Nita Hinson Case

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.

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

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 discharge of an employee in contravention of fundamental public policy, as expressed in a statute or constitutional provision, can serve as the basis for a tort action for wrongful discharge. (Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, supra, 1 Cal. 4th at pp. 1094-1097; see Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 65, 88-91 [276 Cal.Rptr. 130, 801 P.2d 373].) Accordingly, since section 2056 expresses a public policy to protect physicians and surgeons from retaliation for advocating medically appropriate health care, a wrongful [84 Cal. App. 4th 52] discharge action can be premised on a termination in violation of that public policy.

Due process is the ethical means by which ending employment contracts is best administered. It allows for repercussions for unfair firing practices on the part of the employer, who in all actuality, carries the power in the relationship. Due process allows for an appeal when an employee believes they were terminated without or with bad cause. In essence it polices the employer to act ethically in situations where a person’s wealth and career are at stake. At will contracts in the business world are often defended on the basis that they are equally beneficial to the employer and employee. This is quite obviously not the case in modern business and economic conditions. It is stated by Richard Epstein in “In Defense of the Contract at Will” that if a person enters into a disastrous and one-sided contract that they are free to exit the contract and pursue other means of employment.3 This is hardly the case, however, as when a person has a family, and of course themselves, to support leaving a disastrous situation is not always

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

In the state of Maryland, all employment is considered “at-will”. From the text, the definition of at-will employment is employers have the “…discretion to fire employees ‘for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.’” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012) From Maryland’s Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, employment at will is defined as “In Maryland, employees work "at the will" of their employers. This means, in the absence of an express contract, agreement or policy to the contrary, an employee may be hired or fired for almost any reason -- whether fair or not -- or for no reason at all.” (https://www.dllr.state.md.us/labor/wagepay/wpatwill.shtml) Because of the employment at will doctrine, people risk losing their jobs for

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 employment at will doctrine is a very interesting doctrine. According to it, employers can fire employees for good, bad or no cause at all. Employees need to pay close attention to the doctrine under which their employment contract was offered or signed. A good example of this is the case of Waddell v. Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Inc.

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

Wrongful dismissal is the term used at common law to denote the situation in which an employee is dismissed by an employer in breach of contract. It occurs most commonly in summery dismissal, namely, without any notice whatsoever. This is justifiable in the case of Laws v London Chronicle (indicator Newspapers) Ltd (1959), stating that “…Whether the conduct complained of is such as to show the servant to have disregarded the essential conditions of the contract of service…”

Based on facts and legal laws, the judge can look over the evidence and rules and make a decision. The employment-at-will doctrine clearly states that the employer can fire the employee at any time for any reason. There are many exceptions to the employment-at-will

Nursing is a noble profession and a calling. Therefore, we must guide our profession jealously because we are taking care of people around us to become gay and healthy. Anyone who refuses to carry out the task we were ordained to do, or violated one rule or the other to the client they took care of; will face the penalty by either probation, suspension or fine. Out of the cases presented at the Indiana State Board of Nursing meeting, I choose case number two. The respondent in the case was Kasey A. Barnard. She worked in three different hospitals/ organizations and was terminated from them all. The names of the hospitals are Reid Hospital and Healthcare Services in Richmond, Indiana, Flatrock River Lodge in Rushville, Indiana and Especially Kidz Health and Rehab in Shelbyville, Indiana.

Warhane and Radin, in their article “Employment at Will and Due Process”, suggest that one of the major reasons employment at will is acceptable is that it protects the proprietary rights of employers. In particular “the proprietary rights of employers guarantee that they may employ or dismiss

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.