Some employers, when preparing to terminate an employee, offer what sounds like a softer option: the opportunity to resign voluntarily instead of being terminated. It is often framed as something that will “look better” on the employee’s record. On the surface, this approach may appear considerate or even helpful. In reality, it frequently creates legal, ethical, and credibility risks that HR professionals should not ignore.

The uncomfortable truth is that, in many cases, the real motivation behind this practice is avoiding unemployment compensation costs by labeling the separation as a voluntary resignation. While that may seem like a short term financial solution, unemployment agencies focus on what actually happened, not what the paperwork says. If an employee resigns because termination was imminent, many states will still treat the separation as involuntary, and unemployment benefits may be awarded anyway.

This practice also places HR in a difficult position. HR is expected to serve as the ethical and compliance anchor of the organization. When HR participates in reframing a termination as a resignation for financial or administrative reasons, it undermines trust and exposes the organization and HR professionals to scrutiny. These situations often resurface during unemployment hearings, EEOC investigations, or legal disputes, where documentation and intent are closely examined.

That does not mean resignation discussions are never appropriate. They can be, but only when the decision is truly voluntary and initiated by the employee. For example, an employee on a performance improvement plan may independently decide that the role is no longer the right fit and choose to resign without any indication that termination is inevitable. In that situation, HR can document the resignation as employee initiated and process the separation appropriately.

Where this becomes problematic is when resignation is presented as a substitute for a termination decision that has already been made. For example, telling an employee they can resign instead of being terminated, or suggesting resignation will “look better,” when termination is imminent undermines voluntariness. Even if the employee signs a resignation letter, unemployment agencies and courts often view this as an involuntary discharge.

There is also a cultural cost that is often overlooked. Employees talk, managers talk, and these practices shape perceptions of fairness. When people believe the organization manipulates outcomes to avoid obligations, trust erodes quickly. What may save money in the short term can cost credibility, engagement, and reputation in the long term.

Strong HR leadership does not rely on workarounds. It relies on transparency, documentation, and process. When termination is the right decision, HR must stand behind it with clarity and professionalism, document it accurately, and allow unemployment agencies to determine eligibility. In the end, protecting HR credibility, organizational integrity, and employee trust will always matter more than avoiding a claim.

Elga Lejarza

Founder & CEO

HRTrainingClasses.com

HR.Community