How to terminate employees for poor soft skills – without risking discrimination claims

A recent Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision over 10 years in the making has clarified how employers can justify terminating an employee for lacking in soft skills – such as teamwork and leadership – without running afoul of discrimination laws.

In Zang v. 1783057 Alberta Ltd., 2025 CHRT 10, the tribunal dismissed a race-based discrimination complaint first filed in 2013, accepting the employer’s explanation that the employee – a senior accountant in a casino – was selected for termination due to interpersonal shortcomings, not her race.

Sarah Coderre, partner at Bow River Law in Calgary, explains that although the employer won in the end, the years-long process it took to get there highlights how complicated these cases can be.

It’s difficult sometimes to spot where the discrimination can be, she says, “to determine whether or not a company's explanation … [is] a coverup, for example, or if it's genuine and legitimate. I think this case really just highlights how fraught these sorts of situations can be.”

Avoid discrimination claims by clearly defining soft skills

As detailed in the decision, from 2011 to 2012, the casino was restructuring due to financial challenges and made cuts to the accounting team. Two employees were terminated, both of whom were Asian women, while two white male employees were retained.

One of the men was promoted to replace the complainant, although he had less experience. The employer stated in the decision that he “was capable of performing the senior accountant duties and was, on the whole, better suited in this leadership role. He was more engaged in the business, more approachable and more patient with the inquiries from the other accounting staff.”

The tribunal accepted this rationale, finding that it was not a pretext for discrimination, as the complaint alleged.

However, as Coderre explains, that conclusion required extensive evidence – which could have been simpler to present if the employee’s interpersonal challenges had been addressed and communicated earlier.

To help prevent similar situations, the first place that employers should look is the job posting itself.

“So if somebody is penalized subsequently for not having adequate soft skills, but the job description and the job posting only focused on the technical aspects of the role, you could see somebody later on saying, ‘Well, I'm now being penalized over these soft skills when I was never told that this was part of the job or part of the duties and what I was going to be evaluated on.’”

Communicate expectations, document performance

In the Zang decision, the complainant was unaware that soft skills were a major reason for her dismissal. That gap led her to believe the real reason was her race – an allegation the company had to rebut with multiple witnesses.

“It's a judgment call, because I know a lot of employers don't want to over explain. Termination is difficult in the best of circumstances, and you just want to get in, get out, give as much information as you need and nothing more,” says Coderre.

“But in this situation, if they had had a sense that she was disgruntled or that she might take the termination poorly, I think providing that additional context and explanation would have been helpful.”

The tribunal noted that although the complainant received performance feedback around her interactions with other employees, it hadn’t been discussed with her in detail. This was another point where the issue could have been defused, Coderre points out.

“They should have had a further discussion with her around that,” she says.

“Explaining why having these softer skills is important, how it's actually going to allow her to complete the technical aspects of her work more efficiently, etc. It doesn't appear those conversations were ever had.”

Soft skills should be part of ongoing evaluations, she adds, as performance reviews that explicitly mention communication issues or teamwork concerns can help build a consistent narrative – one that’s hard to dispute later.

Don’t leave employees guessing about termination reasons

As Coderre puts it, if the employee had been informed of the reasons for her termination – not only the restructuring but her lack of leadership skills – the matter could have been resolved then and there.

“The company was put on their back foot to explain all of the soft skills and all of the reasons why she wasn't the right person for that job,” says Coderre.

“I think if that was part of the decision for the termination, that's probably something that should have been communicated to her, right in her termination meeting.”

Offering a thoughtful, documented explanation – even in without cause terminations – can help prevent misunderstandings that later evolve into legal complaints, she says.

“That could have provided that explanation upfront and potentially diffused it.”

Train HR to identify unconscious bias and ask deeper questions

The tribunal found no link between race and the employer’s preference for another employee’s interpersonal strengths. Still, employers and HR need to be careful when citing vague terms such as “fit” or “team player.”

These phrases can sometimes conceal unconscious bias, Coderre says, stressing the terms should serve as read flags for HR to investigate.

“It can be code for, ''We don't like this particular characteristic that this person has,’ that they have no control over, like their gender or their race or their age or something like that,” Coderre says.

“And I think HR in particular is going to have to have their antenna up.”

In practice, that means digging deeper when a manager recommends a termination or passes someone over for a promotion; when something like this crosses their desk, “Why?” should always be the first follow-up question from HR, Coderre says.

“The difficult thing with unconscious bias is, if you have it, you don't necessarily know that you have it,” she says.

“You have to be really intentional about taking a step back and questioning and examining ‘Where's this thought coming from?’”

Build a defensible paper trail before making termination decisions

Ultimately, the Zang case hinged on credibility – the employer had just enough documentation, witnesses, and logic to show that their decision was justified and non-discriminatory. But it was a close call – and a costly one.

“You think about all the time that the company spent defending this complaint, all the money they poured into it, all the man hours lost because the lawyer has to pull employees out to prep them for their testimony,” Coderre says.

“This all could have been avoided, I think in large part, if the employer had properly papered that personnel file.”

The best way to avoid future liability, she adds, is to give HR a bigger role – not just in policy, but in the human side of decision-making; that means documenting concerns early, asking questions often, and being transparent when decisions are made – with the employee you are dealing with, before it gets to the level of facing a tribunal.

“HR also has the role of being that first line of defense in diffusing liabilities that the company could potentially deal with in the future,” she says.

“And that first line of defense is really about being proactive.”