Employment At Will Doctrine Of The United States

1824 WordsFeb 7, 20178 Pages
Employment-At-Will Doctrine Joann Cheeks Professor Lori Baggot LEG 500 February 1, 2017 EMPLOYMENT-AT-WILL DOCTRINE In the United States the employment-at-will doctrine came about in the nineteenth century where the climate was unrestrained and unrestricted. Horace C Wood articulated the doctrine in 1877 in an essay entitles Master and Servant. Wood’s view on employment relations was one shared by many of his legal colleagues. Wood’s original statement contains no reason for the rule but it seemed plausible. The reasoning was if employees are unable to quit a job at any time then the possibility of involuntary servitude would exist, which is prohibited in the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The doctrine of mutuality of…show more content…
When an employee is summoned for jury duty the employer must allow them to serve, the only stipulation is that employees give adequate notice. Everyone is legally required to serve jury; failing to appear for jury duty subjects an individual to fines and jail time. The organization is generally not required to pay an employee for absences due to jury duty, but if the boss fires her, the organization could and most likely be charged with wrongful termination. The employment-at-will-doctrine would be violated for such actions. When an employer fires an employee on an improper basis it’s called wrongful termination. Improper basis includes discrimination, retaliation and failure to follow proper termination policies. In order to limit liability and the impact on operations Anna will not be terminated for her absence (Galst, Liz 2010). A department supervisor wishes to fire his secretary for insubordination. The secretary has always received stellar reviews therefore it is important to sit down with her to discuss the reason for her recent behavior. Upon talking to her it was learned that the problem started when her supervisor wanted her to falsify his expense reports. This action is fraud and she had every right to refuse to take part in this unethical behavior. She was informed that we have a whistleblowing policy that she could have taken advantage of employees should never have to work under these conditions. She was also
Open Document