A strong answer. “My first question isn't about the employee, it's about the manager: has this person been told, clearly, that their performance is not acceptable — and would they say so if I asked them?

Because 'poor for months' with an immediate termination request almost always means the conversation never happened. The manager has been frustrated for months and has been giving feedback they believe was clear and the employee experienced as mild. That's extremely common, and the person genuinely does not know they're at risk.

If that's the case, then terminating now is unfair regardless of whether it's lawful, and it's also bad for the manager, who will do this again with the next person. So the intervention is with the manager.

I'd also want to know what changed. Someone who was performing and now isn't usually has a reason — a health issue, a caring responsibility, a change of manager, a role that shifted under them. Some of those carry legal protections in both India and the US, and all of them are things a decent employer should establish before acting.

On process: in India I'd be careful about whether this person is 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, because that changes the requirements materially and managers almost never know it. In the US I'd check for anything that makes at-will risky — a recent complaint, a leave request, a protected characteristic pattern in the team's exits.

Where I'd land: if the person has genuinely been told and given a fair chance and it hasn't changed, then the kindest thing is to move quickly and generously, and I'd support that fully. Dragging out an exit that everyone knows is coming is cruelty dressed as process.

What I wouldn't do is act as the manager's instrument. If they haven't done the work, my job is to make them do it, not to absorb the consequence of them not having.”