firing by – A seasoned HR practitioner argues that firing someone by email invites unnecessary fallout—forwarding, public debate, and missed control of work access—while a structured in-person (or live video/phone) termination conversation better protects the employee, th
When a termination message goes out—especially by email—the moment it leaves your computer. you lose control of what happens next. The person receiving it can forward it. Others can screenshot it. The text can land on social media and in public discussion before you’ve even had a chance to manage the logistics.
In practice. that’s why an in-person termination conversation—or a live video call or phone call for remote employees—gets treated as the better business decision. It’s harder, yes. But it also gives you something email can’t: a chance to deliver the decision. address what comes next. and respond when the conversation takes an unexpected turn.
The warning is blunt: email doesn’t stay private. The writing can be forwarded to anyone with an email address. and the message can quickly become a public spectacle on platforms such as X. Instagram. LinkedIn. or even material for a YouTube channel. The piece points to a recent termination letter sent to Scott Pelley as an example of how quickly a document meant to end an employment relationship can turn into ready-made fuel for responses. workplace chatter. and press attention. CBS. the author suggests. may have wanted a public debate—but that doesn’t make the strategy any safer for the people inside the company.
For employees who can’t be in the office, the conversation can still be conducted live through a video call or on the phone. The steps remain the same: plan it as a business meeting, not a message.
That planning starts with information. Before the conversation happens, the company should have all the details about the reason for the termination and understand what can be shared with the departing employee. Then comes the structure: decide who will be present, including at least one witness.
Access controls should be handled with timing and coordination, not guesswork. The guidance is to determine when to cut off access to email, the company server, cell phone, and landline. The conversation should be practiced with everyone who will attend.
Notes matter too—not just for the record, but for accountability. The author emphasizes that the best practice is to be prepared to take notes that specifically include what the employee says.
There’s also a practical risk that email can’t manage: work tools. The preferred approach for ending access to the company email and server is to do it while the termination meeting is happening. Coordinate with IT so the person doesn’t arrive at their desk or log on remotely and discover they can still use those systems.
The stakes are illustrated through two separate firsthand scenarios described in the guidance. In one case. the author describes an angry employee who sent a blazing message to the entire team after being let go and before their email access was ended. In another. a terminated employee returned to their desk and downloaded customer files onto a portable hard drive. using that leverage to negotiate terms for their departure before the drive was returned.
Once the decision has been delivered, the meeting should move into logistics and next steps. That includes addressing whether and for how long the employee will have access after the meeting to email and the company server. It also includes the date through which the employee will be paid.
The author lays out the details that can’t be vague in a final paycheck process: what benefit days. PTO. vacation. or sick days will be paid out in the final paycheck; the date the employee will receive that final paycheck—along with a reminder that state rules may require it to come sooner than the next regular payday; and steps to apply for unemployment. with an explanation that the state UI agency makes the decision.
The conversation should cover options for contesting unemployment and may include a choice to tell the employee that the company will not contest a claim. It should also clarify the last day they’ll be covered under company health plans and how they’ll receive communication about continuing coverage.
Expense reporting is part of the picture too, particularly because the employee won’t have access to the company server. The meeting should outline outstanding expense reporting and the steps to submit it.
Finally, there are the concrete steps that prevent more disruption: requirements and steps to return any company equipment.
The emotional pressure doesn’t disappear when the paperwork begins. Anger is described as natural. and the argument for in-person conversations is partly that they create a controlled space to handle that reaction. The author points out that employment attorneys have sometimes advised not to give a reason for termination. but if that approach is followed. the guidance is to describe the decision as a business decision. Having the conversation in person also creates room to pivot from the emotional moment into the logistics of next steps.
Complications can arrive fast. If a terminated employee claims discrimination, the guidance is that it should trigger an investigation. If HR is present, HR can take over that part of the discussion. If HR isn’t in the room. the author recommends informing the individual that the company will report the claim as required by policy. and to report it as soon as possible.
Then the conversation can deepen further if the employee raises allegations that demand immediate procedural attention. The guidance includes a detailed example: when an employee says their boss asked them to sleep with her during a trip to Kansas City three months ago. they refused. and then they were avoiding her ever since; the employee’s performance slipped. they were absent. and they missed deadlines because they were afraid to see her at work. In that situation. the author says the response would be to send the employee home and immediately follow the investigation procedures.
Even when the underlying situation is clearer, timing matters. The guidance advises that when an employee violates a bright-line rule. but you’re not sure whether it amounts to cause for termination. the company should send them home to give time to investigate. The author points to an example: someone told the company’s Brad closes his door and takes afternoon naps at his desk. and then the person is caught doing it. When the anger is high but the full story isn’t known. the guidance is that it’s never a good time to fire someone immediately.
In the author’s framing, paying someone for a few days can cost less than the time it takes to contest a claim, and less than attorney fees and a potential payout.
The piece ends with a set of experiences that connect preparation to outcomes. The author says they fired a supervisor once for not performing the oversight responsibilities required by the role. The supervisor wasn’t gracious at the time. but weeks later. the author reports that the supervisor came back to thank them for firing them. explaining that the termination taught them what they wanted in a job and what they were required to contribute to get there. The author says they haven’t been thanked for a termination since.
A different episode involved an employee described as threatening. who regularly muttered disdain for the company and the team under their breath. The behavior continued after a final warning. The author describes that a company VP wanted them to send a telegram. but they chose instead to prepare for a termination conversation. The room was full of support—managers and union representatives—and security was waiting outside. The employee left quietly, and the author says they never heard from them again.
Termination, the guidance insists, will never be easy. It shouldn’t be. But when it’s handled as a deliberate business conversation—rather than a message sent into the world—those involved can reduce the ripples that lead to further disruption.
employee termination firing by email HR process unemployment claims company access control IT coordination discrimination investigations workplace conversations union representatives final paycheck