“You’re not a good fit.” At first glance, this phrase might seem harmless—an inoffensive way to describe a variety of performance issues or work style differences. But beneath its vague surface lies a multitude of potential interpretations that could expose employers to significant legal and reputational risks. For instance, could “not a good fit” imply bias against someone’s race, gender, age, religion, or disability? 

Without clear context or documentation, such a statement might be construed as a pretext for discrimination or retaliation, as demonstrated in a case decided by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit titled Lashley v. Spartanburg Methodist College.  In Lashley, a teacher alleged that her former employer’s termination statement that, “we’re not a good fit for each other” masked a retaliatory motive tied to her prior request for a disability accommodation. Although the Court ultimately rejected Lashley’s claim, the case does serve as a cautionary tale for employers. Meaning, a vague justification like “fit” can easily be challenged, leading to costly legal battles or jury trials. 

To reduce these risks, employers should adopt clear, specific, and measurable practices when addressing performance or behavioral issues. Below are three best practices to help employers make termination decisions that are both fair and legally defensible: 

• Document Specific Performance Issues: Instead of relying on the ambiguous concept of “fit,” employers should keep detailed records of any employee performance or behavior concerns. This documentation should outline: 
  • The specific ways in which the employees’ performance does not meet expectations. 
  • Concrete examples of how the behavior affects team dynamics or organizational goals. 
  • The steps taken to address the issues, such as feedback sessions or performance improvement plans (PIPs). 

By grounding decisions in objective, factual evidence, employers can demonstrate that terminations are based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. 

• Use Clear and Consistent Language: When discussing performance concerns with employees, use precise language that directly addresses the issues at hand. Avoid euphemisms or vague terms that could be misinterpreted. For example, instead of saying, “You’re not a good fit,” specify the exact problem: “Your approach to project deadlines has caused delays in our deliverables, and despite feedback, the issue has not improved.” Consistency is also key. Ensure that similar performance concerns are addressed uniformly across all employees to avoid perceptions of favoritism or bias. 

• Provide Opportunities for Improvement: Before making a termination decision, allow the employee an opportunity to correct their behavior or performance. Implement a structured performance improvement plan that: 
  • Clearly defines the areas that need improvement. 
  • Outlines measurable goals and timelines for achieving them. 
  • Includes regular check-ins to provide guidance and support. 

This approach not only demonstrates good faith on the part of the employer but also provides a clear record of efforts to help the employee succeed. If termination becomes necessary, it shows that the decision was made after giving the employee a fair chance to improve. 

While terms like “fit” may seem convenient and benign, they are fraught with legal and ethical pitfalls. Employers should try to prioritize transparency, fairness, and specificity – as much as possible – in their decision-making processes. By documenting performance issues, using clear language, and giving employees opportunities to improve, employers can help protect themselves while fostering a culture of accountability and respect. In today’s increasingly turbulent workplaces, these practices are not just best—they are essential.