A recent federal court decision out of Georgia serves as a reminder that being difficult, disruptive, or just generally exhausting to work with is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to end someone’s employment, or deny tenure as the case may be.Let’s break it down.
Mercer University denied tenure to a professor who:
– Routinely criticized leadership decisions (including pandemic policies),
– Bombarded colleagues with long-winded complaint emails,
– Was described as “argumentative” and “disrespectful” in meetings,
– Treated team efforts as optional—and only pitched in when it benefited her.
She claimed the denial was due to gender bias. But the court disagreed. It found Mercer had ample, documented, non-discriminatory reasons: her lack of collegiality and refusal to engage constructively in the workplace were enough to justify the decision.
📌 Employer Takeaway: You don’t have to tolerate employees who are technically competent but toxic in their conduct. Being a high performer in some areas doesn’t shield someone from termination if they undermine leadership, teamwork, or company culture.
✅ But here’s the catch—document, document, document. Mercer prevailed because it had a detailed, written record of behavior issues, internal complaints, and performance reviews.
🧠 Final thought: Employment laws protect against discrimination—not against being let go for being insubordinate, combative, or just plain difficult.
You can’t fire someone because they’re a member of a protected class.
But you can fire someone who happens to be in a protected class if their behavior would get anyone fired.
📚 Case: Rynarzewska v. Mercer University (M.D. Ga. 2025)