Walking in the Gray Zone of HR Policies

We have all had times where we have accelerated our progressive discipline based on serious infractions to our policies. By contrast, how many times have we decelerated our policies based on a special set of circumstances?

Consider this...We have a long-term, great associate, who did something out of character (perhaps chewed out a co-worker in front of his/her peers) while they were going through a tough time. What criteria do we / should we use to "do the right thing" or should we stay on that solid granite surface that is policy and practice consistency.

Over my career, I have found that there are three areas where I was willing to "Walk in the Gray Zone" for a team member. This doesn't mean completely overlooking our procedures but, more so, taking a compassionate approach considering the overall circumstances.  I call these the "3-D's". If a team member is going through one of these, I would consider the unique circumstances and decelerate our policy so as not to create long-term consequences from a short-term, difficult period.

The 3-D's are Death, Divorce, and Disease. If a person is involved in one or more of these very challenging situations, they are changed and they probably don't have the life skills to manage through as eloquently as our policies would dictate. If you find yourself in a situation such as this, what would you do? What have you done? Would you use different criteria to walk in the gray zone or would you look at it in 3-D?