A Manager Finds Out That a Direct Report Has Been Quietly Job Hunting for Six Months. The Employee’s Performance Has Been Fine. Now the Manager Is Thinking About Reassigning Projects, Starting Documentation, and Alerting Other Managers. What Can — and Can’t — She Do With That Information?

Quick Answer

When a manager learns that a direct report is job hunting — through LinkedIn, a colleague’s comment, or any other means — and the employee’s performance has been satisfactory, what employment actions can the manager take on the basis of that knowledge?

Very few. Job searching is a protected activity in many jurisdictions and a universally recognized right in all of them. A manager who uses knowledge of an employee’s job search to take adverse employment actions — reassigning projects, removing responsibilities, excluding from high-visibility opportunities, starting documentation of “performance concerns” that weren’t previously flagged, or alerting other managers to create downstream consequences — is engaging in constructive dismissal behavior and potentially unlawful retaliation regardless of whether any formal HR process has been initiated. The correct response to learning an employee is job hunting is to manage them exactly as you would have without that knowledge — and if the relationship or retention issue is worth addressing, address it directly and transparently rather than through preemptive adverse actions.

The Situation

A regional marketing manager at a consumer products company has seven direct reports. Last week a colleague mentioned in passing that one of them — James, a senior marketing analyst who has been with the company for four years — is “actively looking.” The colleague saw his profile on LinkedIn with “Open to Work” enabled and had heard through mutual contacts that he’s had two external interviews in the past month. James’s performance in his current role has been consistently rated “Meets Expectations” — nothing outstanding, nothing problematic.

The manager is now thinking through her options. James is currently leading a six-month customer segmentation project that’s critical to the Q3 strategy. If he leaves mid-project, it will be disruptive. She’s also been considering recommending him for a cross-functional leadership rotation — now she’s not sure that investment makes sense. She’s thinking about: reassigning the segmentation project to someone else “for development purposes”; starting to document performance observations she hasn’t previously flagged; and telling the VP of Sales informally that James might be leaving soon, so the VP can plan accordingly.

She hasn’t spoken to James about any of this.

Choice AImplement the protective measures she’s considering — reassign the critical project, begin documenting performance observations, and alert the VP of Sales. These are reasonable precautions a responsible manager takes when they know a key employee may be leaving. If James leaves mid-project without notice, it could seriously damage the Q3 plan.

Choice BConsult HR before taking any action — specifically describing the information she received, what she is considering doing, and asking HR to advise on what is and isn’t permissible. Continue managing James exactly as before that conversation. Do not take any of the three contemplated actions without HR guidance.

Choice CHave a direct conversation with James — acknowledge that she’s heard he may be exploring other opportunities, ask directly whether there’s a retention conversation worth having, and let James know she values his work on the segmentation project. Manage the relationship transparently, rather than based on the information she has.

The Right Call

Choice B first — consult HR. Choice C may follow with HR guidance. Choice A is the path most likely to create legal exposure.

Choice A creates exposure to constructive dismissal and potentially unlawful retaliation. Reassigning a high-visibility project from an employee whose performance is satisfactory, starting to document performance concerns that weren’t previously raised, and alerting other managers to the employee’s job search — all triggered by knowledge of job searching activity — are adverse employment actions taken on the basis of the employee’s exercise of a protected right. If James later claims he was pushed out or that his career was sabotaged within the organization based on his job search, the paper trail of these three actions taken immediately after the manager learned he was searching is powerful evidence. Choice C is often the right human response, but HR should be consulted before that conversation — the manager needs to know what she can and can’t say before she creates a record of the conversation.

“Reasonable precautions” and “adverse employment actions” describe the same set of behaviors.

The manager’s framing is entirely self-consistent: she’s protecting the project, documenting what she’s observed, and being transparent with colleagues about risk. Every step feels like responsible management. From James’s perspective — and from an employment law perspective — these are the exact actions a manager takes to paper a termination or push an employee out: removing high-visibility work, starting documentation with no prior history, and creating organizational reputation damage through informal alerts to other leaders. The behaviors don’t have two interpretations. They have one effect regardless of the manager’s intent.

The timing creates the legal exposure even if each action is independently defensible.

Reassigning a project for development purposes is routine. Documenting performance observations is good management practice. Alerting stakeholders to succession risk is legitimate planning. Each action, taken independently without the context of James’s job search, may be entirely defensible. Taken within days of learning James is searching, they create a timeline that employment attorneys call “suspicious proximity” — and that courts and arbitrators regularly use to infer retaliatory or constructive dismissal intent regardless of the manager’s explanation for each individual action.

The information the manager received may itself be a privacy issue.

A colleague informally telling the manager that James is “actively looking,” based on LinkedIn profile activity and interview rumors, is sharing information about an employee’s private job search. In some jurisdictions, employee privacy protections limit what information employers can collect and act on regarding outside employment activity. The manager’s first step — before deciding what to do with the information — should be to determine whether she is permitted to act on it at all. HR can advise on both the permissibility of the information itself and the permissibility of the actions under consideration.

Can an employer take adverse employment actions against an employee who is job hunting?

Generally not on the basis of job searching alone. While employment-at-will doctrine permits termination for almost any reason in many US states, taking adverse employment actions specifically because an employee is exercising their right to seek other employment can constitute wrongful constructive dismissal, violation of implied contract terms, or — in certain circumstances — retaliation if the job searching is connected to a protected activity. Employment law varies significantly by jurisdiction. Actions taken with suspicious proximity to the discovery of the job search create evidentiary risk regardless of the employer’s stated rationale for each individual action.

What should a manager do if they have a legitimate business need to reassign a project or change an employee’s responsibilities, and they have also recently learned the employee is job hunting?

Consult HR before taking the action — specifically disclosing that the manager recently learned of the employee’s job search and describing the independent business rationale for the change. HR can assess whether the business rationale is sufficiently independent and document the legitimate basis for the action in a way that protects the organization from a subsequent adverse action claim. Actions taken with HR consultation and documented independent business rationale are significantly more defensible than the same actions taken without disclosure immediately after learning of the job search.

Is a manager permitted to have a direct conversation with an employee about their job search?

It depends on how the conversation is structured and what the manager says. A manager can legitimately discuss retention — asking whether the employee is satisfied in their role, whether there are development or compensation needs that aren’t being met, and what would make the employee want to stay. A manager cannot pressure an employee to disclose their job search status, make implied or explicit threats about consequences of job searching, or use the conversation to gather information that will then be used to justify adverse actions. HR guidance before the conversation is the best protection against a conversation that starts well and creates legal exposure through an inadvertent statement.

How to Use This Scenario in Training

Recommended for all managers and people leaders — particularly front-line and mid-level managers who make day-to-day employment decisions without always consulting HR first. Most effective as part of manager compliance training that covers the full spectrum of employment law obligations: what triggers HR consultation requirements, what constitutes an adverse employment action, and how timing creates legal exposure independent of intent.

This scenario demonstrates the self-protection rationalization from the Decision Readiness Engine™ — “I’m just making reasonable preparations” is the reasoning that makes each of the three contemplated actions feel individually justified, while the cumulative effect creates constructive dismissal exposure. Decision-ready managers recognize when HR consultation is required before taking actions that could be characterized as adverse, and consult HR while there is still time to establish a documented independent business rationale.

More Manager Compliance Scenarios