Discrimination In The Workplace

You are the Judge 1
Jiaying Fu
GBS 205
Elaine, who had been given mentioned the great career opportunities at the company of Jerry, has now sued her employer because she was fired for no reason. Elaine received a letter, which stated that her annual salary would be $30,000. Jerry is an employment at will employer, who does not have employment contracts. However, Jerry has fired Elaine without any explanation and then hired a man named Kramer, who had less job experience and education than Elaine, for the position. Elaine has sued Jerry to get her job back and keep her annual salary. For this legal issue, we need to consider several questions; does the at-will employer need to give reasons for the termination of employment? Was the
There are four exceptions that can void an employer’s ability to fire an employee on an “at will” basis, which are statutory exception, contract exception, public policy exception and tort exception. The first exception that supports Elaine is statutory exception. Federal labor laws prohibit employers from discharging employee members of labor unions in violation of labor laws or collective bargaining agreements. Title VII and other federal and state antidiscrimination laws prohibit employers from engaging in race, sex, religious, age, handicap, or other forms of discrimination. For this case we got no reason about why Elaine was terminated from the company, and how she was subject to sex discrimination and a male employee with less work experience and education level replaced her position. These given facts revealed that Elaine deserves to get her job back to prove her ability and skills. Contract exception is also called Implied-in-fact contract that can be created between an employer and an employee, and has been inferred because of their conduct. For the lawsuit of Elaine versus Jerry, Jerry promised to give Elaine the great career opportunities at the company and also stated that her annual salary would be $30,000 on the letter. Elaine did her job properly should not be discharged or get fired with no explanation. The main element of the implied-in-fact
Elaine did not engage in dumping of toxic wastes in violation of environmental protection laws, she did not distribute defective products to public, and she does her job properly in the company. In addition, Elaine has more job experience and higher education than Kramer, which means she could fulfill her job tasks as qualified. I believe that discharging Elaine without reasonable excuses is considered a public policy exception and need to bring in a verdict of prevail. The last exception controls this dispute is tort exception, which is wrongful discharge action can be based on several tort theories. Elaine can sue her employer Jerry for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or defamation of character. After the written letter stated the career opportunity and annual salary, Elaine did not get the job or the reason for the termination; she suffered emotional distress that being fired with no reason. The tort exception alone in Elaine’s case is not a strong argument against Jerry because the company did not commit fraud or libel her character. The other three exceptions strongly support Elaine’s argument and protect her