HR changed our performance reviews, do I have to announce my pregnancy at work, and more

This post was written by Alison Green and published on Ask a Manager.

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. Should I say something about past allegations against a colleague?

I started a new position about six months ago, working with partner organizations across the state on community projects. On a recent call, I was surprised to see someone I’ll call Brad.

I knew Brad from my time teaching in a different city, where he was an activist in the reproductive health rights space. A few years ago, Brad had to leave that work and relocate after being accused of grooming minors. Two friends who work in that space told me about it at the time.

Now, Brad is working in a different community-focused role, and while it’s unrelated to reproductive health, they are still in a position of influence. My role is to provide technical assistance to help make a project feasible for the community Brad works with. Brad is actively facilitating conversations with our partners. It feels surreal to be in meetings with someone who had to leave their previous job due to allegations of being a sexual predator. However, everything I know is secondhand. I don’t know if Brad’s new role involves minors.

Do I have an obligation to say something to my boss? Should I bring this up, even if I don’t have firsthand knowledge? Or is this one of those situations where I just have to compartmentalize and move on?

I don’t think you have an obligation to say something to your boss since (a) Brad isn’t working for your organization and (b) you heard about the allegations secondhand. But I don’t think think you’d be wrong to have a quiet word with your boss about it either — framed as, “I only have secondhand knowledge of this and no idea if his current job involves minors, but given that minors were involved previously, I felt uncomfortable keeping it to myself. Is this something you think we need to do anything with?”

2. HR unilaterally changed our performance reviews

During our most recent performance review period, managers were told that they had to score 75% of employees as 3s on the overall 1 through 5 rating scale (5 being the best), with the remainder split between 1/2/4/5s. Apparently, despite this, there were too many high scores given so HR went in and — seemingly randomly since they most certainly don’t have insight into people’s day-to-day performance — knocked people down to 3s. They also asked managers to change their comments on the reviews of people who had this happen to reflect the new scores. I was among this lucky demoted group, and since confirming that neither my manager or grandboss had any input on this change, I’ve felt increasingly frustrated by this situation since it has the potential to affect future promotions as well as this year’s salary increase and bonus.

Ranting about it to a friend who works in a different industry I found that his company had done the same thing! Is this a new trend? Can you think of any way to push back against this? One further complication is that it’s unclear if HR realizes that everyone knows what they did (a lot of managers were not happy with the changes).

This is not a new trend, but it’s a ridiculous practice. There have always been companies that insist on a certain distribution of performance evaluation ratings, which has always caused problems for managers and teams whose performance didn’t line up with the required distribution of scores. But the idea of HR randomly changing ratings and then demanding managers rewrite their comments to justify those ratings is an extra level of ridiculous; typically they’d just tell managers that they need to change their ratings and leave it to them to decide how to do that.

I do wonder whether it’s true that HR chose the new ratings randomly or whether it was based on anything (including conversations with managers). Managers wouldn’t necessarily disclose the latter to you, and might even prefer to let HR take the blame.

As for pushing back — if you’ve had glowing feedback all year (especially if it’s documented, but even if it’s not) and/or if you’ve met/exceeded the goals that were laid out for you, you could certainly highlight that and ask how your rating squares with your performance and the feedback you’ve received from your manager. They might not care, but it’s a reasonable avenue to pursue.

3. Do I have to announce my pregnancy at work?

Would it be extremely weird if I just didn’t widely announce my pregnancy at work? My boss and grandboss know, and a few other individuals I chose to tell, but I just really don’t want to make a big email announcement. I have a lot of anxiety about this pregnancy and it feels like a jinx (even though logically I know it’s not). But people will be able to tell I’m pregnant soon. Will it be weird if I go around with an obviously pregnant belly without ever having said anything? Am I inviting gossip and/or nosy questions? Do I just need to get over myself and send the darn email?

In some office cultures it might be a little weird. That doesn’t mean you have to announce if you don’t want to, though, and it sounds like the people who need to know already do.

For what it’s worth, in the offices where it would be unusual, I do think you’re probably inviting more speculation and gossip by not announcing it than by just sending out a brief email. Again, you don’t have to if you don’t want to, obviously it’s no one’s business, etc. etc., but realistically on closer-knit teams, people may notice and wonder if they missed an announcement. In fact, an advantage of sending a brief announcement is that if you want to, you could explicitly say, “I’m nervous about the pregnancy and would prefer not to be asked about it at work, thanks for understanding.”

Related:
my employee didn’t tell anyone she was pregnant until she was about to give birth

4. Was this training’s explanation of discrimination correct?

I had to take a training on workplace discrimination and harassment that was mandatory for all employees at my company. As part of the training, we were asked a series of hypothetical questions and had to answer whether they constituted discrimination or harassment. One example involved a graphic design company that had a project to design a logo for a football team, and gave the project to a male employee over a female one because “men know more about football then women.” The explanation given was that it was discrimination because whether someone knows about football is not relevant to their job performance.

It seems to me that if you’re designing a logo for a football team, your knowledge of football is indeed relevant to your ability to do so. The issue here is that they assumed the male employee must know more about football than the female employee solely because of his gender. Therefore, it does indeed constitute discrimination but the provided explanation is wrong. Whose explanation is correct?

Yours. It’s illegal discrimination to assign a project based on gender (“men know more about football than women do”) but not to assign a project based on a specific person’s knowledge or interest (“Lucas knows the most about football”).

Whoever presented this training (a) doesn’t have a good grasp of the material and (b) probably got sidetracked by the gendered nature of the sport and hopefully would recognize that “I’m assigning X to Lucas because he knows a ton about frogs” would be fine.

5. Are non-competes still legal?

I had a recruiter reach out to me for a job at a direct competitor. I’m not looking to leave, but I also mentioned that I have a non-compete.

He told me those “aren’t a thing anymore” and it wouldn’t hold up in court anyway. But I’ve been tracking them and saw that the FTC was trying to pass a law in September to stop non-competes nationally but it was being challenged by two different Texas courts and now the law is in limbo.

The recruiter said I was wrong, so I wanted to ask you since I know you have reported on them in the past. Can you give us an update? Again, I’m not looking to leave, but if I was I wouldn’t be comfortable with “it wouldn’t hold up in court.”

Yes, non-competes are still legal at the federal level.

In April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced it would ban them for most U.S. workers, saying they stifle wages. But before that could take effect, two federal courts (one in Texas and one in Florida) issued injunctions blocking it, saying the agency lacked the authority to issue the rule. The FTC was originally expected to appeal those rulings, but that’s much less likely to happen under the new administration.

In addition, in 2023 the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) general counsel issued a memo stating that non-competes violate the National Labor Relations Act in most circumstances. However, that general counsel has been removed by the new administration, and that directive is very likely to be rescinded.

So for the time being, non-competes remain legal federally.

However, four states ban non-competes completely (California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma), and 33 more plus Washington, D.C. restrict them (generally via banning them for hourly wage workers or workers below a salary threshold).