Insights

Deutsch Kerrigan Article /

Human Resources Series Part III of IV: Addressing Performance Issues

August 17, 2016

Joanne Rinardo

share this page

PERFORMANCE ISSUES
Suzie has been working for you for several months and certain issues have come up regarding her continuous mistakes. Determine whether the mistakes are due to lack of training or lack of understanding of what is expected of her. Discuss her errors in a non-judgmental way by asking her what she needs to be successful. If it is a training issue, and you are pleased with the rest of her job performance, try additional training. If she cannot grasp the basics of her job, you might need to replace her. This is especially true if her errors could create liability for your practice. 

We will discuss issues with terminating an employee in the next edition of The LINK, but use this opportunity to understand how you misjudged Suzie’s abilities during the application and interview process.

COMPLAINTS FROM OTHERS
Suzie’s job performance is fine, but you are getting complaints from other staff and/or patients that she is rude, disrespectful, or uncaring in her dealings with patients.  How a patient believes he or she has been treated by you or your staff can influence whether that patient will pursue litigation if an issue arises with his/her treatment. As soon as you get a complaint, speak with Suzie about the particulars. If complaints continue, or you observe Suzie being less than professional in her interactions, it may be advisable to terminate her employment.

EXCESSIVE TARDINESS
Suzie seems to be doing a good job - when she is there. After a few months, Suzie has begun to come to work 15 minutes late several times a week, and/or is taking extended lunches. After one or two instances, you need to review with her the time her work day starts. Undoubtedly, Suzie will explain that her lateness is for a particular reason and she will improve. Nonetheless, record the conversation that she has been reminded of her work schedule in a memorandum, have her sign it, and then place it in her personnel file.

If Suzie informs you that her occasional tardiness (or excessive absences) is due to a medical reason, and you have more than 15 employees, she may be eligible for an Americans with Disabilities (“ADA”) accommodation. Consult with HR or your attorney for further advice.

STEALING
Stealing time: This can include inflated hours or using company time for an outside job.  Let’s assume that Suzie is inflating the hours she actually worked. Did you convey to Suzie the importance of accurately recording her time and that any extended lunches or leaving early must always be approved in advance?  Do other employees engage in the same behavior? If so, be careful not to single out one employee. A simple discussion might resolve the issue, but memorialize in a memo the conversation and that any future violations may result in her termination. Have her sign the memo for her personnel file.

Stealing supplies: If an employee takes supplies for personal use, the value of the item and the frequency it happens should be taken into account. For example, taking some envelopes once or twice should result in verbal counseling.  If the item is so valuable (for example, a laptop) that it would never be appropriate to take it home without permission, consider termination. 

Stealing from co-workers and/or patients: This could range from stealing lunches from the employee lounge to money from a wallet. If proven, anything more egregious than taking something inconsequential should be dealt with swiftly. An employee who steals an item of value should be terminated.  Also, the police should be contacted and a report made for any insurance claims. This will also assist you in defeating a claim for unemployment pay.

When you terminate an employee for stealing, make sure that you get all keys from him/her and disable all the terminated party's passwords. If the theft was significant, consider having your locks changed.

FORGING PRESCRIPTIONS
If you learn that an employee has taken a prescription pad, forged your signature, or allowed someone else to forge your signature, for prescriptions, that employee must be immediately terminated, and the police should be notified. Likewise, if an employee calls in a prescription for illegal purposes without your knowledge, using your number, that employee should be terminated.

View the presentation: ADDRESSING PERFORMANCE ISSUES

Resources

Firm Highlights

  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.
  • Insight

    New Tech Changing Consent Laws?

  • Insight

    The Betterment Doctrine and Property Damage Claims

  • Experience

    Summary Judgment Granted Following Successful Challenge to Plaintiff’s Expert

    Doug Vaughn and Peyton Farve obtained a dismissal of a wrongful death product liability lawsuit against an assembly line manufacturer by successfully moving to exclude the plaintiff's expert who had a perfect track record before this case and thereafter obtaining summary judgment on all claims brought by the family of a worker who died after reaching into moving machinery. The case had been pending in federal court in North Mississippi.
  • News

    Karina Shareen Named 2026 Top Young Lawyer by Louisiana State Bar Association

  • News

    44 Deutsch Kerrigan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers® in 2027 Edition, Including Two “Lawyer of the Year” Honorees

    Deutsch Kerrigan proudly announces that 44 of our attorneys have been recognized by their peers in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. This year, 34 Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys were named to The Best Lawyers in America®, with an additional 10 attorneys recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. In addition, John Jerry Glas and Kelly E. Theard were each named “Lawyer of the Year” in their respective practice areas—an honor awarded to only one attorney per practice area in each region. John Jerry Glas — Transportation Law, New Orleans Kelly E. Theard — Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants, New Orleans Below is the full list of Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. 2027 The Best Lawyers in America® Thirty-four Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys were recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®: New Orleans, Louisiana Jennifer Adams Litigation - Environmental Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Francis J. Barry, Jr. Admiralty and Maritime Law Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Keith J. Bergeron Construction Law Litigation - Construction Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Terrence L. Brennan Arbitration Construction Law Litigation - Construction Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Bertrand M. Cass, Jr. Admiralty and Maritime Law Energy Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Beverly Aloisio DeLaune Commercial Litigation Legal Malpractice Law - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Catherine Filippi Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John Jerry Glas Insurance Law Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Transportation Law David Groome, Jr. Litigation - Insurance Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants William C. Harrison, Jr. Aviation Law Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Carl "Chip" Hellmers Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Karen Holland Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Duris L. Holmes Banking and Finance Law Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships) Commercial Litigation Litigation - Bankruptcy Joshua G. Keller Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Ryan D. Kelley Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert E. Kerrigan, Jr. Commercial Litigation Litigation - Environmental Litigation - Insurance Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Charles E. Leche Admiralty and Maritime Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Frederic Theodore Le Clercq Employment Law - Management Labor Law - Management Litigation - Labor and Employment Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Admiralty and Maritime Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Melissa M. Lessell Commercial Litigation Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Raymond C. Lewis Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Walter P. Maestri Admiralty and Maritime Law Energy Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Joseph L. McReynolds Appellate Practice Litigation - Construction Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Anne E. Medo Commercial Litigation Richard B. Montgomery III Commercial Transactions / UCC Law Litigation - Real Estate Real Estate Law Securitization and Structured Finance Law Sean P. Mount Commercial Litigation Insurance Law Litigation - Construction Litigation - Insurance Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Talbot M. Quinn Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Joanne Rinardo Employment Law - Management Litigation - Labor and Employment Kermit L. Roux III Family Law Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brian S. Schaps Construction Law Litigation - Construction A. Wendel Stout III Litigation - Environmental Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Kelly E. Theard Construction Law Litigation - Construction Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Marc J. Yellin Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Gulfport, Mississippi Richard Tubertini Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships) Commercial Litigation Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants R. Douglas Vaughn Health Care Law Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants 2027 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America Ten Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys were recognized in the 2027 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. New Orleans, LA Gregory J. Angelico Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   Chance Carter Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   Colin Casciato Commercial Litigation   Peter-Raymond Graffeo Construction Law   Ethan King Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   Jose Ruiz Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Transportation Law   Justine Ware Insurance Law   Casey Wendling Professional Malpractice Law Gulfport, Mississippi Peyton Farve Insurance Law Transportation Law   Keeton Thach Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law
  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan Recognized in 2026 Chambers USA Rankings

    Deutsch Kerrigan is proud to announce that five of our attorneys and two of our practice areas have been recognized in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, one of the most prestigious and trusted legal directories in the country. Ranked Practice Areas • Louisiana – Construction (Band 1) • Louisiana – Insurance (Band 2) Ranked Attorneys • Kelly Theard – Construction (Louisiana), Band 1  • Keith Bergeron – Construction (Louisiana), Band 2 • Brian Schaps – Construction (Louisiana), Band 3  • Terrence Brennan – Construction (Louisiana), Senior Statespeople • Frederic Theodore “Ted” Le Clercq – Labor & Employment (Louisiana), Band 4  Chambers USA is widely considered the leading resource for identifying top legal talent. Its rankings are the result of extensive independent research and interviews with clients and legal peers, assessing factors such as legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness, and commitment. We are honored to be recognized among the top in our field and remain committed to delivering the high-quality service our clients expect and deserve.
  • Insight

    Navigating Louisiana’s New Litigation Landscape: Critical Updates for Insurance Companies

  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).
  • Experience

    Successfully Defended Restaurant Operator and Food Distributor Against $50 Million Product Liability Claim

    Anne Medo successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a restaurant operator and food distributor in a high-stakes product liability matter involving allegations that contaminated chicken nuggets caused a customer to develop severe medical complications. The plaintiff alleged that consumption of chicken nuggets purchased from a national food chain and distributed by Deutsch Kerrigan’s clients resulted in E. coli and Shigella infections, which he claimed led to significant cardiac issues and a stroke. The plaintiff sought $50 million in damages. Prior to trial, Anne moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the required causal connection between the alleged foodborne illness and his subsequent health conditions. Specifically, the defense highlighted the absence of expert testimony necessary to support the plaintiff’s causation theories. In support of the motion, Anne presented testimony from an infectious disease expert and a cardiologist who opined that the alleged connection between the chicken nuggets and the plaintiff’s severe medical complications could not be established. The court agreed that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove causation and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims prior to trial.