Dillon V. Champion Jogbra

Separate Opinions: Judgment was affirmed by Judges Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ. , as they believed Allen was discharged for taking unauthorized breaks from her scheduled employment. Since Allen failed to present evidence of a discriminatory motive from Isotoner, or that reason for releasing her from employment was a ground for discrimination, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ. felt only the issues presented by the facts of Isotoner discharging Allen due to ‘unauthorized breaks’ should be decided on, while issues of the facts not directly placed on issue should only be responded to with advisory opinion.

In 1980, a precedent was set in a Michigan court case involving a man named Charles Toussaint who was suing his employer, BlueCross Blue Shield, for wrongful termination based on the guidelines set in the employee manual (Alfred and Bertsche 33). The manual stated that employees would only be terminated for just cause, and the court decided that Blue Cross had violated the agreements in the employee manual (34). The court also ruled that even with Blue Cross’s efforts to provide a document that “issued non-binding guidelines” the employee manual was a contract and Toussiant was wrongfully terminated (34). After the precedent set by this case many employers and employees for that matter were reviewing their employee manuals for the type of

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,

This appeal arises out of an order of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County affirming the decision of the Board of Appeals (“Board”) of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (“DLLR”) to deny appellant’s, Gallen Floyd’s (“Floyd’s”), application for unemployment insurance benefits. Floyd contends that the Board found he was terminated due to gross misconduct in want of substantial evidence to support its conclusion. Additionally, Floyd avers the Board erroneously considered hearsay evidence in violation of procedural due process.

The employer breached the implied oral contract because in less than two months Dillon was called into her supervisor’s office and was terminated from that position in which the employer stated that it was not working out. The written contact, according to the Champion Jogbra’s policy, was that actions will be carried out “in a fair and consistent manner.” Concerning the disclaimer at the start of the manual, it was inconsistent with the terms of the Corrective Action policy. The Champion’s employees, including Dillon, could interpret an implied contract because of mixed messages they received from the written manual, the disciplinary action policy, the at-will relationship explained, and the oral statements given.

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

The ruling of this case shows that employees need to pay close attention to their employment contracts. They need to fully understand the implications or effects of the employment at will doctrine before signing the offer

In Gilmore v. Enogex, Inc., 878 P. 2d 360 (Okla. 1994), while citing Hinson, recognized that an implied employment contract claim might be brought based solely on the language of an employee manual; in Hayes, 905 P 2d at 783 ( handbook promises to job security which are definite and not “vague assurances” may be enforceable if reasonably relied on by employee).

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

In the case of Elaine and Jerry employer legal issues including exceptions at-will employers' teachings and many different kinds of discrimination, they terminated in the plaintiff. Also it has a huge career opportunities, including Elaine look forward to the possibility of a great career opportunity. There are several problems in this case. Bearing in mind that the employer is an at-will employer; does the company need to give a reason for termination of employment? Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiff accused of discrimination? Is a valid contract labor contract or papers on the table?

Company X is an organization with more than 75 employees and is currently dealing with some complexities. The Director of the Human Resource Department was tasked with evaluating three particular situations and must determine whether a violation has occurred and which statutes apply to each matter. The Director of H.R. is responsible for recruitment and vocational procedures and must ensure that they are in compliance with federal law that is relevant to employee care. The first case is Situation A, which involves an employee whose wife had twins prematurely and subsequently, the employee requested leave, which was approved. The employee asked to be allowed to return to work after 11 weeks and for his withheld salary to be paid. The new manager approved his return to work to his previous position and pay but denied his second request. Situation B is the succeeding case, that involves a 68-year-old employee who has been with the company for over forty years and during his last annual review was said to be above average in his work. He was passed over for a promotion as a result of his advanced age. The promotion was given to someone younger who score lower during the annual review.

The union and management teams; after negotiating for a while, came to a decision that Mary will be given 4 weeks of unpaid suspension along with quarterly performance appraisals. This would ensure that Mary stays focused on her work and completes the designated tasks competently and within the assigned period. The management stated that any further breach of contract, i.e. violation of the employment policy, will result in an immediate termination. The union team was successful in proposing that Mary be given proper training that would aid in her work and hence got the management to agree that Mary would be given unpaid training during her 4th week of suspension. That way the management would not have to pay her for the training period

This report covers a series of situations relative to an employee that is vicious and obviously abusing what the at-will doctrine stands for. The author is asked how to respond to each situation given the facts that surround the matter and the relevant law and other implications that are applicable to that situation.

Roeling in his article “The Employment At-Will Doctrine: Second Level Ethical Issues and Analysis.” To the author, it is important the at-will relationship be made known to a prospective employee at the soonest opportunity in order to provide informed consent to the employment relationship. To not do so, allows for misconceptions about the employment relationship to arise. But at the same time, hiring managers need to be trained not to avoid hiring people who have some legal protection under state, federal or income law from unlawful discharge. While it is not required, if an employee is to be terminated, it should be done in an ethical fashion under fair conditions without any personal bias as part of the decision.

Both Management and employees need to be educated about the laws governing Industrial Relations in Jamaica. In doing so, parties would be cognizant that trade unions have been apart of the social arrangements in organization for a long time and any experience gained from the exercise could be of immense value in the future.