A post from December 9, 2025, that went viral exposed a Chennai-based product engineering firm. A laid-off developer shared the termination email he received, which cited "low loyalty indicators" such as not attending optional weekend sessions and not responding to WhatsApp messages after 11 p.m. The email also warned that future background checks might reflect his "lack of alignment," sparking public outrage. Thousands of comments criticized the company for moral policing and using guilt tactics instead of offering a dignified exit. The firm has not yet issued a public clarification, but insiders say internal HR groups are in damage-control mode.
The tech community reacted with anger, empathy, and disbelief. Many shared their experiences of bosses framing burnout as "lack of commitment." Others expressed fear that such language might normalize toxic expectations around availability. HR professionals felt embarrassed that such an email could come from their function, undermining years of effort to build trust-based workplaces. Middle managers privately admitted they feel pressure from founders to drive output through emotional manipulation, even if they disagree with it. The emotional undertone is raw: a sense that professional dignity is no longer guaranteed in turbulent markets.
From a compliance standpoint, the email raises red flags under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which emphasizes fair termination practices and prohibits intimidation. The implied threat about background verification may constitute an unfair labor practice, and any attempt to misrepresent an employee's record to third parties could create liability under the Indian Penal Code for defamation or under civil torts. HR must urgently review offboarding templates, train managers to avoid coercive language, and ensure exit communication adheres to principles of fairness and lawful conduct. Organizations should conduct post-layoff risk audits, document reasons for termination clearly, and avoid vague moralistic assessments that could be legally challenged.
How should HR craft layoff communication that is firm but humane? What stops companies from sliding into toxic language during high-pressure phases?
The tech community reacted with anger, empathy, and disbelief. Many shared their experiences of bosses framing burnout as "lack of commitment." Others expressed fear that such language might normalize toxic expectations around availability. HR professionals felt embarrassed that such an email could come from their function, undermining years of effort to build trust-based workplaces. Middle managers privately admitted they feel pressure from founders to drive output through emotional manipulation, even if they disagree with it. The emotional undertone is raw: a sense that professional dignity is no longer guaranteed in turbulent markets.
From a compliance standpoint, the email raises red flags under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which emphasizes fair termination practices and prohibits intimidation. The implied threat about background verification may constitute an unfair labor practice, and any attempt to misrepresent an employee's record to third parties could create liability under the Indian Penal Code for defamation or under civil torts. HR must urgently review offboarding templates, train managers to avoid coercive language, and ensure exit communication adheres to principles of fairness and lawful conduct. Organizations should conduct post-layoff risk audits, document reasons for termination clearly, and avoid vague moralistic assessments that could be legally challenged.
How should HR craft layoff communication that is firm but humane? What stops companies from sliding into toxic language during high-pressure phases?