Employment-At-Will Doctrine Essay
Introduction
In the U. S. labor law, at-will employment stands for contractual relationships which provide an opportunity to the employer to dismiss his employees for any reason or cause and without any warning. According to researchers, in the United States, there is a disparity in the rights and privileges of the employees because unionized employees have job security, multiple benefits, and a wide range of statutory protections, while others, non-unionized employees are discharged at the will of the employer (Pratt, 1990, p. 197). The employees who are involved in at-will employment relationships constitute the majority of the workforce in the United States. As a recently-hired Chief Operating Officer (COO) in a mid-size company preparing for an Initial Public Offering (IPO), I should apply the proper skills, knowledge, and experience to quickly resolve multiple personnel problems faced by the organization. I need to analyze the employment-at-will doctrine and determine what exceptions and liabilities should be considered while taking any action. In addition, I should consider the fact that the company has no whistle-blower policy.
Summary of the Employment-At-Will Doctrine
The employment-at-will doctrine is aimed at providing employment for an indefinite period of time. This fact means that it can be terminated without warning either by the employer or by the employee. Practically in all states, excluding the state of Montana, employment relationships are governed by the employment-at-will doctrine. The term “Employment-at-will” is used to highlight the significance of a presumption that the employee is employed at the employer’s will without any contract for an indefinite period of time. There is no fixed term of employment relationships.
According to recent studies, since the 1970s, the legal consensus that provides support to the at-will employment relationships has been eroded significantly. A number of legal cases (1972-1992) were focused on the adoption by the U. S. state courts of the so-called common-law exceptions to the established employment-at-will doctrine. These exceptions were aimed at ensuring constraints on the ability of employers to terminate employees’ ‘at will.’ The classification of these common-law exceptions includes the following categories:
- Good Faith exception: the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
- Public policy exception: the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy
- Implied contract exception: the implied-in-fact contract that prohibits termination without good cause (Autor et al., 2007).
These exceptions can be viewed as limitations applied by the court; therefore, I should assess each of the situations to draw relevant conclusions.
Evaluation of Three Scenarios
Scenario 1
John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company s most important customer.
As a Chief Operating Officer (COO) in a mid-size company providing preparation for an Initial Public Offering (IPO), I cannot legally fire the employee because of the exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine. In this scenario, John made a decision to post a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized one of the key customers of the company. The implied contract exception means that the implied-in-fact contract prohibits termination without good cause. Good cause means reasonable grounds for termination based on the employee’s failure to succeed in performing job duties, which leads to disruption of business operations, or any other legitimate job-related reasons for termination of employment. In this scenario, there is no evidence that John has failed to perform his job duties. John’s criticism presented on the social media platform can be assessed as a mere violation of discipline or code of conduct. Besides, John’s firing would violate the Freedom of Speech provision which supports the use of social media tools to promote discussions of acute social problems.
Unfortunately, the company did not issue an official code of conduct that would include the issues like the use of social media tools by employees with the purpose to criticize the company or any stakeholders. Hence, the primary action that I should take to limit liability and reduce the negative impact of the employee’s behavior on the key business operations is to warn John of his unethical actions. The company’s code of conduct should include a policy that addresses the situation. The code of conduct could serve as an effective tool to prospect the company against the unethical actions of its employees. The ethical theory that best supports my decision is virtue ethics theory which is based on moral principles, ensuring compliance with the established norms and standards of morality and justice.
Scenario 2
Ellen started a blog to protest the CEO’s bonus, noting that no one below the director has gotten a raise in two (2) years and portraying her bosses as know-nothings and out-of-touch.
In this scenario, the employee is aware of the fact that her bosses are unprofessional in their working practice. They lack competence in resolving job-related issues and their knowledge is insufficient to address the needs of the company. Ellen makes a decision to use a social media tool in order to attract the attention of the public regarding inequality in terms of assigning the CEO’s bonus. The fact that no one below the director has gotten a raise in two years means that the company faces a problem of discrimination in the workplace. Undoubtedly, Ellen’s actions are acceptable as she protects the rights of employees which are supported by public policy. There are four categories within the public policy exception, one of which can be applied to this scenario, namely reporting a violation of the employment law (The At-Will Presumption and Exceptions to the Rule,2017). Nevertheless, Ellen should avoid giving negative characteristics to her bosses, in order to demonstrate her compliance with the company’s code of conduct. Besides, Ellen should learn more about the company’s compensation policy in order to identify its strengths and pinknesses. In some cases, companies do not guarantee raises and bonuses to their employees. Hence, under the employment-at-will doctrine, Ellen cannot be fired. Kant’s ethics theory that protects the autonomy of employees can be applied to support the decision.
Scenario 3
Bill has been using his company-issued BlackBerry to run his own business on the side.
In this scenario, Bill violated the established rules and regulations that guarantee the company’s reputation. The company-issues BlackBarry can be assessed as the property of the company. Bill had no legal right to use the company’s equipment for his own purposes. Bill runs his own business using the company’s property without permission. This act can be evaluated as unethical and immoral because of the violation of the company’s code of conduct. Under the employment-at-will doctrine, Bill’s actions had no legal protection. A global leader in mobile communications, BlackBerry is a global leader in the field of mobile communications and software solutions, and many companies select this brand to support their business operations. Unfortunately, employers do not allow their employees to use the company’s property for their own purposes.
As a Chief Operating Officer (COO), I would make a decision to avoid immediate termination to allow Bill to reassess his behavior. This is the primary action that I should take to limit liability and avoid a negative impact on the key business operations. It is necessary to warn the employee of the company’s privacy policy which does not permit using the company’s equipment for personal purposes. In case of repeated violation of the company’s policy, the employee could be fined. In this scenario, the three common-law exceptions under the employment-at-will doctrine are not applicable. According to the ethical theory of Utilitarianism, it is necessary to consider the totality of consequences or outcomes of any action. In this scenario, it would unreasonable for the company to permit it, employees, to utilize the company’s resources for personal purposes which do not correlate with the company’s business development and growth.
Examination of the state’s policy on employment-at-will
My state’s policy on employment-at-will ensures that all employers operating across the state should comply with the employment-at-will doctrine and recognize its exceptions, including the Good Faith exception, Public policy exception, and Implied contract exception. One of the real-world examples of an employee or employer utilizing the employment-at-will doctrine in the last five years is the case of Shomo v. Junior Corp., No. 7:11-cv-508 (W.D. Va. June 1, 2012). In this case, the plaintiff was Shomo, the employee at Junior Corporation, while Defendant was Junior Corporation itself. Shomo served as a waitress at the restaurant. She had romantic relations with the son of the employer. She alleged that the employer fired her for the reason of her pregnancy. She refused to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. In Shomo v. Junior Corp., a federal court was focused on the state’s law of employment-at-will doctrine in making decisions. The Court ruled that the employee could not pursue a wrongful termination cause of action because none of the exceptions could be applied to her situation. The Court granted a motion to dismiss.
Conclusion
Thus, it is necessary to conclude that the employment-at-will doctrine is a widely recognized law, which permits employers to fire their employees for any reason. It is crucial for employees to comply with the company’s code of conduct to avoid job-related disputes.
References
Autor, D. H., Kerr, W. R., Kugler, A. D. (2007). “Does Employment Protection Reduce Productivity? Evidence From US States,” The Economic Journal, 117(521): F189-F217. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02055.x/full
Navigating the Complex Rules Governing Employee Termination. (2017). Business Owners’ Toolkit. http://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/sbg/office-hr/managing-the-workplace/employee-termination-rules-are-complex.aspx
Pratt, R. J. (1990). “Unilateral Modification of Employment Handbooks: Further Encroachments on the Employment-at-Will Doctrine,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review,139 (1): 197-225.
Shomo v. Junior Corp., No. 7:11-cv-508 (W.D. Va. June 1, 2012). Retrieved from:<https://leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020120604949/SHOMO%20v.%20JUNIOR%20CORPORATION>
The At-Will Presumption and Exceptions to the Rule. (2017). NCSL (National Conference of State Legislations). http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx
