Employment-At-Will Doctrine: Law, Ethics And Corporate Governance
Employment-at-Will Doctrine
John Simpson
Professor Steve Harris
Law, Ethics and Corporate Governance
November 6, 2014
1. Summarize the employment-at-will doctrine discussed in the text and then evaluate three (3) of the six (6) scenarios described by determining:
a. Whether you can legally fire the employee; include an assessment of any pertinent exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine.
b. The primary action(s) that you should take to limit liability and impact on operations; specify the ethical theory that best supports your decision.
The employment-at-will doctrine reflected the belief that people should be free to enter into employment contracts for a specified length of time, but that no there would be no obligations …show more content…
attached to either employer or employee if a person was hired without such a contract. Since employees were able to leave from positions they no longer cared to occupy, employers also were allowed to discharge employees at their whim (Muhl, 2001). It was established to give employers autonomous authority to dismiss an employer at will for no reason, a decent reason or for being morally wrong, even if they aren’t wrong in the eyes of the law. Inside the doctrine the employee or employer, without a written employment contract, can end the employment relationship without any warning whenever they want with or without cause. However there are some exceptions to the rule. One of these is that the employer cannot use this doctrine to threaten or pressure their employees. Termination that is instigated by the employer must not be prejudiced or violate specific state or federal laws. This exception is known as the public policy exception. Under this exception, an employee is unjustly discharged when the termination is in contradiction of public policy of the State. Public policy can be decided either by a State constitution, decree, or administrative rule. The public-policy exception is the most widely accepted exception being recognized in 43 of the 50 States.
The second exception of the employment-at-will doctrine is when an implied contract is made between the employer and employee. This exception is recognized in 38 of the 50 States. The final exception focuses on the implied promise of “good faith and fair dealing” or implication of contract terms from the employer’s handbook, policy statement or behavior (Halbert & Ingulli, Law and Ethics in the Business Environment, 2012). This exception is the covenant of good faith and fair dealing which represents and ensures that each party acts with faithfulness to an approved mutual resolution and dependability with the justified expectations of the other party. This one is only recognized in 11 states.
Issue 1
I will evaluate is John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer.
Under the employment-at-will doctrine, there are certain protected activities that should be reviewed to determine if John should/should not be terminated (Halbert & Ingulli, Law and Ethics in the Business Environment, 2012). In this particular situation, John decided to publicly criticize the most important customer of the company. Since employees represent the company, his actions might suggest to the public that his opinions are the overall opinions of the company. What he said should be evaluated to determine if he was venting or if he was trying to improve on something. Any content created in an outburst reflects upon the company. Based on the utilitarianism ethics theory, in a situation where there are many stakeholders involved, an evaluation of the consequences, both good and bad, must be done. The decision has to be made for the overall wellbeing of the entire company both internally and externally. The impact of John’s statements outweighs the good in this situation. Based on the National Labor Relations Act, John’s actions were made on his own behalf and not as a group (Rubin & Stait, 2011). Since this is a private company he can be recommended for termination. To alleviate any further incidences and to guarantee all employees are aligned with the code of ethics and standard of conduct of the company, the company should implement a new policy, …show more content…
detailing the company’s code of ethics and standards of conduct and its view on social media networking. Also they would need to provide training to each employee and ensure they are in compliance by having all employees sign an agreement.
Issue 2
Bill has been using the Blackberry that was issued to him by the company to run his own business on the side. Since it is considered issued property to the employee the company has the right to monitor what it is being used for. As a manager my first thing would be to speak with human resources to see if there is anything specific in the employee manual that mentions any disciplinary procedure to allow for termination. The company has the right to end Bill’s employment for the misuse of company equipment. This decision is based on the deontology theory where someone’s choices are established on a set of duties that they must adhere to. Most companies have policies in place that state that company issued equipment is to be used for official business only. To limit the impact going forward, they should make have the employee sign an agreement that outlines the rules that need to be adhered to.
Issue 3
A department supervisor is requesting permission to fire his secretary for insubordination because she refuses to prepare false expense reports.
Since she has always gotten outstanding reviews in the past a meeting needs to be setup to discuss the issue. Termination should not be granted due it being prevented under the employment-at-will exception of public policy (NCSL, 2014). It is against the law to falsify any document. The theory that supports this is the Utilitarianism theory as there are way too many consequences to deal with if she is terminated. Holding a formal investigation internally of the supervisor’s actions may uncover that there are other wrongful acts that could have a negative impact on the company. They should implement some type of a program that trains employees and management on the standards which the organization governs itself. Having refresher training every year is also a way to maintain that everyone is complying with company policy.
2. Examine your state’s policy on employment-at-will. Analyze at least one (1) real-world example of an employee or employer utilizing your state’s employment-at-will doctrine in the last five (5) years. Include a summary of the main issue and the outcome in the identified real-world
example.
Under Maryland law, employment is “at will” which means that employers can fire you for any time, for any reason, even a bad reason, and a wrong reason. An employer can fire you because you did not follow a rule, because you were disrespectful, or if you showed up for work in a bad mood. In Coleman v. Court of appeals of Maryland (10-1016) Daniel Coleman filed a suit against the State of Maryland under the self-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), which provides that “an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position,” 29 U. S. C. §2612(a)(1) (D). Coleman argues that the Act’s medical leave provisions should be considered as a unified effort against gender discrimination that permits state employees to sue state employers under the self-care provision, and that the purpose of preventing gender discrimination abrogates state immunity. The state responds that the FMLA’s provisions address discrete forms of discrimination that should be examined individually and that the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity bars lawsuits against a state employer under the self-care provision. By deciding whether a state employee has legal recourse for a violation of the self-care provision, this case will clarify the scope of state exposure to employment lawsuits seeking money damages under the FMLA (Carpenter & Charlotte, 2012).
REFERENCES
Carpenter, M., & Charlotte, D. (2012, January 11). Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland. Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-1016
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law and Ethics in the Business Environment. Mason: Cengage Learning.
Muhl, C. J. (2001, January). Employment at Will. Retrieved from Monthly Labor Review: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf
NCSL. (2014). The At-Will Presumption and Exceptions to the Rule. Retrieved from National Congress of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx
Rubin, H., & Stait, D. (2011, September 9). Legal View: When Can an Employer Fire an Employee Over an Offensive Facebook Posting. Retrieved from Detroit Legal News: http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/1070272
John Simpson
Professor Steve Harris
Law, Ethics and Corporate Governance
November 6, 2014
1. Summarize the employment-at-will doctrine discussed in the text and then evaluate three (3) of the six (6) scenarios described by determining:
a. Whether you can legally fire the employee; include an assessment of any pertinent exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine.
b. The primary action(s) that you should take to limit liability and impact on operations; specify the ethical theory that best supports your decision.
The employment-at-will doctrine reflected the belief that people should be free to enter into employment contracts for a specified length of time, but that no there would be no obligations …show more content…
attached to either employer or employee if a person was hired without such a contract. Since employees were able to leave from positions they no longer cared to occupy, employers also were allowed to discharge employees at their whim (Muhl, 2001). It was established to give employers autonomous authority to dismiss an employer at will for no reason, a decent reason or for being morally wrong, even if they aren’t wrong in the eyes of the law. Inside the doctrine the employee or employer, without a written employment contract, can end the employment relationship without any warning whenever they want with or without cause. However there are some exceptions to the rule. One of these is that the employer cannot use this doctrine to threaten or pressure their employees. Termination that is instigated by the employer must not be prejudiced or violate specific state or federal laws. This exception is known as the public policy exception. Under this exception, an employee is unjustly discharged when the termination is in contradiction of public policy of the State. Public policy can be decided either by a State constitution, decree, or administrative rule. The public-policy exception is the most widely accepted exception being recognized in 43 of the 50 States.
The second exception of the employment-at-will doctrine is when an implied contract is made between the employer and employee. This exception is recognized in 38 of the 50 States. The final exception focuses on the implied promise of “good faith and fair dealing” or implication of contract terms from the employer’s handbook, policy statement or behavior (Halbert & Ingulli, Law and Ethics in the Business Environment, 2012). This exception is the covenant of good faith and fair dealing which represents and ensures that each party acts with faithfulness to an approved mutual resolution and dependability with the justified expectations of the other party. This one is only recognized in 11 states.
Issue 1
I will evaluate is John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer.
Under the employment-at-will doctrine, there are certain protected activities that should be reviewed to determine if John should/should not be terminated (Halbert & Ingulli, Law and Ethics in the Business Environment, 2012). In this particular situation, John decided to publicly criticize the most important customer of the company. Since employees represent the company, his actions might suggest to the public that his opinions are the overall opinions of the company. What he said should be evaluated to determine if he was venting or if he was trying to improve on something. Any content created in an outburst reflects upon the company. Based on the utilitarianism ethics theory, in a situation where there are many stakeholders involved, an evaluation of the consequences, both good and bad, must be done. The decision has to be made for the overall wellbeing of the entire company both internally and externally. The impact of John’s statements outweighs the good in this situation. Based on the National Labor Relations Act, John’s actions were made on his own behalf and not as a group (Rubin & Stait, 2011). Since this is a private company he can be recommended for termination. To alleviate any further incidences and to guarantee all employees are aligned with the code of ethics and standard of conduct of the company, the company should implement a new policy, …show more content…
detailing the company’s code of ethics and standards of conduct and its view on social media networking. Also they would need to provide training to each employee and ensure they are in compliance by having all employees sign an agreement.
Issue 2
Bill has been using the Blackberry that was issued to him by the company to run his own business on the side. Since it is considered issued property to the employee the company has the right to monitor what it is being used for. As a manager my first thing would be to speak with human resources to see if there is anything specific in the employee manual that mentions any disciplinary procedure to allow for termination. The company has the right to end Bill’s employment for the misuse of company equipment. This decision is based on the deontology theory where someone’s choices are established on a set of duties that they must adhere to. Most companies have policies in place that state that company issued equipment is to be used for official business only. To limit the impact going forward, they should make have the employee sign an agreement that outlines the rules that need to be adhered to.
Issue 3
A department supervisor is requesting permission to fire his secretary for insubordination because she refuses to prepare false expense reports.
Since she has always gotten outstanding reviews in the past a meeting needs to be setup to discuss the issue. Termination should not be granted due it being prevented under the employment-at-will exception of public policy (NCSL, 2014). It is against the law to falsify any document. The theory that supports this is the Utilitarianism theory as there are way too many consequences to deal with if she is terminated. Holding a formal investigation internally of the supervisor’s actions may uncover that there are other wrongful acts that could have a negative impact on the company. They should implement some type of a program that trains employees and management on the standards which the organization governs itself. Having refresher training every year is also a way to maintain that everyone is complying with company policy.
2. Examine your state’s policy on employment-at-will. Analyze at least one (1) real-world example of an employee or employer utilizing your state’s employment-at-will doctrine in the last five (5) years. Include a summary of the main issue and the outcome in the identified real-world
example.
Under Maryland law, employment is “at will” which means that employers can fire you for any time, for any reason, even a bad reason, and a wrong reason. An employer can fire you because you did not follow a rule, because you were disrespectful, or if you showed up for work in a bad mood. In Coleman v. Court of appeals of Maryland (10-1016) Daniel Coleman filed a suit against the State of Maryland under the self-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), which provides that “an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position,” 29 U. S. C. §2612(a)(1) (D). Coleman argues that the Act’s medical leave provisions should be considered as a unified effort against gender discrimination that permits state employees to sue state employers under the self-care provision, and that the purpose of preventing gender discrimination abrogates state immunity. The state responds that the FMLA’s provisions address discrete forms of discrimination that should be examined individually and that the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity bars lawsuits against a state employer under the self-care provision. By deciding whether a state employee has legal recourse for a violation of the self-care provision, this case will clarify the scope of state exposure to employment lawsuits seeking money damages under the FMLA (Carpenter & Charlotte, 2012).
REFERENCES
Carpenter, M., & Charlotte, D. (2012, January 11). Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland. Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-1016
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law and Ethics in the Business Environment. Mason: Cengage Learning.
Muhl, C. J. (2001, January). Employment at Will. Retrieved from Monthly Labor Review: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf
NCSL. (2014). The At-Will Presumption and Exceptions to the Rule. Retrieved from National Congress of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx
Rubin, H., & Stait, D. (2011, September 9). Legal View: When Can an Employer Fire an Employee Over an Offensive Facebook Posting. Retrieved from Detroit Legal News: http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/1070272