You cannot invent performance at termination

Belief: If you decide to terminate, you can justify it later with a performance narrative.

In California, that move often backfires because the timeline becomes the case.

When performance concerns show up for the first time in the termination meeting, the file reads like this: the company tolerated the work, decided to end the job, and then wrote the reason after the fact.

That is not always what happened. But it is what the record suggests when coaching, expectations, and written feedback appear only at the end.

The proof pressure point is simple. If performance drove the decision, the file should show it before the decision point: specific expectations, documented misses, coaching, and a fair chance to improve.

When the first documented performance issues appear at termination, the other side can reframe the reason as pretext. Even a defensible decision starts to look improvised.

A safer approach is boring. Write expectations down while the employee still has a path to succeed. Document concrete examples tied to business impact. Apply the same standard to similarly situated employees.

If you are already at the termination stage and you do not have that trail, treat that as a limitation of the record. Do not try to manufacture a history that does not exist. Keep the separation communication clean and consistent with what you can prove.

This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts — no lawyer can guarantee a result. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. AI may have been used to create this post. All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication. This post may be attorney advertising.

Michael Trust Law, APC, 703 Pier Avenue, Ste. B367, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254: michaeltrustlaw.com