The Risky Practice of 'Quiet Firing': A Warning to Employers

Editor's note: Posts published on From the Workplace are written by outside contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of SHRM. 

In the complex landscape of workplace dynamics, a practice has emerged that poses significant legal and cultural risks for employers: “Quiet Firing.” This insidious approach, while seemingly a convenient way to avoid difficult conversations, often leads to far greater complications.

“Quiet Firing” describes a situation where an employer, rather than directly addressing performance deficiencies or initiating a formal separation process, creates an environment designed to encourage an employee’s voluntary resignation. This can manifest as a deliberate reduction in responsibilities, exclusion from critical projects or meetings, lack of professional development opportunities, or a general pattern of disengagement from management.

While seemingly a convenient way to avoid difficult conversations or potential severance costs, employers who engage in quiet firing are not merely sidestepping HR best practices; they are actively cultivating significant legal exposure.

The Legal Quagmire: Constructive Discharge and Beyond

The primary legal peril of quiet firing lies in the doctrine of constructive discharge. In essence, if an employer makes working conditions so objectively intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign, the law can legally treat the employee’s resignation as a termination. This transforms a voluntary quit into an involuntary one, opening the door to a host of potential claims.

Consider the implications: An employee who feels constructively discharged may pursue claims for wrongful termination, breach of contract, or, more critically, discrimination or retaliation. If an employee can link the pattern of quiet firing to a protected characteristic (e.g., age, race, gender, or disability) or to the employee having engaged in protected activity (e.g., whistleblowing, or requesting accommodation), the employer faces substantial liability under federal and state anti-discrimination statutes.

Every instance of exclusion, every denied opportunity, and every unaddressed concern can serve as evidence in a plaintiff’s case, painting a picture of deliberate intent to force an exit. The absence of formal documentation or clear communication, far from being a shield, becomes a glaring red flag for courts and administrative agencies.

The Business Imperative: Mitigating Risk and Fostering Compliance

Beyond the immediate legal threats, quiet firing erodes trust, damages morale, and tarnishes an employer’s reputation — factors that directly impact recruitment, retention, and overall business success. For small businesses, where the close-knit environment magnifies every employee relationship, the cultural fallout can be particularly devastating.

To mitigate these risks, employers must embrace transparency and adhere to legally sound employment practices:

• Implement Robust Performance Management: Establish clear performance expectations, provide regular, documented feedback, and offer opportunities for improvement through performance improvement plans (PIPs). This creates a defensible record and offers employees a fair chance.
• Train Managers on Difficult Conversations: Equip managers with the skills and confidence to address performance issues directly, professionally, and consistently. This includes understanding the legal boundaries of such discussions.
• Ensure Consistent Application of Policies: Employers must consistently apply any employment action, including performance management and termination, across all employees to avoid claims of disparate treatment.

How-To Guide: Performance Improvement Plans

The Prudent Alternative: Direct Communication

Quiet firing is a short-sighted tactic that carries disproportionately high legal and operational risks. Employers who choose this path often find themselves facing costly litigation, damaged employee relations, and a tarnished brand. The prudent course of action is always direct, documented, and legally compliant communication. In employment law, transparency is not just good practice; it is often the best defense.

Breanne Guilliam is an associate in Maddin Hauser’s Employment and Workforce Management group, providing sound legal guidance on a wide range of employee relations matters.

Submit Your Article