Employment At Will Law Case Study

Drake and Keeler employer could argue the employment-at-will law was the reason for their discharge. According to Lisa Guerin, if Drake and Keeler are employed as at-will employees, then his or her employer does not need to have a good cause to fire him or her. In fact, if Drake and Keeler employer did not make it clear as to what kind of employee he or she was, then according to the law he or she is presumed to be hired as at-will. The only way Drake and Keeler can avoid being an at-will employee, is by proving otherwise, with documentation that he or she isn’t at-will. Unfortunately, the employer can have the at-will clause written among the company’s policies, in the company’s handbooks, or some other type of employment related documentation
1). In fact, there is about 55% of American’s in the workforce today who are at-will employees (Radin &Werhane, 2003).
That’s why Drake and Keeler employer could argue that when both of them decided to walk off the job, they were terminating their employment according to the at-will law, because Drake and Keeler both were not happy working at the furniture warehouse. However, when the next day came, Drake and Keeler decided that they did not won’t to quit after all, so they went back to their place of employment only to find out that their manager had fired both of them anyway.
According to Harcourt, Hannay & Lam, “a company who operates under employment-at-will does not need a reason for dismissal, a procedure for dismissal, or provide any kind of redress for an unjust dismissal, other than in situations involving, for example, discrimination, tort, violation of public policy or bad faith” (2013, p. 312). However, in New Zealand the employment-at-will does have a just-cause dismissal system, in which it requires an employer to give a reason for an employee’s dismissal. In fact, New Zealand has a fair dismissal process, in which it must provide some various forms of redress if a dismissal is unjustifiable (Harcourt, Hannay & Lam,