Assess Legal Risk Of Proposed Employee Termination

---
name: assess-legal-risk-of-proposed-employee-termination
task_id: employment-labor/assess-legal-risk-of-proposed-employee-termination
description: Guides the analyst through a privileged termination risk assessment, integrating protected-activity timeline analysis, burden-shifting frameworks, and pretext vulnerability identification across multiple employment-law theories.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Assess Legal Risk of Proposed Employee Termination

## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable)

- Treat the assignment as a privileged pre-termination risk memo, not a merits brief or a termination notice.
- First determine whether the record contains one theory or multiple theories of risk; if more than one protected activity, adverse event, or decision-maker is in play, enumerate them before analyzing any one theory.
- Identify the governing employment relationship at the outset: at-will status, contract limits, handbook commitments, bonus/severance triggers, policy-based procedures, and any escalation or approval requirements.
- If the record reflects multiple actors, separate the business reason for termination from who knew what, when, and whose recommendation actually drove the decision.
- If only one protected event or one termination decision is implicated, state that explicitly and explain why no broader sweep is needed.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Analyst isolates one employment theory and misses overlapping retaliation, discrimination, leave, accommodation, wage-hour, whistleblower, or workers’ compensation risks arising from the same facts.
- Analyst describes timing qualitatively instead of building a dated sequence of protected acts, employer knowledge, adverse steps, and decision points.
- Analyst applies burden-shifting generically without identifying whether the theory turns on direct evidence, circumstantial proof, or a mixed-motive variant.
- Analyst treats decision-maker comments as background color rather than testing whether they link protected activity to the termination decision.
- Analyst compares employees in the abstract without checking material similarity: role, responsibilities, supervisor, decision-maker, conduct, performance history, and outcome.
- Analyst states the stated termination reason at face value without testing document quality, consistency, contemporaneous support, and deviation from normal procedure.
- Analyst omits the contractual overlay and assumes at-will status where the agreement, policy, or severance plan may constrain termination.
- Analyst writes conclusions without tying each legal proposition to a controlling statute, regulation, rule, or leading case.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- At-will employment and contract limits: determine whether a written agreement, offer letter, handbook, policy, or compensation plan restricts termination timing, cause, process, notice, or severance.
- Retaliation frameworks: assess whether the employee engaged in protected activity, whether the employer knew of it, whether termination followed, and whether causation is plausible under the applicable statute or common-law doctrine.
- Statutory variation: apply the causation and remedy standard that governs each asserted theory rather than assuming one uniform retaliation standard.
- Direct evidence doctrine: a decision-maker statement referencing protected activity in connection with the adverse action can materially change the analysis and may reduce reliance on inferential proof.
- Burden-shifting analysis: if direct evidence is absent, test the employer’s legitimate non-retaliatory explanation against pretext indicators.
- Comparator analysis: comparators must be similarly situated in material respects; shared decision-maker, similar role, similar conduct or performance issue, and different outcome matter more than surface similarity.
- Procedural regularity: deviations from approval chains, investigation steps, discipline sequence, or documentation practices are evidence-bearing and should be assessed against the company’s ordinary process.
- Common evidentiary and employment-law authorities should be cited by name and section or leading case when relied on.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

- Protected activity inventory: list every complaint, leave request, accommodation request, safety report, wage complaint, discrimination report, whistleblower communication, or other legally protected act in the record, with date, actor, recipient, and subject.
- Chronology: build a single dated timeline covering performance issues, protected activity, HR contact, investigations, warnings, escalation, approval steps, and the proposed termination.
- Causation review: evaluate proximity, intervening events, employer knowledge, and any evidence that the decision crystallized only after the protected act.
- Theory-by-theory analysis: for each legally plausible claim, run the same sequence — protected conduct, employer knowledge, adverse action, causal link, employer’s stated reason, and pretext vulnerability.
- Decision-maker statement review: isolate emails, texts, meeting notes, and verbal summaries from the actual decision-makers or influencers; identify any statement that can be read as connecting protected activity to the proposed action.
- Comparator review: identify any employee used as a comparator and test whether the record supports truly comparable treatment.
- Contract and policy review: compare the proposed termination path against the agreement, handbook, policy, or plan terms that govern notice, cause, review, severance, or documentation.
- Pretext screening: test whether the stated reason is contemporaneous, consistently repeated, supported by records, aligned with prior discipline, and applied evenhandedly.
- Risk rating: assign an ordinal risk level to each theory and explain the score in one sentence tied to the actual record.
- Authority support: anchor every legal conclusion to the controlling authority supporting it; do not state a legal outcome without the rule behind it.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable)

- Use chronology, not narrative summary, to show how protected activity and adverse action relate over time.
- Where multiple complaints or requests exist, analyze each separately and then assess whether the pattern strengthens a retaliatory inference.
- Where multiple decision-makers are involved, separate initial concern, recommendation, approval, and final execution.
- Where a contract or policy has layered conditions, analyze the hierarchy: agreement first, then handbook or policy, then discretionary practice.
- If the record spans more than one disciplinary event, distinguish the first warning from the final termination decision and assess whether the earlier event was already trending toward discharge.
- If no relevant comparator exists, say so expressly and explain why the record does not support a meaningful comparison.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Format the work as a privileged attorney-client risk assessment memorandum.
- Open with a short executive summary stating the overall litigation risk and the main drivers.
- Include a standalone chronology exhibit with dated entries.
- Organize the body by legal theory or risk category, and within each theory use the same sequence: governing rule, facts, analysis, employer explanation, pretext vulnerabilities, and risk rating.
- Define the risk scale once and apply it consistently across the memo.
- Include a separate section for contract/policy constraints if any written restriction exists.
- Include a separate section for decision-maker communications and comparator evidence if those records are present.
- Conclude with a Recommended Actions section using imperative verbs, naming the responsible role and a timing anchor for each step.
- If termination remains advisable, add post-termination documentation and litigation-hold recommendations.
- Keep the memo analytical and privileged; avoid conclusory language that is not grounded in cited authority and record facts.