An experienced HR partner, on demand.
Bring Tova the HR issue before you send the email, deliver the write-up, make the termination decision, or walk into a difficult conversation.
Tova does more than generate a generic answer. She asks the questions an experienced HR business partner would ask, works through the facts with you, applies your workplace policies, identifies missing information, and flags potential legal and employee-relations risks. She helps you assess consistency, consider the practical consequences of each option, and decide what to do and say next.
What makes Tova different from a general-purpose AI tool is the knowledge and judgment behind her guidance. Her approach is grounded in a curated library of employment laws, regulations, agency guidance, policies, legal resources, risk frameworks, investigation tools, and practical playbooks developed and selected by Ali Jubelirer over her career as an employment attorney, general counsel, head of HR, compliance officer and business owner/operator.
Tova has also been shaped around the way Ali handles real workplace situations: gathering the right facts before reaching a conclusion, separating legal risk from management judgment, testing whether decisions are consistent and well documented, and recognizing when the better answer is to proceed, pause, gather more information, or involve counsel.
That means Tova is not simply searching the internet or producing a polished version of whatever the user asks. She reviews and synthesizes the information through a defined employment-law and HR decision-making framework, while taking into account the employer’s policies, workforce, location, prior decisions, and the specific facts of the situation.
You leave with a clearer decision, a practical plan, and language you can actually use - whether that means preparing for a conversation, documenting an issue, following up with an employee, holding off while you gather more information, or escalating the matter for legal review.
It is thoughtful, practical HR guidance when you need it, informed by the experience and resources behind an accomplished employment attorney and HR executive, without waiting for a meeting or adding a full-time HR hire.
Practical guidance based on the facts reasonably available
Tova uses a proprietary HR escalation framework to evaluate the seriousness of the proposed action, potential compliance concerns, the strength and consistency of the record, and the scope of the issue. She provides practical guidance based on the facts reasonably available, identifies the assumptions and safeguards that matter most, and recommends attorney input only when the issue calls for legal, not just HR, judgment.
Sample transcripts
Two situations, worked end-to-end. Tova asks first, gives a recommended path, a recommendation you can push back on, and a factual-confidence read, without stoplight emojis and without defaulting to "talk to a lawyer."
Attendance, chronic lateness, no protected-activity overlay
Manager opens with a lateness complaint. Tova asks the questions that actually change the picture, then gives a practical recommendation without routing to counsel.
AI-generated HR guidance, not a legal opinion
Tova applies HR decision frameworks and issue-spotting resources to the facts you provide. This assessment was generated by AI and has not been reviewed by Ali Jubelirer or another attorney unless the output expressly states otherwise. It does not provide legal advice, create an attorney-client relationship, or establish attorney-client privilege. The assessment may be incomplete or incorrect if relevant facts are missing, the information provided is inaccurate, or the applicable law has changed. Review the output before acting and engage licensed employment counsel when legal advice is needed. Full Terms & Disclaimers.
Before I give you a real answer, which state is he in, how long has he been in role, and what's already in his file (verbal coachings, prior write-ups, attendance policy acknowledgment)?
Two more: has he raised anything in the last ~6 months, FMLA, ADA, a complaint, safety report, wage issue? And are there other leads with similar attendance you've handled differently?
Good, that's enough to call it.
Recommended path
Tova can guide
Recommendation
A written warning is a reasonable next step. Cite the attendance policy, identify the 14 tardies and the two prior coachings, and state the expectations and consequences going forward. Because no written warning has been issued yet, following your normal progressive-discipline process will keep the record consistent.
Why
- Dated coaching notes on 8/12 and 9/4, plus a signed policy acknowledgment, give you a clean paper trail.
- Two other leads at 6–8 tardies were written up in the same window; this employee is at 14. Consistency runs in your favor.
- No leave, complaint, or safety report on the table in the last ~180 days.
- Ohio at-will; no local ordinance changes execution here.
Safeguards or assumptions
- Assuming the prior verbal coachings were tied to the attendance policy (not general performance).
- Deliver the warning in writing, obtain a signature or document any refusal.
What could change the recommendation
- The employee surfaces a medical or protected-leave reason for the tardies.
- New comparator information (another lead with 14+ tardies not written up).
Next steps
- Pull the 14 attendance dates and attach them to the warning.
- Deliver the warning this week; sign or document a refusal.
- Place the warning and prior coaching notes in the HR file; reassess in 30 days.
Factual confidence
Higher factual confidence. The main facts needed for an HR recommendation appear available and reasonably consistent. Additional information could still change the assessment.
Termination on the table, protected-activity timing
Same ask-first workflow, different facts. Tova gives the HR recommendation, names the specific legal question, and offers to prepare an attorney-review packet, not a bare referral to counsel.
AI-generated HR guidance, not a legal opinion
Tova applies HR decision frameworks and issue-spotting resources to the facts you provide. This assessment was generated by AI and has not been reviewed by Ali Jubelirer or another attorney unless the output expressly states otherwise. It does not provide legal advice, create an attorney-client relationship, or establish attorney-client privilege. The assessment may be incomplete or incorrect if relevant facts are missing, the information provided is inaccurate, or the applicable law has changed. Review the output before acting and engage licensed employment counsel when legal advice is needed. Full Terms & Disclaimers.
Which state, how long in role, and what's actually in the performance file, reviews, PIP, written warnings, contemporaneous 1:1 notes?
Two things: has she raised anything in the last ~6 months, HR complaint, harassment/discrimination allegation, leave, accommodation, wage complaint, safety report? And any offer letter, equity, or severance/arbitration terms I should know about?
This one changes shape with that last fact.
Recommended path
Tova can guide; attorney input may be helpful
HR recommendation
Consider holding off on termination this week. A written 60–90 day performance improvement plan with measurable, documented goals and weekly check-ins would give the employee an opportunity to improve while building the contemporaneous record the current file is missing. A negotiated separation is another option, though the thin documentation may make that path more expensive and less predictable.
Legal issue to consider
The internal harassment complaint closed about 5 weeks ago sits inside the window where a termination now would invite a retaliation read, particularly in California. A short call with employment counsel on the timing and the PIP language would be worth it before either path is finalized.
Why
- "Meets" review 11 months ago, no PIP, no written warnings, 1:1 notes that read as project updates. The record is thin for a termination on stated performance grounds.
- Complaint closed ~5 weeks before the contemplated action. That timing creates a meaningful retaliation concern under FEHA and Title VII.
- Comparator history is unknown; other marketing managers who missed two quarters may or may not have been PIP'd before separation.
- California adds execution risk on final pay and PAGA if any wage-hour cleanup is needed at separation.
Safeguards or assumptions
- Assuming the complaint and the performance concerns are genuinely separate; keep the PIP tied only to the missed goals, not to anything raised in the complaint.
- Confirm how similarly situated marketing managers with comparable misses were handled before finalizing any path.
- Preserve email, Slack, and file records related to the complaint, the investigation closure, and the performance history.
What could change the recommendation
- Solid comparator evidence that peers who missed two quarters were terminated without a PIP.
- A material new performance event (missed client, quality incident) that documents itself.
- The employee raising retaliation, requesting leave or accommodation, asking for severance, or involving counsel — which would move this to attorney review before any next step.
What Tova can do now
- Draft the 60–90 day PIP with measurable goals and weekly check-in prompts.
- Build a timeline of the complaint, investigation closure, prior reviews, and 1:1 notes for counsel review.
- Prepare a short attorney-review packet (facts, comparator questions, PIP draft, timing analysis) you can send to employment counsel for a 30-minute call.
Factual confidence
Workable factual gaps. Some information is missing (comparator history, whether the complaint touched anyone in the current decision chain), but there is enough to give a practical recommendation. Tova has identified the assumptions and the facts most likely to change the analysis.