What if the claimant was not a good fit? In situations where it becomes clear early on that an employee is not a good fit, the employer should consider whether it would be in the best interest of the company to sever the employment relationship early, rather than keeping the employee on, knowing they will not be a good fit. By firing early, the employer limits the taxable wages paid to the employee and may also limit a large chargeback resulting from an unemployment claim. Conclusion Although inability cases can be challenging to overcome, the employer can limit or eliminate the negative consequences arising from a claim of inability by asserting an appropriate defense or effectively managing the job separation. For questions about this issue or any other employment-related matters, employers can call our employer hotline at (800) 832-9394 or email us at employerinfo@twc.texas.gov. Every Choice Matters – Choose Federated® DriveSAFESM Federated DriveSAFESM Telematics can help your employees improve their daily driving habits. This combination of mobile app, in-vehicle tag, and online portal allows you to measure, rank, and provide feedback on employee driving behaviors so you can help them become safer drivers. Scan to learn more about Federated DriveSAFESM Telematics and how you can help your employee drivers stay safe behind the wheel. Federated Mutual Insurance Company and its subsidiaries* federatedinsurance.com | *Not licensed in all states. 25.08 Ed. 1/25 © 2025 Federated Mutual Insurance Company The content of this publication is for general information purposes only and should not be considered legal advice or an offer of insurance. Coverage will be determined solely by the terms of your policy, if approved for issue. Consult with a qualified professional to discuss questions specific to your circumstances. Helping Your Employees Stay Safe Behind The Wheel standards remained consistent with the employee’s demonstrated abilities and that any changes to job duties or supervisors were not substantial enough to negatively impact performance. What about a claimant’s failure to perform nominal work tasks? Another situation involving inability arises when the work is so simple that anyone should be able to perform the job. This argument arises from a longstanding Commission precedent, where the claimant, a cafeteria dishwasher, alleged an inability after the employer repeatedly found food particles and mildew on pots and pans that the claimant had washed and returned to the storage rack. The Commission held that “[w]here the work is not complex, an employee’s failure to pay reasonable attention to simple tasks is misconduct.” (Appeals Policy and Precedent Manual, Appeal No. 96-003785-10-031997.) This argument is less effective with more complex jobs. However, employers can strengthen their position by focusing on specific, straightforward sub-tasks within a more complicated role. For instance, simply citing “poor performance” for a salesperson who fails to generate clients is insufficient. However, suppose the employer can demonstrate that a specific requirement, such as making a certain number of daily calls, was consistently neglected despite warnings. In that case, the employer has a much better chance of overcoming the argument of inability. 19 DEALERS’ CHOICE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==