Every client I speak to lately seems to confirm that 2025 has been just a little different for workplaces.
Major organizations have doubled down on return-to-work mandates while others have ramped up performance metrics to manage employee production. And AI use has become more widely accepted in the workplace.
These themes have presented new dynamics and legal issues for both employers and employees. Below I break down some of the major questions of the season.
Q. As a mid-size employer, we have mandated a staggered return-to-work plan over a 24-month period for our employees and executives. The majority of employees have complied with the directive while a minority continue to come in if and when they see fit. This obviously creates some rifts among our smaller teams. We have sent monthly email reminders to staff to follow the return-to-work directive. How do we get everyone on the same page?
A. For employees who are not following the directive, employers should clearly communicate the consequence for failing to do so. It is also important to speak to employees about why the return to in-person has been hard to manage. Employees who have legitimate accommodation considerations (like family status and/or medical factors) will, reasonably, require some flexibility.
Q. As a sales manager of a team of five, I have been placed on a performance improvement plan this quarter after record results. I completely disagree that I should be on this plan. Many people at my company say that it is virtually impossible to “survive the PIP” and to be prepared to be terminated. At this point, I feel I don’t want to stay anyway. Do I need to do anything or just let nature take its course?
A. If the PIP is objectively unfair, it is critical that you resist it, likely, in writing. If you do not respond to the PIP, point by point, you may be deemed to accept the document and the consequences that flow from it, which could include lower bonus, commissions and other incentives. If you believe the PIP was applied arbitrarily to you, you may benefit from legal advice to support you.
Q. Our company is currently completing a 360 review of the organization. This process includes an opportunity for employees to provide feedback about their managers, teams and general feedback on their positions and compensation. This year we have been flooded with AI-generated feedback from employees. We are worried about keeping our confidential information safe, but we also do not want to communicate with our employees through a robot. How can this be stopped?
A. Create an AI use/governance policy for your organization. There you may identify the specific AI tools that employees can use for certain tasks. It can also create guardrails for protecting sensitive information. To the extent employees are to provide personal feedback to the organization or their managers, an AI policy can dictate that the use of AI is prohibited for that purpose. After all, your 360 review is meant to bring connection to your organization through real dialogue within teams.
RECOMMENDED VIDEO
Q. I have been terminated from an executive role. I have worked almost the entire fiscal year. My employer has denied me bonuses and stock entitlements. When I spoke with HR, I was told I had to be actively employed to receive these payouts. Is this correct?
A. Many employment contracts require an employee to be “actively employed” at the time of a payout of a bonus or commission. This language, however, may not be legal in some circumstances – particularly if the bonus being withheld is considered an unpaid wage. I recommend that you get legal advice on your termination as your compensation scheme may be somewhat complex and you do not want to leave earned money on the table.
Have a workplace question? Maybe I can help! Email me at [email protected]m and your question may be featured in a future column.
The content of this article is general information only and is not legal advice.
