shows him walking down the sidewalk looking for people wearing a different jersey just so he can beat them up.

      One of the victims in this attack was knocked unconscious and later diagnosed with a concusson.

      Imagine if he had faced real consequences for that first assault–maybe all these other assaults never would have happened.

      This guy has problems, but getting fired from his job for being an ass is the least of them.

      3. Alisaurus*

        Plus he had just started the job a month prior. I think the company decided to cut their losses after they were alerted to the egregious act rather than continue to employee the guy.

      6. Tippy*

        Yeah.. I just watched the video (and looked him up as well) and compared to the two guys he attacked, he looks like a much bigger dude.

        Guy does not get any sympathy from me for losing his job. That’s the least of his worries.

        1. Elbe*

          I also just watched the video. This guy is a tall, athletic white guy with blond hair – it’s no surprise that people are trying to downplay what he did. There are a lot of people who would act just like him if they had his advantages.

          But another thing that I think is relevant is that it’s his buddy filming, not a bystander. He was planning on hurting these guys and they were filming it to brag about it. The guy literally flexes afterward.

          I’m happy he’s been caught and he’s facing consequences.

      7. CommanderBanana*

        Isn’t it weird that states will require a dog to be euthanized if they bite someone once, but Cocaine McAssaulty Benderface can just crash around being a menace to society over and over again?

      8. learnedthehardway*

        Demonstrating that the company was more than entirely correct to fire him – it would be a liability to the company to employ him!! What if he assaulted one of his coworkers!??! If the company knew he had a violent history, there could be some real consequences to the company.

      9. Elbe*

        Wow. Yikes.

        The LW doesn’t seem to personally know this guy or be close to the situation, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they thought the “fights” were less serious than what they were.

        But still. I hate how so many people seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to immediately downplay the seriousness of young-ish, white men being aggressive and violent. He’s a “kid” who “just” assaulted two innocent people. Giving someone a concussion because they root for a different team is absolutely unhinged behavior. There is something very wrong with someone who acts like this, and underlying problem doesn’t magically go away once they cross the threshold of their workplace.

      10. JM60*

        In defense of his defense attorney, a defense attorney has an ethical obligation to vigorously defend their client. That means that they must try to advance every argument that could help their client (with certain exceptions, such as saying things that would violate their ethical obligation to not lie to a judge).

        If it’s true that the suspect is a 24 year old, the attorney probably should refer to them as a “24-year-old kid” (unless it may hurt their client more than help, such as if they loose credibility in the eyes of jurors if they do that during trial).

    5. Irish Teacher.*

      Yeah, the issue isn’t that it went viral. The issue is that this is somebody who attacked somebody else over a game he presumably wasn’t even playing in. That is…a pretty appalling thing to do. Not that there are many reasons it would be OK to attack somebody.

    6. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      JUST had a really stupid, violent moment go viral“.

      ( •̀ – • ) ?
      The OP is really minimising the seriousness of what this fan did. Baffling me … or is this sympathy for a fellow young white guy, not usually the type to receive consequences ?

    7. LL*

      I just googled the incident and he’s been arrested and denied bail, as of October 21. I’m assuming the LW wrote in before that.

  17. LB33*

    for #3, I agree you should drop it at this point. It sounds like you’ve made it clear that it shouldn’t happen again, and everyone is in agreement. Your own boss has put it to bed also. I don’t know if your concern is justified or not but I think it’s time to move on

    1. WellRed*

      Agreed. I wondered if OP is new to people managing and is thinking they really need to come down hard on infractions.

  18. Michigander*

    LW2 strongly reminds me of the people who cry “whatever happened to free speech” whenever they’re in any way held accountable for things they’ve said. Shockingly, sometimes your actions have consequences.

    1. ecnaseener*

      I don’t think it’s fair to act like LW2 is defending this guy. The question was about whether this was legal, not whether it was right or just.

      1. metadata minion*

        I don’t think the LW is arguing that it was right, but they are minimizing it to a worrying degree and treating it as a moment of poor judgement, not violence. If the guy had streaked down Main Street after a drunken party, or ran around overturning trash cans, that’s not great. But unless the job is something that requires responsibility and judgement beyond that of your typical office position, I’d be fine saying “ok, dude, you’ve had your one stupid moment” and not let it affect his employment. But he assaulted two people, who in no way provoked him. (And again, if he lashed out after being provoked, that’s still not amazing, but I’d have a lot more sympathy for someone who finally snapped and punched someone after being repeatedly harassed).

      2. fhqwhgads*

        LW2’s framing it as “just had a stupid, violent moment” sure sounds like they’re minimizing what this guy did.

      3. Limdood*

        agreed. my take was that the op was coming from a point of view of “workplaces are reaching more and more into people’s private lives. how much control do they legally have?”

        and the answer is…a lot

        1. Observer*

          You could be right, although I agree that the LW was truly minimizing what the guy did. But the thing is that what the company was reacting to was not “private” behavior, even though it was not on company property and not on the clock.

          This was very public behavior, which has a much lower expectation of being protected.

  19. Sean*

    Dave only manages three people to begin with and has clearly failed to do that with each of them.

    If Dave was a new hire who caused two perfectly good employees to leave (and possibly three if Julie goes, too) would he still remain in place?

    Why is it that Dave is the only one in this situation who gets to keep his job at the expense of his direct reports?

    1. 2 and a Possible*

      LW doesn’t want the inconvenience of firing him and putting someone else in his place.

      Depending on the letter, it doesn’t go over well here in comments, but no one is irreplaceable.

      1. Falling Diphthong*

        There’s an interesting example upthread where the Dave has extremely rare niche skills and is the only one who could train someone else… and is threatened by anyone else with any of those skills and so will not be training up his replacements. The lack of one bus accident or lottery win is all that holds up this core part of the business.

        It’s untenable long term. But will probably work for another week.

        1. I Have RBF*

          I’ve been the replacement for someone who kept their “bus number” at one – they didn’t cross train or share high level access. It becomes a rapid mess. The solution is to make the person cross-train, and if they refuse, decline their vacation requests until they cross train someone. Yes, it’s that serious, IMO.

          I know of startups that have gone under because one of the two founders kept so much in their head that the business was destroyed when they got killed in an accident. (I got the story from the surviving founder, who lost a friend and business partner.)

    2. Ellis Bell*

      I got the strong impression that OP doesn’t want to fire anyone. I have to wonder if it is difficult to fire people at this company, and what performance measures managers are held to.

      1. xylocopa*

        Well, OP says it’s a small nonprofit and they’ve only been working there 6 months, so…yes, chances are they really don’t want to fire anyone and it is difficult to replace people. Everyone is probably hoping the place can settle down and stop the turnover.

        Maybe Dave is competent in other areas and can be moved around so that he’s not managing anyone. But otherwise, he needs to go. Dave is part of the problem.

      2. Lily Potter*

        That’s my suspicion too. It’s very easy for the Commentariat to proclaim “Just Fire Dave!” Reality isn’t nearly so simple. See also: Commentariat telling letter writers “Just get a new job!” whenever the existing job is an issue.

        TL;DR: It’s almost always more complicated that “Just ______” and your problem will be solved! If it were that easy, the Letter Writer would have already done it.

        1. Somehow I Manage*

          I agree to an extent. Sometimes it is more complicated than “just quit” or “just fire them” and I think the fact that LW has only been in their job for six months is the complicating factor more than Dave having special or irreplicable skills. I’d lean in on doing a much deeper dive to figure out how Dave operates before doing anything, but I wouldn’t let that deeper dive go on for too long, else you may end up losing more people.

          1. Pizza Rat*

            I think six months is a reasonable amount of time to notice patterns of behavior and have a good idea of someone’s competence. The LW needs to address Dave’s behavior and stop pushing it off as a personality conflict. Asking people to play nice is not going to make Dave a better manager.

        2. Nonsense*

          Unlike LW2, who is using “just” as an attempt to minimize the severity of someone’s actions, the use of the word “just” as a summary of comments acts as a shorthand. Oftentimes the people writing in are not in a position to change things at their jobs, so what’s left? Either living with the status quote or getting a new job – and if they’re writing in, they’re not at a point where they can live with it.

          LW1, in contrast, is theoretically in a position where they can change things. Given their description of the problem, Dave is the root of many problems and so removing him makes the most sense. If the LW cannot fire him, they need to remove him from management.

          Dave and Julie’s complaints are not equal. The LW cannot approach the situation as if they are if they want to actually fix the problems.

          1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

            Adding to your points that OP seems very settled on, “Dave and Julie just don’t like each other.” The commentariat, and you, in your explanation are pointing out that it doesn’t really matter. That is just clouding the issue. The issue is Julie can’t get work done because of Dave.

            1. HonorBox*

              They don’t have to like one another. But they do have to work together. Part of that is Dave providing the training Julie needs, which he isn’t doing. They can continue to not like one another at all if she’s properly trained. That probably makes the workplace less than awesome, but it can work.

              1. Coffee Protein Drink*

                Dave complaining about Julie’s training stood out to me. He’s her manager, he should be ensuring she is trained properly.

          2. bamcheeks*

            I do think in this case it’s a bit “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”! LW may be able to straight off fire Dave over this, but for most situations short of gross misconduct I do think managers should be trying to improve their report’s performance first.

            If they give Dave clear directions, coach them on what they want to see, and Dave still isn’t meeting the objectives, then yeah, it’s completely reasonable to escalate to firing. But they ought to try the other tools in their toolkit first.

        3. GammaGirl1908*

          One reason people jump so quickly to fire him! or get a new job! or DTMFA! is that so often it doesn’t seem to have occurred to the letter writer that this is, indeed, a firing-, leaving-, or dumping-level offense.

          Like, they are writing to an advice column in the first place because they think there must be some magic solution they haven’t tried, because surely I won’t have to FIRE someone over this? Isn’t it just a personality thing, where maybe I can send them off to get drinks together and they’ll come back laughing and we can all move on, like in the movies? Can’t we all just get along?

          Yes, you may have to fire someone over this. You do not have to avoid firing someone at all costs. Now, in this case, LW should maybe try some MANAGING first, and some telling Dave to knock it off, which they have not done, but part of managing is knowing when you need to tell someone to knock it off, and knowing when you might have to fire someone. Dave is a real problem, and hoping he’ll lighten up a little if you tell Julie to be nice to him is not a solution.

  20. YetAnotherAnalyst*

    LW2, it might help to imagine a different scenario where no crime has occurred. Let’s say your coworker was on a viral video with an extended, vitriolic rant about his boss and everyone he works closely with, calling them all out by name and laying into them with insults about their work, their appearance, and their personal habits. For good measure, he finishes off with insulting the company’s major clients and insinuates the company’s product is a scam. Everywhere I’ve worked, that would get someone fired immediately, but none of it is a crime and all of it happened off company property. How can anyone work with him again, knowing what he thinks of them?
    Now imagine your coworker has gone viral not for a gross rant, but for unprovoked violence against complete strangers over something as trivial as sports fandom. How can you work with him again, knowing that’s how he handles minor conflicts?

    1. Learn ALL the things*

      Or, consider the Gina Carano story.

      She was getting into fights with her employer’s customers on social media. Her company asked her to stop and explained that if she didn’t it would have consequences for her employment. She didn’t stop, so when her contract was up for renewal, they said no thank you and canceled the project they had planned for her. Everything her employer chose to do was perfectly legal. She didn’t commit any crimes, but she was alienating potential customers and making her employer look bad by extension, so when they had the opportunity to remove her from their employment, they did. It was the right choice.

      Sometimes what you do outside of your official work duties can affect your employment.

      1. Learn ALL the things*

        Self correction: Carano’s primary project was The Mandalorian, which was not canceled, but prior to this incident they had been planning a spin-off show for her character, and that was what got canceled because of her behavior.

        1. Coffee Protein Drink*

          I remember the incident. Another instance of people not understanding that behavior outside of work can reflect on your employer. Bad behavior makes a person a liability to an organization.

    2. Sparkles McFadden*

      It’s pretty simple, LW2. No one wants to work with someone violent enough to assault total strangers in the name of “supporting the team.” No normal employer wants someone like that on the job site. No normal person does such a thing, and if you think “one really stupid, violent moment” is only a problem because people caught it on video, there is something wrong in your system of logic. You need to reexamine why you think the bad part of that story is that the guy got fired.

  21. That 70s Non Profit Accountant*

    LW #1

    While everything said about Dave in the comments is mostly 100% right, Julie is not exactly blameless. She has been late 3 times. Is she in a customer-facing role, or a behind-the-scenes admin? That is a big distinction. Does she have a flexible schedule that allows her to do that? That is something that can and should be acted on. Dave is approaching it like a small child that missed his nap, but it doesn’t actually mean there isn’t an issue that needs to be addressed.

    Overall, this situation definitely looks like a failure of leadership, though. LW KNOWS Dave is a terrible manager…and they are STILL a manager? Maybe he does have a set of skills that are needed in the org, but given his high rate of turnover and other issues, this is something that should have been addressed a while ago–one way or another.

    His turnover is another thing: one explosively quit, while the other one…just quit. I am willing to assume the big blow up was about Dave… but the first one? Do we know if they quit because of bad management instead of, for example, terrible pay or a better offer elsewhere? People do move on for varied reasons other than terrible managers…

    Pre-coffee thoughts :)

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      Keep in mind, it’s Dave that’s saying Julie has been late three time.

      If this were a customer-facing position, presumably they would have some way to track time in and time out that LW could refer to. To me, this just seems like Dave looking for anything and everything he can to make Julie look bad.

      I can certainly understand Julie not wanting to do work she hasn’t been adequately trained on. Even if it’s only data entry, if it’s entered wrong, at the very least it has to be fixed later, and at the very worst, there are some real-life consequences.

      I think Dave is threatened by the fact that Julie has more experience that he does, and is probably more competent to run this department that he is. Honestly, he sounds like some of the many terrible managers I’ve had over the years who simply can’t manage, and blame everything on their reports. No wonder people under him are quitting right and left.

      1. Jay*

        Also, remember some of the other letters we’ve gotten here from people dealing with their own Dave.
        Taking a few extra minutes to force themselves through the front doors to face their own personal dragon every morning is not that an uncommon reaction.
        Coming from a Dave, “In Late” could very well mean “Hyperventilating On The Sidewalk Because She Saw Me Through The Window Standing Next To Her Desk With An Expression Of Creepy Malice On My Face”.

      2. HonorBox*

        Also… How late is late here? Is Julie coming in at 8:05 instead of 8:00? Or is she coming in at 10 instead of 8? Also is Julie also staying until 5:30 or working through her lunch and Dave isn’t acknowledging that? Was her train late? Did her kid have a blowout right as they walked out the door? Being late can mean a number of things, and I think it would be good (and necessary) for LW to push back on Dave a bit related to the “late” issue. What does that really mean?

        1. Learn ALL the things*

          Right, for me this would be a question of 1) how late she was, 2) whether her being late impacted anyone else (staff or customers/clients), and 3) whether she gave any sort of notice that she was running late. Somebody who was under 10 minutes late when that lateness didn’t impact anyone else’s work and called on her way in to let the team know she was running behind is a complete non-issue, while other circumstances may change that math.

          But the primary thing seems to be that Julie has pointed out significant deficiencies in Dave’s work, and he has responded with “she is occasionally not on time,” as if those were comparable issues when they’re really not.

          1. HonorBox*

            I’m not even so concerned about point 3. With a few exceptions – you have a meeting, you have to unlock the door for customers, etc. – anything less than 10 minutes isn’t enough time to warrant a call or text. But I realize that’s just me too.

            Your second paragraph is spot on. It feels like Dave is grasping at anything he can to deflect from the fact that he’s not done his job well.

      3. Antilles*

        To me, this just seems like Dave looking for anything and everything he can to make Julie look bad.
        To me, that reads as the what-about distraction defense. Julie raises a concern about Dave, OP tells Dave about it, and Dave jumps to “but she’s been late three times!” in order to redirect the conversation away from his own flaws.
        Julie said I didn’t train her on the software? Well, maybe if she hadn’t been three times in the past month, we wouldn’t have this issue. We really need to discuss her lateness…

        1. Paint N Drip*

          100% my take too – whataboutism re: Julie once he became the subject of discussion. And I think Peanut Hamper has a great point, Dave isn’t even a reliable narrator because he’s clearly petty and reactive so to me, Julie’s tardiness is not even confirmed.

    2. Irish Teacher.*

      We don’t know Julie has been late three times. We know Dave SAYS she has, but…Dave doesn’t exactly sound reliable. I would say there’s a significant possibility here that he made that up as a reason to fire her because she is making him look bad by being better at the job than he is and realising he is incompetent.

      Now, it could go either way. It MAY be true but I wouldn’t just take his word for it. Given that he has trouble with almost all his reports, it is highly possible his word is not reliable.

    3. Dinwar*

      “While everything said about Dave in the comments is mostly 100% right, Julie is not exactly blameless. She has been late 3 times.”

      I’d need more details on this before I said that Julie wasn’t blameless. We’re not children and shouldn’t be treated as children. And she’s new. Some grace must be given to new people to adjust to traffic patterns. And no, 45 days isn’t sufficient time to learn them. Sometimes there are events that folks who use those routs know about (or know to keep an eye out for) but those who don’t simply don’t. I remember living in a city for two years, but when I tried to drive somewhere I got stuck in traffic for an hour–I’d never driven that route in rush hour before and was woefully unprepared for it!

      Second, what constitutes being late? If I’m going into the office that day I’ll check my email while I drink a cup of coffee at home, respond to some, put together a To Do list, and then go into the office. Basically, I do my “Planning” phase at home, then do the work in the office. That would mean I walk in the door late, but I’ve also got a half-hour to hour of work done and dealt with the immediate fires so no one bothers me on my commute. And I’m not unique here, most of my colleagues do this. This turns the conversation away from “You’re late” and into “I see why you do that, but in this office we prefer to everyone to be in the office at X time for Y reason.” (If you can’t think of a Y reason other than “Terrible manager says so”, you don’t have a reason and need to rethink that policy.)

      You also have to consider known biases in optics. Sure, Julie was late 3 times (in 43 days, so somewhere around 8% of the time). How often did she stay late? If she was 15 minutes late coming in, but she left 15 minutes late, and her work isn’t something that doesn’t require full-time coverage (and since data entry and reviewing processes are part of her work, it doesn’t seem to be the case), on the whole it’s a wash. And we know from various letters here that this is a HUGE bias–people notice when you arrive late or leave early, but rarely notice if you arrive early or leave late.

      Finally, and more fundamentally, why do I, as this manager’s manager, care if Julie was late 3 times? This has nothing to do with the manager’s poor performance, and the manager bringing it up AT ALL raises a bunch of red flags. This is kindergarten-level tattling to try to deflect blame by throwing someone else under the bus. If one of my team leads responded like that to me I’d shut it down immediately, because it’s totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand. I’d make a point to talk to Julie about being late, but it’d be more a “What’s happening here? Is traffic bad sometimes?” type conversation.

    4. GammaGirl1908*

      This may be true, but the standard for Julie isn’t “be perfect before we do anything about your truly terrible manager.” Certainly no one is holding Dave to that standard.

    5. Kevin Sours*

      Given that OP didn’t flag the lateness as consequential in the letter I think it’s reasonable to assume that it wasn’t egregiously late nor a role where extreme promptness is a requirement.

  22. ijustworkhere*

    #5 Good advice from Allison. If you do wind up changing jobs, just be sure you understand the company’s policies around parental leave. Unless you live in a state with laws covering parental leave, or they have a policy that allows you to take parental leave before you are eligible for FMLA they technically do not have to offer you any more time off than you would have accrued during your period of employment.

    A lot of people do not understand this and have a rude awakening. Most employers will work with you but some won’t. If you do change jobs, be sure you get any agreements about your leave in writing.

    Wishing you well.

      2. Meep*

        We recently went to a concert with the strangest opening act I have ever seen in my life. It was country metal with the weird 80’s pop head-bobbing while just jumping up and down by two guys in their late 40’s. (Lakeview is the band for anyone curious.) 10/10 hated the entire 30 minutes they played and I am a person who feeds on cringe. Even the band acknowledged no one was there to see them and everyone would like them to go away. (I think I only saw ONE person with their merch in the entire venue.)

        BUT now it has me wondering which weird ways we can mix genres with that band name. Electronica with a touch of Jazz, maybe?

  24. WellRed*

    No. 2. Why are you mistaking the workplace for a court of law? While there are some general laws, rules or regs, the two are very separate entities. And frankly, the bar is low for firing or anything else on the work side.

  25. Former Lab Rat*

    Re Letter#2: Remember the Charlottesville white supremacy march? Protestors lost their jobs when the companies did not want to be identified with that event. Remember Jan 6 Capitol Insurrection? There were a few morons wearing company gear – promptly fired. We are quick to document our every movement on the internet but it does have consequences. If you feel free to be violent, or espouse racist views, or destroy public property then you should realize your actions could impact your job. Always assume someone WILL have a cell phone to record you in public, especially if you are drawing attention to yourself.

    1. Anon for this*

      Speaking as a survivor of the torchlight rally attack and the car attack the next day in Charlottesville in 2017, I also want to point out that that’s another example of people who engaged in violence and got fired. They trapped counterprotesters and beat them with lit torches. The issue wasn’t simply racist views.

  26. Fluffy Fish*

    Cmon now OP 1. In your effort to be diplomatic you are skipping right over the missing stair.

    Reframe what you wrote and this time be honest not diplomatic. Dave is a terrible manager who needs to be managed with a PIP or firing in his near future. Julie is a new employee who is not only working for said terrible manager – he’s very very likely threatened by her competence.

    This isn’t a both side situation and you don’t need to make it one. Deal with your problem which is Dave.

  27. HonorBox*

    LW1 – WATCH DAVE LIKE A HAWK! You’ve only been in your role six months, and I’ll grant that you’re probably still getting to know everyone. But, two of Dave’s reports have left in those six months. One in a dramatic firing. And now he wants to fire someone after a month and a half. That’s a heck of a lot of turnover and far too much drama for a small organization.

    I’m not sure how involved your board is, but if I sat on the board and I heard about this kind of drama, and especially if Julie is let go, I’d really wonder about YOUR leadership. I’m not trying to say you’re to blame because you’re still new and figuring things out. But Dave is losing people quickly. That’s costing time, money and productivity. And you’ve heard he’s not given Julie adequate training to do her job. Time to focus on Dave. That might mean taking a more active role in his day-to-day work and management. That might mean moving Julie out from under him. That might end up meaning that you need to let Dave go. That last bit might seem counterintuitive as it relates to what I said about the board’s thoughts about your leadership, but if you can, after careful and attentive evaluation of him, tell the board that Dave needed to go because he wasn’t properly equipped to do the job, they’re going to probably feel better about the direction of the organization long-term.

  28. Project Manager*

    Anyone else read #1 and think gee, another over qualified woman reporting to a lesser qualified man and him complaining she’s rude; we see this all the time!

    Also, LW #2 seems weirdly dismissive of a “violent moment”…like, how many “violent moments” have you had in your life??? If someone has a violent moment that’s certainly not the first time. Or the last.

    1. Joana*

      Someone upthread actually found the incident and it turns out the guy had daily illicit drug use and had already been on parole for violent incidents before this. So yeah, not the first time, likely won’t be the last.

      1. Meep*

        I don’t mean to be impolite, but I am actually SHOCKED that he wasn’t just some run-of-the-mill sports fan after watching that video of those two fans fighting that baseball player for a fly ball. Not justifying it, but the drug-use is actually more understandable than what I’ve seen with other sports’ fans who just go off the handle over nothing.

    2. Elle*

      I guess LW’s “violent moments” were simply not recorded. We should probably get used to “proof or it didn’t happen and even with proof why are you making such a big deal about this” approaches to violent and antisocial behavior these next four years.

  29. TotesMaGoats*

    LW#1-If you don’t manage the bad manager Dave then that also makes you a bad manager.
    LW#2-Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Happens here in Baltimore a lot.
    LW#3-I agree with AAM that reiterating without evidence that it’s needed is unnecessary.
    LW#4-My family is the only people allowed to call me by the shortened version of my name. My nieces/nephews (and other little kids) call me a different shortened version. School (post high school) and work, I push hard for my name and correct mispronunciations. I didn’t always like my full name since it is unusual but now I do.
    LW#5-Ditto AAM

  30. Former Lab Rat*

    RE Letter #2: People were fired after the Charlottesville march and the Jan 6 insurrection. Always assume someone WILL have a cell phone to video public behavior and post it on the internet.

  31. A large cage of birds*

    #4 just be matter off fact about it! I’d want to know if I was calling someone something they didn’t prefer. (This actually happened with a parent at one of my child’s activities. I was referring to her by a shortened nickname because that’s what people used, but my husband said he was talking to her and she said she prefers [full name]. So I made a point to not call her the nickname again.]

  32. Crencestre*

    Julie sounds as if she’s a very real asset to the organization and should be kept on if at all possible. Dave, on the other hand, sounds as if he should be put on a strict PIP, closely monitored and let go if he doesn’t improve ASAP. Why should LW’s organization lose another good employee because one manager is incompetent?!

  33. Joana*

    I always find it a bit strange when people just automatically shorten someone’s name. Even if they do prefer a nickname, maybe it’s not the normal one! Like if someone’s name is Alexander, maybe they prefer Xander over Alex, or someone’s name is Alexandra, maybe they like going by Sandy. I have a friend named Samantha who absolutely hates being called Sam, but when she was in retail, people who’d never met her before would hear her name and go ‘Hey, Sam!’ I suppose it’s about familiarity but unless someone tells you they prefer X name, it’s probably better to just call them by their full name, in my opinion.

    1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

      Ha, I think I’m better at not presuming on name/nickname specfically because of the Alexandra variants I’ve known!
      Alexandra = preferred Alex
      Alexandra = preferred Sasha
      Alexandra = preferred Xana, pronounced Shana
      Alejandra = preferred that or Hana

  34. Nathan*

    LW4: If you have any close relationships at work, you can also deputize someone else to help out. Sometimes people call me Nate (IDK why; I always introduce myself as Nathan and nobody else calls me that), and my work friends will clue them in if I’m not around. I’ve overheard people saying “he goes by Nathan, just FYI” before.

    One person kept doing it after multiple soft corrections. I finally just said “that’s not my name” and just stared at them. They apologized and explained that they had a good friend called Nate and it was a reflex. I just repeated “I understand, but that’s not my name” and they apologized again and said they’d try to do better. And they have! Sometimes you just have to stand your ground even if it’s awkward.

    1. Hlao-roo*

      Deputizing is so helpful! When I’m meeting someone for the first time, I’m thinking about a lot of things (making a good impression, maybe remembering multiple people’s names, whatever the subject of the meeting is, etc.) and sometimes I don’t remember if a person introduced themselves as “Nathan” or as “Nate.” It’s helpful to get a “he goes by Nathan” during a less busy moment–that sticks in my brain a lot better.

    2. iglwif*

      That is such weird behaviour and also so much more common than it should be!

      I have a somewhat old-fashioned but entirely English-sounding name. Over the years people have called me the French version of that name (understandable at school, less understandable in a 90% Anglophone workplace), several names with the same initial sound and number of syllables, several different short forms that I did not ask for, and one completely unrelated name. I had a colleague a couple years ago who continually called me by her next-door neighbour’s name, then corrected herself, then did it again the next day.

      And honestly I mostly just roll with it, because when I was a kid my father routinely mixed up his four children’s names and I kind of came to expect it … but inside, I do get pretty annoyed sometimes. If you can’t remember my name, just ask me!!

      1. Joana*

        My mother’s name is Diana. She worked as a counter clerk at our town hall, where there’d be a nameplate right there for customers to see. She still got called Dianne. I routinely get called Joanne. One customer even calls me Josi. I honestly do NOT get why.

          1. Joana*

            Like I said, no idea where the heck he even gets it. And it’s definitely one I correct because I and some of my coworkers have a bad association with the name Josi (long story short one of my work friends was cheated on by his wife named Josi and she kicked him out, so no one really wants to hear that name!)

              1. Joana*

                But to bring it back around, that’s another reason you shouldn’t just assume you can call someone something! Maybe they have bad associations with a nickname version of their name! Maybe I’m a bit biased considering how often people get mine wrong or spell it wrong (even my teachers in school who saw it every day would put Joanna instead of Joana) but names are important. They’re how we address and identify people. Getting it right is just common courtesy.

    3. The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon*

      Yes, exactly! I go by the long version of my name at work (think Stephanie) and my nickname in my personal life (think Steph). I know ONE person at work personally, and my first boss at my company heard it from her once and insisted on calling me Steph. I immediately told him I understood the confusion, but I go by Stephanie at work, and our coworker used something else because she knew me personally. He doubled down, telling me there was a Stephanie in my role before who was hard to work with, so he wanted to call me Steph so he wouldn’t associate me with her. I didn’t even engage with his argument and just said, “No. I go by Stephanie at work.” and stopped talking. I DO NOT CARE about all your previous Stephanie experiences! My name is my choice.

  35. Observer*

    #2 – Violent person was fired.

    I’m probably the umpteenth person who is saying this, but still. “They are still innocent until proven guilty, right” has to be one of the most dangerous denials of reality that gets thrown around. Whether someone is actually guilty of a crime has nothing to do with whether there is proof or not. Facts are what they are, and that holds true of guilt vs innocence. Either the guy did what he was accused of or he didn’t, whether or not you prove it in a court of law.

    What that line is about is *specifically* the standard that must be met *in a court of law*. That is a very different thing, and is deliberately and knowingly set up in a way that can leave someone who is *in fact* guilty free of *legal* culpability. It’s done this way to keep people from being punished by the legal system simply on the basis of suspicion.

    the guy hadn’t even been arrested, just had a really stupid, violent moment go viral

    What difference does it make if he was arrested or not? He had a “really *violent*” moment, in which he engaged in very bad behavior. Why would an employer need legal action to fire him for that. The idea that employers may only act on situations where behavior is illegal is another item on my top 10 dangerous and un-tethered from reality ideas we hear a lot about.

    The fact is that, as Alison said, an employer can fire you for almost anything that is not explicitly protected. Even the color of your shirt. *Of course* they can fire someone for being violent. And they should. Because there is no “just” about being violent. Just the optics are a problem.

    But in this case, the company has more than that to worry about. They have a duty of care, to provide a reasonably safe workplace. And ignoring known dangers is not how you do that. When someone gets violent, and it’s not in self defense, that’s someone who you can’t trust around other imperfect people.

  36. tiredworkingmom*

    #5: Check the Parentaly database for companies that offer parental leave benefits starting one day one of employment. I was able to get 20 paid weeks of leave despite starting my role at 28 weeks pregnant. I did not disclose until I had an offer in hand.

  37. Aggretsuko*

    So my former employer has a very famous local bigot working for them. This lady has made a stink all over the place in town harassing people–I note the former employer makes a big deal about being kind to your community and she does not do this and I’ve heard stories of her harassing people at work as well. She went viral a few months ago for screaming at her hated population when she came across them in another state and someone filmed it.

    She was not fired, though people campaigned for it, and the employer put out a very generic statement not naming her and essentially saying they would never do anything. Honestly, I’d rather someone get fired for that than having to go back to work with someone who loses their shit on others and being afraid they’re going to lose it at me one day. Even if it’s “off the clock.”

  38. The Ginger Ginger*

    #2 – I get your line of thought here, but violence is not a trivial bit of virality. VERBAL violence is worth firing someone over, physical? No way am I keeping that person on staff, particularly over something as trivial as a sport. If I have an employee that lost it enough to become physically violent over their preferred entertainment, broadcast across the internet, they are gone. I’m not risking them doing something similar over a work frustration.

    We need to stop treating violent outbursts like they’re normal or minor. They absolutely are not. Vile online behavior (racism, violence, homophobia, transphobia) is not some weird quirk separate from who people are in “real” life. Online behavior is real, PUBLIC behavior, and people can and should make decisions based on that behavior – friends, family, employers (should be a higher bar but still when warranted). I wish more people would look at how people they know behave online and hold them accountable for it.

    Now if we’re tasking about an arrest/conviction for some non-violent crime? I’m open to case by case depending on what the alleged crime was and perhaps any extenuating circumstances. And even in the case of something serious/violent, I’d probably want to do something like unpaid leave until a conviction or something.

  39. Velawciraptor*

    LW2, I’m putting on my public defender hat for you.

    The constitutional standard of “innocent until proven guilty” refers only to a courtroom setting. If you are a member of a jury, you need to be able to see the defendant as innocent unless and until the State has presented enough evidence to you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime they are charged with. It’s an important standard and vital to our criminal prosecution system.

    However, that standard is not meant to protect a person from the collateral consequences of their own actions. Outside of a courtroom, the adage “play stupid games, win stupid prizes” tends to win the day over the legal presumption of innocence. If one is recorded doing criminal (or even non-criminal) nonsense that could bring harm to an employer’s reputation if the employer was associated with that behavior, in most places in the US, that behavior can result in the employee’s termination. This is because at will employment/right to work states provide very little by way of worker protections.

    If this is something that bothers you (and arguably it should), take that as a sign to agitate with your local lawmakers to repeal right to work statutes and strengthen worker protections. Unionize, even. But the worker rights side of your question is separate from the constitutional presumption of innocence, which really has the majority of its effect in the courtroom.

    1. Dinwar*

      To add to this, the idea that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt only holds in criminal court. Civil court merely requires a preponderance of evidence. The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that this guy is a violent drug user, and those are perfectly valid reasons to remove someone from your company.

      The misapplication of standards of evidence is a pretty good indication that folks either don’t understand the situation in question, or that they’re simply arguing dishonestly. I see it a lot in discussions of science with non-scientists–they demand that hypotheses they disagree with meet the mathematical standard for proof, whereas their pet hypothesis is considered accepted if it merely is a reasonable explanation. (Scientists generally try to reverse this–pet hypotheses are treated more harshly.)

  40. abcd*

    At one point I worked for a manager who went by a shortened version of a longer name, and Very Senior Manager who sat near me went by the full version of that name. After talking with my manager for like 30 minutes on the phone, I accidently called Very Senior Manager that shortened version of that name and I occasionally remember her reaction in absolute horror.

  41. Elle*

    Regarding letter 2, it says a lot about how Americans view justice that we’re more focused on “but he didn’t do anything ILLEGAL! Innocent until proven guilty!!!” than the obvious reason for letting him go: what the incident said about the man’s character.

    News flash: many unethical things are perfectly legal and many “crimes” are quite ethical.

    1. Joana*

      And how little people actually look into it before making judgement! Someone upthread found the incident in question. Not only did the guy have previous convictions for violent crimes, but it wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment thing like some sports-related fights you see. Apparently he was prowling around looking for anyone in a different jersey to beat up. One of his victims was diagnosed with a concussion. This isn’t a simple ‘he punched someone a couple times’ thing, this is undeniably, pre-meditated assault and battery.

  42. Parse The Potatoes*

    #4 – In addition to Allison’s advice, I would suggest you check how your name appears in your email and chat programs, and make sure it doesn’t have the shortened version. (I recently asked my company’s IT team to change my display name to the shortened version, to minimize confusion between people hearing one name and reading the other).
    I would also mention something to your direct manager, saying that you want to go by ‘Valentina’, not ‘Val’. They’re probably the most likely person to be involved in conversations about you (but not with you), so having your full name reinforced in those discussions will go a long way. A simple, perfunctory, (and written!) message should be fine; maybe something like “Hi Boss, I want to go by ‘Valentina’, not ‘Val’; I’d appreciate your help reminding people of that if I’m not there. Thanks!”
    Additionally, making a big deal or big production about it is likely to backfire, given how people work – kindhearted people may make a bigger deal when they mess up, and less-kindhearted people will use the shortened version as a passive-aggressive way to annoy you. By keeping the drama out of things (or trying to, at least!), it should help smooth out the transition.
    Finally, it may help to have a quick answer or two to questions/comments that may come up. They don’t need to be *entirely* truthful – after all, when somebody asks ‘how are you?’, they’re almost always being polite, and not wanting you to get into your problems in detail. Most people don’t want/need to hear about how shortened names are diminuitive and affect how you’re seen professionally, or that you’ve never liked the shortened version, just that “I’ve been thinking about this for a while and decided it’s time.”

  43. CET*

    Julie is perfectly justified with her dislike for Dave. By your own admission he’s a terrible manager, and he’s already gunning for Julie. I don’t know why you’re trying to make her the problem, or trying to “two sides” when Dave is very clearly a problem.

    Like Alison said you need to actively manage Dave. I suspect you’ll have to make him leave one way or another.

  44. LingNerd*

    LW4, if you treat it like a simple correction, no big deal, most people will go along with it! My own version of this is that people often call me by a similar sounding name (same first and last letter, same number of syllables and stress pattern, about as common) and I correct them every single time because I refuse to people please myself into the awkward situation where someone knows me by the completely wrong name for months or years. Some people are overly apologetic and it’s a little uncomfortable, but most people just say “oh, sorry” and repeat their sentence/thought with the correct name. I know it’s not quite the same because sometimes people can be weird and feel entitled to use a nickname. But most people are going to be cool about it if you are.

  45. Procedure Publisher*

    LW 5, Amy Miller, a recruiter in the Seattle area, posted to her YouTube last Friday about this exact topic. Her example that she uses at the being highlights at the double standards asked of women in these scenarios. If a man knows he will have a medical procedure in a few months that will require medical leave, when would he mention it?

Comments are closed.