Preview

Drake And Keeler Case Summary

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
609 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Drake And Keeler Case Summary
The facts of the case are that both Drake and Keeler felt that their workstations were too cold. The supervisor did not close the overhead door because of the temperature and the fact that the majority of the employees wanted the door to remain open. There is no evidence that Drake and Keeler told the supervisor that they would stop working and walk off the job if the overhead door was not closed. The employees should have escalated the situation up the chain of command before walking off the job. Instead the employees decided amongst themselves on their break to leave the job. According to Page, the court stated that an agreement involves a meeting of minds. First, the employer may try to argue that the discharge of Drake and Keeler was an appropriate exercise of management’s rights because of at will employment. …show more content…
Employers should make sure the employee handbook does not create an implied contract of employment. In the case there was no mention of a union contract, so the employer has the ability to fire an employee at will. This is one defense that the employers of Drake and Keeler may use. Also the employer could argue there were just cause for dismissing Drake and Keeler. The employer could argue that the employees abandoned their jobs, which would result in a poor performance evaluation for the employees. An example of just cause is willful misconduct. If the employer has an established policy that a person leaving work without permission from management can be terminated this would be grounds for termination by management. This would mean that Drake and Keeler intentionally broke the rule established by the employer. The employer could also argue that the employees refused a direct order of the supervisor and decided to abandon their duties. “Employees are normally expected to obey a work order and later grieve it if they are of the opinion that the order was improperly issued” (Peterson,

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Cheeseman outlines that employment is subject to the common law of contracts (2010). Pat entered into an agreement with NewCorp for employment; acting on the premise that NewCorp would uphold all terms of the employment agreement, made major personal and financial changes to be available for employment at the assigned duty location. Although Pat signed a document acknowledging his understanding that NewCorp had the freedom to discharge at will—Pats supervisor told Pat he was being discharged because “things weren’t working out”. NewCorp did not follow company procedure to notify Pat of unsatisfactory performance and neglected to offer a Corrective Action Plan. NewCorp, having a signed copy of the discharge at will document, could argue that the company was not required to offer Pat notification or the opportunity to follow the Corrective Action Plan process. An important factor in this instance is the implication that Pat is being released based on unsatisfactory performance. NewCorp is terminating the employment contract without complying with all clauses of the employment contract and as a result Pat is taking a financial loss. Additionally, an employer under the Plant Closing Act Is exempt from notification of lay off for reasons unforeseeable at the time of notification—this does not appear to be the case in Pats situation (Cheeseman, 2010). In NewCorp’ s defense, the company could consider the employment agreement to be a voidable contract with NewCorp having the option to avoid their contractual obligations, which although Pat suffered a loss from the termination of employment, would be personally liable for any decisions or financial ramifications…

    • 710 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Granbury’s employment is an at-will employment. From the case facts, she worked under conditions spelt out in an employee handbook. While the state of Texas has no implied contract exceptions for at-will employment agreements, the legal principle is that all employers should include a disclaimer in the employment letters and the handbooks guiding the employees. This disclaimer was not included, making the handbook a binding implied contract. In citing Aiello vs United Air Lines, Inc., 818 F.2d 1196 (1987), the court referenced another case, concluding that a handbook without terms that constitute a cause for termination of contract do not make up an implied contract. However, in Ms. Granbury’s case, the terms constituting a cause for termination of employment are clearly outlined. Moreover, these terms are applied on every other employee at the company and therefore influence a change in the nature of relationship between Ms. Granbury and her employer.…

    • 1906 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Sutton v. Tomco Machining

    • 2110 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Decision: The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed judgment against Sutton on the statutory claim because R.C. 4123.90 requires that employees file, institute, or purse a workers’ compensation claim before being discharged, which Sutton failed to do. Consequently, the court established that the statute did not cover Sutton. The Second District Court of Appeals reversed judgment against Sutton on the tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, deeming Sutton’s discharge as a violation of public policy as established in R.C. 4123.90. The issues of remedies for the…

    • 2110 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Kingsford Case Summary

    • 397 Words
    • 2 Pages

    To improve its softening situation, I believe that Kingsford should increase prices and shift its spending from sales promotion to media marketing in order to improve Kingsford’s profit in the short term and invest more in R&D to create new products in the long term.…

    • 397 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    This document of HRM 586 Week 1 Discussion Question 1 Fighting Employers Premises contains: Please review Case #2 found on page 405 at the end of your textbook. What is your decision in this case, and why? Should Fred Brooks be discharged? Why? If not, what should be the appropriate remedy?…

    • 452 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    HR Law Week 2 Senario One

    • 1557 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Since all of the information presented supports the fact that the employees that were terminated were in good standing the general manager should address the following issues in order to prevent the possibility of costly litigation due to a charge of wrongful discharge or breech of covenant of good faith and fair dealing:…

    • 1557 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    According to the Employment-at-will doctrine an employers can terminate their employees for any reason, however there are three exception to the rules. They are public-policy exception, implied-contract exception, and covenant-of-good-faith exception.…

    • 1143 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Facts: Hollis D. King was arrested after a search of his apartment. Local police department officers had probable cause to force entering and searching King apartment. Incident to search and arrest stemmed from a strong odor of what appeared to be burning illegal narcotics. Prior to entering the apartment, Police Officers knocked on the door and announced their presence. The occupants in the apartments did not respond. Under the suspicion of valuable evidence being destroyed the officers forced entering into the apartment. As the officers entered the apartment the odor of the burning substance became stronger. The smell of the burning substance created the exigent circumstance in the probable cause and the case at trial. Without a warrant,…

    • 703 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Kate Connors is commencing a lawsuit against her previous employer, Specialty Detergent, for wrongful dismissal and she is requesting that she should be awarded $500,000 for damages. Kate is 55 years old and has been employed at Specialty Detergent for the past 14 years, where she is one of the three full time sales representatives. During 2012, Kate began treating herself as self employed after gaining consent from the company’s sales manager, Ted Parker, in order to receive deductions on her taxes. Kate continued to receive company health care benefits and a fixed salary of $56,500 per year. On March 18th, Kate was late to work because she was hung over from the previous night; although she had informed Ted that she was late because her car…

    • 153 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The at-will agreements allow employers ease of hiring as well as firing. For any employee who is underperforming, they are bound to face the sack, which may qualify them for unemployment insurance if there lacks a paper trail of disciplinary action. Conversely, employees can be terminated for no good reason or any virtually any reason. The longevity of one’s contract may depend on the mood of the supervisor. As such, employees can never be 100 percent of their job security. In most cases, workers may devise a plan for side incomes, which robs the organization of productivity. The ruling in Montgomery County Hospital Dist. v. Brown (1998) provided that an employer's general oral assurances that an worker would not be terminated without good cause does not modify the employee's at-will status, absent a definite stated intent to be bound not to terminate the employee except under…

    • 465 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    I feel like the room temperature played a role in the decision because I realized that because it was hot and uncomfortable in there, they just wanted to agree fast and get out of there, and did not have the patience to look at the case critically…

    • 690 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Pad 500

    • 504 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The employment-at-will doctrine states that, when an employee does not have a written employment contract and the term of employment is of indefinite duration, the employer can terminate the employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause. The employment-at-will doctrine also states that an employee is hired based on his/her will and may choose to leave at any time after post-employment. The same applies to the employers in the sense that they can fire her for good cause, bad cause or no cause. The employer does not hold any legal liability as long as no contract was signed upon employment. There is an exception that states that an employer may not terminate the employee if public policy supports the employee. In this case where this employee is not protected under public policy and since she cannot perform her duties, she should be fired. The second exception to the will is an implied contract, which is a verbal agreement between the two parties.…

    • 504 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Employment at Will

    • 2217 Words
    • 12 Pages

    Releasing employees from their work duties without a practical reason is becoming very common in society today. Some employers have dismissed their employees because the Employment at-will clause states that employers can terminate at any…

    • 2217 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    2) In the US, the historical notion of “employment at will” allowed either employee or employer to break relationship with no liability as long as no autonomous employment contract exists and workers are not represented by a collective bargaining unit. In Canada, employers may terminate employment with no reason as long as there’s reasonable notice. In return, the worker is allowed to quit, strike, or leave the job without penalty, provided they align with appropriate legislation.…

    • 4755 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The legal issues in the case of Elaine X v. Jerry Employer involve promises of great career opportunities. Considering that the employer is an “At Will” employer, does the employer need to provide an explanation for the termination? Are there ethics violations or various types of discrimination that played a role in the termination of the plaintiff? There are multiple questions that must be answered before a ruling can be made in this case. Was the employer within his right to terminate the plaintiff with no explanation? Is there sufficient evidence to show ethics violation or discrimination against the plaintiff?…

    • 422 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays