The Work Of The Workplace

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.

STATEMENT OF FACTS: Sheila White interviewed with Marvin Brown and obtained a job as a “track laborer” with Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company. Shortly after her hire date, however, she assumed forklift operator duties. This new assignment still fell under the “track laborer” position description, and White occasionally performed those duties although her primary responsibility was operating the forklift. Three months into her new job, White complained to the company that her immediate supervisor was sexually harassing her on the job. He was temporarily suspended and required to attend sexual harassment training. White was then informed that she was being reassigned to track labor duties only. White

This exception allows employees to file lawsuits if they sensed they were terminated unfairly (Doyle A. 2016).

Title VII Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin (EEOC, 1997). This law applies to federal, state and local employers. The above conditions may not be used to refuse to hire or for terminating an individual or in other words discriminate against any individual (EEOC, 1997). In order to release an employee in any of the above categories the employer must have documentation based on quantity or quality of production and the employer can also make this decision based on results of a professionally developed ability test, which cannot be used to discriminate (EEOC, 1997). If an employee feels they have been let go for an unjust reason they can file a formal

If he has to come to one of the company’s locations when the problem cannot be resolved over the

The company has the right to terminate an employee as long as the termination does not discriminate or

“Employees or their representatives have a right to request an inspection of a workplace if they believe there is a violation of a safety or health standard, or if there is any danger that threatens physical harm, or if an "imminent danger" exists. In addition, anyone who knows about a

legitimate business reason in the eyes of the law. With respect to our dilemma, our employee

"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

Albert, you are being progressed to Step three of the Ascend Corrective Action process for failing to follow specific directions from Chocolate Bayou’s medical staff in regards to your clearance to use a respirator. You were directed by MHBA supervision and the medical department on multiple occasions to resolve the issue but you did not take the appropriate actions in the time you were given. Failure to complete the required tests meant that you were working while knowingly being out of compliance with the site’s Respiratory Protection Program, SP-039. Additionally, your decision to not follow the direction of supervision and complete the required tests is considered insubordination and is unacceptable.

One possible action is termination of the medical program at both his school and at Willow Manor. Having Dr. Holt terminated would ensure the safety of medical information of patients and the integrity of the medical center. However, Dr. Holt would suffer by losing his education and may end up incarcerated.

4. Is it legal for the company to terminate an employee because of something they did away from work?

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.

The essence of the public-policy exception is that an employee will have a cognizable claim for wrongful discharge if the discharge of the employee contravenes a clear mandate of public policy. Claims for wrongful discharge under the public-policy exception have included termination of employees for: (1) refusal to participate in illegal activity, (2) the employee's refusal to forsake the performance of an important public duty or obligation, (3) the employee's refusal to forego the exercise of a job-related legal right or privilege, (4) the employee's "whistleblowing" activity or other