The seven tests are the accepted standard for defining whether a boss has acted with just cause in a disciplinary event.
1. Was the employee adequately warned of the consequences of their conduct? The warning may be given orally or in printed form. An exception may be made for certain conduct that is so serious that the employee is expected to know it will be punishable.
2. Was the employer's rule or order reasonably related to efficient and safe operations? A shirt being tucked in could be related to safe operations; the color of the shirt is not.
3. Did management investigate before administering the discipline? The investigation normally should be made before the decision to discipline is made. Where immediate action is required, however, the best course is to suspend the employee pending investigation with the understanding that they will be restored to their job and paid for time lost if found not guilty.
4. Was the investigation fair and objective? If an incident happened, does the employer interview everyone present or only management people who were present? If the employer refuses to interview all witnesses, then the investigation may not be fair.
5. Did the investigation produce substantial evidence or proof of guilt? It is not required that the evidence be preponderant, conclusive, or "beyond reasonable doubt," except where the alleged misconduct is of such a criminal or reprehensible nature as to seriously impair the employee’s chances for future employment.
6. Were the rules, orders, and penalties applied evenhandedly and without discrimination? If enforcement has been lax in the past, management cannot suddenly reverse its course and begin to crack down without first warning employees of its intent.
7. Was the penalty reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the past record? If employee A's past record is significantly better than that of employee B, the employer properly may give employee A lighter punishment than employee B for the same offense.