HR pros know good documentation is key to warding off bias claims. But supervisors need to understand the difference between legitimate records and those that look like they were created to justify biased decisions.

In one recent case, a 54-year-old woman sued for age discrimination. The problems started when she got a new supervisor, who was transferred from another location. During the transition, he started working part-time at the woman’s location.

He referred to her by the nickname “Grandma.” And despite the fact that she’d gotten mostly positive reviews up until that point, he placed her on a performance improvement plan (PIP) — before he was even her full-time boss.

While the woman was on vacation, the employees who worked under her made a few screw-ups. The problems were held against her, and her supervisor gave her a demotion. Instead of accepting it, she quit her job and sued the company, claiming the boss tried to demote her because of her age.

In court, the company pointed to the documented PIP as evidence of the woman’s performance problems. But the judge didn’t buy it.

Based on the evidence, the PIP was necessary in the first place — the person behind the decision wasn’t even the woman’s full-time supervisor yet. Also, his nickname for her certainly didn’t help. So it looked like the supervisor preparing to discriminate and used the PIP as a way to justify his actions.

The lesson: Only legitimate documentation will offer protection in court.

Cite: McDonald v. Best Buy Co., Inc.

Tags: Age Discrimination, Best Buy, documentation