According to media accounts, most of those federal workers losing their jobs describe receiving nonpersonalized emails informing them they had been removed from their positions, with little communication from supervisors.

Employers are using a wider range of media to let workers know when their positions are being eliminated, with the traditional face-to-face meetings the most common.

But some employers rely on Zoom calls, emails and text messages to deliver the news, said Erica Roberts, who represents plaintiffs in employment litigation at Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight in Washington.

Roberts represents a client who was fired via text message, with the employer sending a picture of a termination notice. The manager sending the message let slip some information that suggested the employee was terminated due to a disability, Roberts said.

"That's not something that maybe would have happened in a formal HR meeting or a more structured setting, but with information messaging, you know it could be true that the decision-maker or manager says something that is evidence of a discriminatory animus," Roberts said.

But individual, face-to-face meetings with managers to announce a termination also might make it harder for an employer to control the messaging about the reason for termination, Roberts said.

"I think the takeaway is that there's a happy medium—you don't want to be too informal," Roberts said.

Text messages and social media are "a little informal for such a serious decision, and it can lead to employers kind of showing their hand as to what might have been their motivation. Then there's the other side, which is too impersonal, of mass emails or mass videos that lay off a significant amount of people. So there's a happy meeting, a place that would let employees feel heard and respected and maybe less frustrated at the whole process," Roberts said.

The rise of remote work has brought with it an increase in terminations delivered by Zoom, but in-person meetings are still by far the most common means, said Mark S. Goldstein, a labor and employment lawyer at Reed Smith in New York.

Goldstein's guidelines for a termination is to keep it short, convey the news up front, and give a reason for the termination. If the employee wants to respond to the termination or reasons, that's fine, as long as it's short and to the point, he said.

But Goldstein counsels that the employer should never apologize or get into a back-and-forth about the grounds for termination. At the end it's prudent to say, "We understand you feel that way but the decision is final," Goldstein said.

A face-to-face meeting is the best way to deliver a dismissal because when an employee is fired, "it's going to be one of the most, serious life events to happen to them," and usually they aren't being fired for intentional or nefarious behavior, Goldstein said. "And so they still deserve, as any human does, to be treated with dignity and respect on the way out."

Related: RTO reality check: Amazon's office shortage exposes return-to-work hurdles

Laying off employees via mass email doesn't pose a big legal risk as much as it poses a risk in damaging morale, both for the departing employee and for those who are left behind, Goldstein said. And if the news gets out, it can damage the reputation of an organization to reveal that they announce terminations in such a manner, he said.

And in-person meetings are favored because they allow a more personal approach, Goldstein said.

"It's often the case that an employee who's terminated will make the decision whether or not to bring some sort of claim based on how the termination media is conducted. If the termination is handled as delicately as possible, in as sensitive a way as possible, which would ideally include being in person to deliver the news, that would give them some comfort, and hopefully steer them away from bringing any sort of claim," Goldstein said.

Lisa Gingeleskie, a labor and employment lawyer at Lindabury, McCormick Estabrook & Cooper in Westfield, New Jersey, said she has seen an uptick in firings via Zoom or other videoconferencing platforms but not an increase in other non-traditional methods. She, like Goldstein, sees a face-to-face notice of termination as a way to reduce the chance of future lawsuits.

"Whether it's Zoom or Teams or text message or telephone, there's definitely a lack of a personal touch" with remote terminations.

"And I think that can often be perceived as a lack of respect to that individual. And what happens when you have an employee who feels disrespected or disgruntled, they may feel additional disrespect during that termination process, and then the chances of that employee potentially bringing a claim against the company, provided they have valid grounds to do so, go up. They feel that they've been wronged, and they may be looking for a way to get back to the organization." Gingeleskie said.

Another consideration favoring in-person firings, Gingeleskie said, is that an employee who is fired in a Zoom call is more likely to make an audio recording of what transpires than an employee is terminated face to face.

"People are less reluctant to go into a face-to-face meeting and pull out their phones, or maybe have their phones in their pockets and hit record, whereas, when you're sitting behind a screen, no one sees what's sitting next to you on your desk," Gingeleskie said. "You can have that additional layer of protection with the screen."