Legal issues have a specific law behind them, which will result in legal consequences if you don't obey

it. Ethical issues have no force of law, but are of a nature that affects the society around you, or has consequences for the people involved.

EMPLOYMENT AT WILL-employer get considerable latitude in determining whether, when & how to measure & reward performance. Thus, an employer could potentially end the employment relationship without documenting any performance problem NEGLIGENCE-Many org. outline PMS in their employee manual, employment contract, or other materials. When the system is described in such documents & not implemented as described legal problems can arise. DEFAMATION-it is the disclosure of untrue ,unfavorable performance in information that damages an employees reputation.

MISREPRESENTATION-It is about disclosing untrue favorable performance & this info causes risk & harm to others. When a past employer provides a glowing recommendation for a former employee who was actually terminated because of poor performance, the employer is guilty of misrepresentation. ADVERSE IMPACT-this is an unintentional discrimination. Examplewomen receive consistently lower performance ratings than men. ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION-Raters assign scores differentially to various employees based on factors that are not performance related,such as race,nationality,color or ethnic and national origin.

RECOMMENATIONS TO AVOID LEGAL SUIT

R Legally Defensible Appraisal Procedures

Legally Defensible Appraisal content Legally Defensible Appraisal Results or Documentation Legally Defensible Raters

1.Performance appraisals should not be used in a merely punitive or retaliatory fashion. It is grossly unprofessional for a manager or supervisor to use the appraisal process to 'get even' with an employee who has displeased or upset them in some way.

2.Appraisals should not be used to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, religion, age, gender, disability, marital status, pregnancy, or sexual preference

3.Performance appraisal results should be fair, accurate and supported by evidence and examples. For instance, if an employee has poor interpersonal skills and is harming morale and group performance, the supervisor might keep a log of incidents. Co-workers may be interviewed and their views and reactions recorded. The nature and effects of the employee's behaviour should be documented

4.An employee should have the opportunity to comment on their appraisal result, to express their agreement or otherwise, and to appeal the result or at least request a review by up line supervisors

5.Appraisals should be balanced, recording information on both the good and the bad aspects of an employee's performance (as far as possible).

6.Appraisals results should not be used as the sole basis for promotion, remuneration or termination decisions. A broad range of information should be considered, in which the employee's appraisal results may be significant but not necessarily conclusive.

7.Employees who receive a poor performance appraisal result should be given a reasonable chance to improve. Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to dismiss, demote of otherwise penalize an employee because of a single adverse appraisal result (depending of course on the nature and seriousness of the conduct that underlies the poor result)

8.Timely feedback should be provided, especially to marginal or poor performers. It is not fair to offer zero feedback to a poor performer for twelve months and then present them with a bad appraisal. More frequent feedback and guidance should be provided to the Employees. A fair chance should be given to the Employees to correct the problem in a timely manner

9.Records should be retained. If an employee believes they have been dealt with unfairly, they may have rights to instigate legal action years later. In the case of poor performers, or persons dismissed or demoted, or those who resign or leave in less than happy circumstances, their appraisal records, together with critical incident logs and other relevant documents, be archived indefinitely.

10.If an appraisal result is poor (or in any way likely to be controversial or provocative), an objective third party should be hired for their views on whether the appraisal result seems fair and reasonable

11.Appraisals should avoid inflammatory and emotive language. It should be of detached and dispassionate style. The criticisms should relate to actual job requirements and not based on mere personal or other irrelevant issues that have little or no connection with actual job requirements

12.Managers and supervisors required to conduct staff appraisals should be trained in appraisal principles and techniques. Conducting performance appraisals is one of the most demanding of all supervisory activities. It is a sensitive and sometimes controversial task which, if mishandled, can cause serious damage to employee relations and morale

13.Appraisal results should be treated as private and confidential information. Record storage should be secure and controlled. Only people with an approved need to know should have access to an employee's performance appraisal information.

HR Managers are expected to observe the performance (or understand the potentials) in order to judge its effectiveness. Yet, some HR Managers assign performance appraisal based on unrelated factors (for example, the employee is not loyal to the rator, or the ratee belongs to a different cast or religion).

the overall objective of high ethical performance reviews should be to provide an honest assessment of the performance and mutually develop a plan to improve the ratees effectiveness

Managers and nonsupervisory employees alike cite concern about "politics and lack of fair treatment, honesty, and truthfulness" in connection with the performance review.

Frequently, when unsuccessful candidates for promotions are notified of the decision that someone else has been selected they are not told why. Often they are not told anything, usually because the managers or supervisors do not feel equipped or skillful enough to explain the reasons in a systematic and rational way.

Sometimes, major miscommunications occur in performance review sessions due to basic differences in ethical orientation. For example, the reviewer may say, "That report is a requirement, and we need to follow the rules of the organization." The person being reviewed may reply, "I make a significant contribution to this organization, and I don't have time to prepare reports that no one looks at. Judge me on what I accomplish." What is going on here? The reviewer is concerned with decisions and actions that conform to basic principles and rules (adherence). The employee appears to be oriented toward the outcome - the ends justify the means (results). They are talking on two different, nonconnecting planes. Unless the employee and the reviewer are successful in negotiating an ethical balance, each may view the other as taking unfair shots - and the battleground will be the performance review process

THANK YOU