Geosource Case Study

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,

"Labor Code section 2922, which provides that an employment relationship of unspecified duration may be terminated at the will of either party, establishes a presumption of at-will employment. This presumption may be overcome by evidence of an implied agreement that the employment would continue indefinitely, pending the occurrence of some event such as the employer 's dissatisfaction with the employee 's services or the existence of a cause for termination. (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 680, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373.) `[Factors apart from consideration and express terms may be used to ascertain the existence and content of an employment agreement, including the personnel policies or practices of the employer, the employee 's longevity of service, actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment, and the practices of the industry in which the employee is engaged. ' [Citation.]" (Soules v. Cadam, Inc. (1991) 2

One of the things everyone looks forward to is having security. However, the job market has not been strong enough to give job security. Since the Market crashed in 2008, there has been an increase in “at will” employees. At will employment means that the company or the firm has the right to terminate your employment at any given time for any reason with or without a legit cause. At will also give employees the flexibility to quit their job as they wish without giving any notice or reason. In “Employment at Will and Due Process” by Patricia A. Wethane and Tara J. Radin expresses their views on “At Will” employment. Radin and Werhane mention several views on ethical treatment of employees, in principle and in practice, against at will employment. In this article they believe it violates certain rights that employees have, it violates the principle of fairness, and there are certain legal objections.

Reasoning- The Supreme Court’s decision was split and provided various points of view on the issues just like the American population and some sections are still being challenged today. Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan to form the opinion of the court on this case. However, there are sections where Justices felt split on the opinion. Due to this reason, there is a detailed explanation of which

Texas v. Johnson. This case not only set a precedent, but also brought to question the

suggests companies take another approach. For instance, the impact of Title VII laws, and common laws along with fraudulent inducement, promissory estoppel, and or constructive discharges have all sufficed to erode the power of the At- Will employment doctrine.

2. According to the text an implied contract is a type of wrongful discharge claim that limits the employer’s right to terminated if the employer has made written or oral statements containing promises not to terminate at will, or implied such a contract through his course of conduct with the employee. The implied contract in this case consisted of two points. First, the written statements in the handbook were conflicting with the at-will employment relationship and the disclaimer language. Second, the conduct and oral statements from the employer were given that gave the employee reason to believe that her job was safe. The oral statement made by the employer was “it will take you four to six months to feel comfortable with [the] position” which gave the impression that she would have that time to settle in with the new job.

On the contrary, employment at will is defended by Richard Epstein in his article “In Defense of the Contract at Will”. He is trying to show that the contract at will “is adopted not because it allows the employer to exploit the employee, but rather because over a very broad range of circumstances it works to the mutual benefit of both parties.” Then I will summarize the benefits of EAW that Epstein provides.

Returning to the case of Michelle Kehoe, citing precedent set forth in State v. Hamann, it was upheld that, again, refusing

The defendant also has a valid argument that he can dispute. This business is an employment at will employer. This means that the employee can be let go at any time for any reason. Elaine knew that this was an employment at will. When she read the letter and accepted the job, she also accepted all the conditions that came along with it. The plaintiff knew that she could be fired any time. This is the defendant’s argument.

Instead of seeing the relationship on equal footing, courts and senates gradually began to identify that employers regularly have fundamental and monetary advantages when negotiating with potential or current employees (EAW, n.d.). Provisions are put in place to protect and educate employees and employers. Laws are set to enable organizations to manage in the fairest manner possible. This paper will provide background on Employment at Will and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Secondly, it will examine what act has the greatest and the least impact on employees in the private-sector U.S. workplace. Lastly it will provide a brief summary.

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.

rights when their contracts have been violated. Employers are able to hire and take advantage of

There may be certain employees for whom a company are willing to give up its at-will rights. As an employer, using contract employment for an employee(s) has some competitive advantages in certain areas over at-will. For example: