Texas HR Consulting for High-Stakes People Decisions.
Return to HR FAQ Library

What should a nonprofit executive director do when the board demands an employee be fired?

Boards govern; executive directors manage. When that line blurs, the organisation absorbs the risk of both.

Last updated: August 02, 2026

Direct Answer

When the board demands an employee be fired, the executive director should first confirm the facts, review relevant policies, and ensure the request aligns with documented performance or conduct issues. It’s essential to follow a consistent process that respects legal and operational standards. Simply acting on the board’s directive without due diligence risks compliance and morale problems, so a thoughtful, documented approach is crucial.

Controlling authority: Texas at-will employment, limited by Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck (Tex. 1985), Tex. Labor Code ch. 21, the federal anti-discrimination statutes, and NLRA section 7 — which applies in workplaces with no union.

The governance boundary, and why it exists

The board’s role in a nonprofit often includes oversight of leadership and policies, but direct involvement in individual employment decisions can create challenges. Executive directors must balance respecting the board’s authority with their responsibility to manage staff fairly and legally. This means verifying that any termination request is based on valid, documented reasons and not on impulse or incomplete information. It’s a matter of maintaining operational control while honoring governance structures.

In practice, this situation often arises amid competing pressures: the board may feel urgency to act, but the executive director must ensure the process aligns with organizational policies and employment laws. Taking a moment to gather facts, consult policies, and document the rationale protects the organization from legal risk and preserves trust among employees. Leadership accountability involves not just compliance but also maintaining a sustainable and respectful workplace.

What makes public-sector discipline different in Texas Texas Attorney General, open government; Tex. Labor Code ch. 21. Table by Faulkner HR Solutions.
DifferenceEffect on the processPractical consequence
Possible property interest in continued employmentDue process may be owed before deprivation — notice and an opportunity to respondThe pre-termination meeting is a legal step, not a courtesy.
Public Information Act exposureDiscipline records may be subject to releaseWrite every record expecting it to be read by someone outside the organisation.
Open meetings constraintsPersonnel matters have specific rules about closed sessionDiscussing an individual in the wrong forum creates a separate violation.
Elected officials in the chainCouncilmembers and board members frequently lack authority to direct disciplineActing on their instruction can expose the organisation and the individual manager.
Civil service or local rulesMay add steps, timelines and appeal rightsThe statutory floor is not the operative standard.
Political visibilityDecisions are second-guessed publiclyLevel 4 documentation is not optional here.

Board involvement in a single personnel decision creates its own exposure

What I see employers often miss is treating board demands as mandates without question. This can lead to knee-jerk terminations that overlook critical process steps like progressive discipline, employee input, or thorough investigation. Ignoring these steps usually surfaces later as grievances, legal challenges, or damage to team morale. The risk is not usually the rule itself; it’s the inconsistent process around it.

Another common oversight is failing to document the reasons and steps leading to termination. Memory is not a system, and when documentation is lacking, defending the decision becomes difficult if challenged. Also, boards sometimes lack full context or legal insight, so executive directors must bridge that gap by clarifying the operational realities and compliance boundaries before acting.

The Pre-Termination Gate CheckFour gates an employer should clear before a termination meeting: the standard was stated, the facts were recorded, comparators were checked, and protected activity was screened.GATE 1StandardWas the expectationstated beforeit was breached?GATE 2RecordDo contemporaneousfacts exist, atLevel 3 or above?GATE 3ComparatorHas anyone else donethis and kepttheir job?GATE 4ProtectedLeave, complaint,claim or concertedactivity in play?All four gates met → employer liability is available to the claimant.Any gate not met → the conduct may still be lawful, and still expensive.
Figure The Pre-Termination Gate Check. Gates 1 and 2 are about whether the decision is supportable. Gates 3 and 4 are about whether it is defensible, and they are the two employers skip when the decision feels obvious. Faulkner HR Solutions. Original framework, 2026. Cite as: Faulkner, T.W. (2026). The Pre-Termination Gate Check. Faulkner HR Solutions.

Where board-driven terminations fail

Overriding established HR processes on board demands can expose your nonprofit to operational and legal risks that impact sustainability and trust.

  • Terminating without documented cause or investigation.
  • Ignoring progressive discipline or corrective steps.
  • Acting on incomplete or biased information.
  • Failing to align with policy and compliance requirements.
  • Damaging employee morale and leadership credibility.

Put the authority question in writing first

Before proceeding, review the employee’s performance records, prior disciplinary actions, and any relevant policies or contracts. Assess whether the board’s reasons align with documented facts. This step ensures the decision is grounded in evidence, not emotion or politics. It also provides an opportunity to consider alternatives, such as coaching or reassignment, which might better serve organizational health.

Next, evaluate the consistency of how similar issues have been handled in your organization. Consistency supports defensibility and fairness. Finally, verify that the termination process complies with all applicable laws and internal protocols. This comprehensive review helps executive directors maintain operational control and protects against unintended consequences like litigation or public scrutiny.

Free tool

Termination Risk Calculator

Scores a specific termination decision before the meeting, not after it.

When the board will not step back

Engage HR professionals when the situation involves unclear facts, complex compliance issues, or potential legal exposure. Expert guidance can help interpret policies, advise on documentation, and navigate sensitive conversations with the board and employee. This support is particularly valuable when capacity is limited or the stakes are high.

Bringing in HR expertise early prevents costly mistakes and reinforces leadership accountability. It also helps ensure that the process is not just a formality but a meaningful system that holds up under real-world pressures. When in doubt, consulting HR is a practical investment in operational durability and risk reduction.

Need Help Navigating Board-Driven Termination Requests?

Faulkner HR Solutions specializes in practical, strategy-backed HR consulting for nonprofits facing complex leadership challenges. Contact us to ensure your termination decisions are compliant, well-documented, and operationally sound—protecting your organization and its people.

Contact Us Today

Written and reviewed by Dr. Thomas W. Faulkner, DBA, MBA, MSML, SPHR, LSSBB, principal consultant at Faulkner HR Solutions, a Texas HR consulting firm based in San Antonio serving small businesses, nonprofits, municipalities, and public sector employers.

This page provides general HR information for employers and is not legal advice. For legal interpretation or representation, consult qualified employment counsel.