A Report on At-Will Doctrine in Workplaces

An “at will” employee is an employee who agreed to a contract in which they can be fired at any time, for almost any reason. The law generally presumes that employees are employed at will unless they can prove otherwise.

However, the ruling in this case and others like it prove that employers can, in fact, be bound by articles written in an employee handbook when disciplining or discharging an employee. An abysmally written handbook can greatly jeopardize an employer’s right to terminate at will. Trends show that courts are increasingly acknowledging enforceable promises in the past employment practices of firms, in employer handbooks and in oral commitments. In addition to including an at-will disclaimer in employee handbooks, employers should also require employees to sign an acknowledgment confirming that they understand and agree to employment-at-will and that at-will employment can at any time be modified by a written agreement. Personnel manuals should explicitly state that the employer reserves the right to terminate employment at will. All written policies should also be free of any language that could be considered as a guarantee of job security. To be sure that these common pitfalls are avoided employers must retain the service of a labor attorney to draft and air-tight employee manual and acknowledgment

The employment At-Will doctrine is in place to allow employment relationships to be restricted. It allows employers and employees to terminate a relationship at any time without cause. The doctrine will allow employees to quit without any fear of being held liable for any inconvenience or disruption to the business at the time of quitting. This doctrine also allows employers to make any changes towards an employee’s term of employment (N, 2017). However, some exceptions could prevent an employee to make those changes if the employee is covered in that particular area. Doyle A

In dealing with a person’s livelihood, and often, sense of self, it is of no surprise that ethical issues regarding employment practices are of great concern. The issues of employment at will and due process contracts in the workplace are among the most widely contentious in the realm of employment. Employment at will is the doctrine that employment may be ended, by either party, for good, bad or no cause at all.1 Due process, on the other hand, is the employment practice in which a person may appeal a decision as a means of receiving an explanation and the opportunity to argue against it.2 Employment at will is the standard in the majority of private corporations today and is argued for relentlessly by freedom of contract enthusiasts,

The legal process within the human resources department tries to format strategies and alliances that avoid negative activities affecting the employers and employees; however, exhibitions using common sense or compassion can conflict with these guidelines creating inappropriate behaviors. If this becomes the case, disciplinary actions begin bringing about other matters of legal issues. Nevertheless, once an individual believes they have been illegally mistreated, they become more apt to submit a lawsuit for purposes of revenge, financial struggles, or inapt employment securities (Alboher, 2012).

First piece of advice I would offer would be to calm down and let’s make a rational decision. How long as the problem been occurring and are there any plans of action to improve the employee? If not, then I would suggest a warning or correction needs to take place. In some cases, a verbal counseling might be the better way to go. This is a great way to talk about, attendance, communication and other behavioral issues. It appears that it could be an emotional feeling that management is feeling, because of the statement that was made about the employee. It is important for that proper documentation is provided and is there any chances that the employee is salvageable. Often time, there can be training implemented that allows management to correct the problem without termination taking place.

1. What is the legal issue in this case? Linda Dillon appealed her case against her employer, Champion Jogbra, on the grounds of wrongful termination. The company’s progressive policy for disciplinary action was not applied. Therefore, Dillon makes her claim that her at will status was modified according to the employee handbook and practices. Employee’s handbook should be written clearly and reviewed by legal experts (Walsh, 2010). Champion Jogbra countered that Dillon was an at-will employee and she could be terminated at any time. Dillon also, argues against that the

When we are dealing with the employment relationship between employers and employees, ethical issues are most likely to emerge. Especially, if a manager fires a worker without a proper reason, critics will follow this employer’s behavior. In Patricia Werhane’s paper, “Employment at Will and Due Process”, discusses two doctrines which are Employment at Will (EAW) and Due Process. It also addresses some justifications and objections for EAW, and shows Werhane’s supportive view to Due Process. In contrast, EAW is defended by Richard Epstein in his article “In Defense of the Contract at Will”. In my paper, I will attempt to develop my argument in favor of Employment at Will that could improve flexibility and efficiency of

Every day people are faced with dilemmas within their work place. Some of those dilemmas are minor while others are major and go against the ethics that people have. Some of them not only go against one’s personal ethics, but work ethics as well. Some are able to look past these dilemmas and continue on while others can’t and feel the needs to confront the person or person’s that are involved. One has to remember that their values maybe different than others and that is more so true within the work place than anywhere else’s. The work place is full off different people from different back grounds and all of these people are put

Employment at will is a law that is present in all fifty states in the US; although, in Montana there requires a stated cause for termination. Employment at will creates dissent among employees when they have been terminated for a cause that is thought to be unsubstantial or when no cause is given. There are pros and cons to the presumption, and employees and employers have different views. Employment at will means that the employer can terminate an employee at any time, for any cause without warning. However, even an at-will employee cannot be terminated because of discriminatory reasons. Employment at will also means that an employee can leave a job at any time without the fear of facing any legal consequences. An employer can also

The plaintiff can argue that these were the conditions that were used when she was hired. She sought out this job because she was offered great career opportunities but was never given the “career” or the opportunity to make $30,000 annually. This could be classified under intentional misrepresentation or fraud because the plaintiff was brought into the business with false statements. Something else that Elaine can argue is that she was discriminated. After she was fired, she was replaced by a man that had less job experience and a lower education than Elaine. Elaine might have been let go because of her sex. This could be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Employment at will is essentially a rule that strips employees and employers from their rights to due process when it comes to workplace termination. Under this principle employers may let any person go for any reason at any time during their employment with or without just cause. Your stature at the company, time worked, personal conduct; none of those things have to be taken into consideration if you are let go. This means that if an employee does not agree with their grounds for termination, they have no legal right to fight it in a court of law. Employment at will also allows employees to quit their job at any time, again regardless of having just reasoning or not. The only case where an employment at will principle would not apply is if an employee, when hired, signed a document that stipulates other specific terms and conditions regarding grounds for termination/quitting. An important thing to make note of is just as if an employee had signed a contract, they are made aware before being brought on full time, that they are an “at will” employee. These soon to be employees are voluntarily signing that they abide by what is defined in the employment at will principle.

Julia Martinez is not comfortable working with her boss. Her boss is making graphic comments and touching her when nobody is around. He is basically harassing her. However, it is her word against his because nobody has witnessed the incidents. This issue is of high significance for the organization. The company could be held responsible for what happens in the workplace.

Act as if what leads to this act could be a rule for everyone. If I fire the employee I am exposed to be fired in the same way. It will not be a rule for everyone because she is pregnant, the conditions are different and it is not equal with other employees.

Employment-at-will is a law that stipulate that as long as a employee is not been discriminated he or she can loose their job and any given time. This paper aims to analyze 8 different scenarios and determine whatever or not an employ can lose his or her job based in some behaviors, actions, or inactions that had lead to a somewhat hostile, aggressive, and even disrespectful work environment. At the same time the paper will address the importance of whistleblower police for any organization. While the employment-at-will allows employers to terminate their staff at any moment, at the same time it protect the staff from any type of discrimination.