I've seen a lot of hiring managers miss out on great candidates because they assume that someone laid off probably wasn't a top performer ("if they were, the company would have found a way to keep them"). Of course, reality is great people do get laid off when companies draw really broad lines like "everyone hired within the past year" or "the entire division of X". Or sometimes it's just being on the wrong side of your manager, director, or whoever is making the decision. Hell, sometimes it's "all the people who we felt were at risk of leaving in the next few months anyway".

But the other reason companies in the US do this is to shield against liability. If you are terminated, you could later claim wrongful termination. While if you resign, it's much harder.

> I've seen a lot of hiring managers miss out on great candidates because they assume that someone laid off probably wasn't a top performer

The distinction I was trying to draw was between firing-for-cause and layoffs; I believe there is more negative association with the former.

> But the other reason companies in the US do this is to shield against liability. If you are terminated, you could later claim wrongful termination. While if you resign, it's much harder.

Pretty hard to claim wrongful termination for a non-cause layoff in the US with typical at-will employment.

SWE @ Lyft: Just one data point, but we went through a layoff last month. Every person I knew closely who was laid off had one or more weak performance reviews in the last year.

Not saying this is always the case, but there is some truth in this concern that might make hiring managers weary.

Sure. Like any generalization, there is always some truth. But it's still a generalization.

Also, generally, well-run companies don't need covid-like events to cull the herd. They're managing low-performers out regularly.