...(Dictionary.reference.com (2014). As the Chief Operating Officer (COO) in a midsize company preparing for an Initial Public Offering (IPO). I have discovered multiple personnel problems that require immediate attention and faced with difficult decisions to be made. In this paper I will discuss the employment-at-will-doctrine and examine three scenarios described, analyze whether legally I can fire the employees by including an assessment of any pertinent expectations to employment-at-will doctrine, the primary actions I should take to limit liability and impact on operations and examine the state’s policy on employment-at-will by analyzing one real-world example of an employee or employer utilizing state’s employment-at-will doctrine in the last five-year. As an astute manager, I have analyze the employment-at-will doctrine and determine what, if any, exceptions and liabilities exist before taking any action. As I proceed with the investigation, I discover the company has no whistleblower policy. The employment-at-will doctrine is the legal doctrine that gives employers a broad discretion to fire employees “for good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.” Whistleblowers are people who decide to report unethical or illegal activities under the control of their employers, unfortunately the company has no whistleblower policy. However, legislation has passes statues in all 50 states protecting employees but a wide variation exists. The First Amendment freedom of speech has been...
Words: 1016 - Pages: 5
...Introduction “The right of an employee to quit the services of the employer, for whatever reason, is the same as the right of the employer, for whatever reason, to dispense with the services of such employee”(Halbert,Ingulli,pg 65). This was a quote by Justice Harlan in Adair vs. U.S. in 1908. Employment-at-will is a legal rule that developed in the nineteenth century, which gave employers the power to “dismiss their employees at will for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of a legal wrong”(Halber,Ingulli). Although it is clearly stated about the employment-at-will and how employers can fire employees for anything, there are some exceptions to the rule. Three Key Exceptions The first exception to employment-at-will is the public-policy exception. With the public-policy exception, an employee is wrongfully terminated when it is against an explicit, established policy of the State the company is out of. The employer cannot fire an employee if they have a worker’s compensation claim if they were hurt at work. “It is recognized in 43 out of the 50 states. A couple states that do not recognize this are Nebraska, Florida, and New York”. (bls.gov, pg. 5) The public policy exception is the one exception that is mostly regarded in the U.S. The second exception to the employment-at-will is the implied-contract exception. This happens when the it is an implied contract between both parties, even though there is no written contract...
Words: 1523 - Pages: 7
...part of collective bargaining agreements negotiated by employee unions; nonunion workers rarely have this form of protection. The at-will doctrine also does not apply to contracts for a specified term, such as an employment contract that contemplates the employee providing service for a expressly designated number of years. In the following scenarios, the company’s human resources team must take action and decide whether to fire several employees for harmful actions. The scenarios are: John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer. In this scenario, John has publicly criticized the company’s most important customer, which might lead the customer to suspend all business with the company. Due to this customer being the most-profitable account for the company, John is greatly putting the company at risk, and to do some damage control and prevent the customer from leaving, the company must give this employee a stop and desist order to remove the rant from Facebook. In this case it would be better not to fire John as to set him on course and have been be the lead “apologist” for this transgression would be...
Words: 1771 - Pages: 8
...and portraying her bosses as “know-nothings” and “out-of-touch” • Bill has been using his company-issued BlackBerry to run his own business on the side. • The secretaries in the accounting department decided to dress in black-and-white stripes to protest a memo announcing that the company has installed keylogger software on all company computers. • After being disciplined for criticizing a customer in an email (sent from his personal email account on a company computer), Joe threatens to sue the company for invasion of privacy. • One of the department supervisors requests your approval to fire his secretary for insubordination. Since the secretary has always received glowing reviews, you call her into your office and determine that she has refused to prepare false expense reports for her boss. • Anna’s boss refused to sign her leave request for jury duty and now wants to fire her for being absent without permission. As an astute manager, you will need to analyze the employment-at-will doctrine and determine what, if any, exceptions and liabilities exist before taking any action. As you proceed with your investigation, you discover the company has no whistleblower policy. Write a four to five (4-5) page paper in which you: • Summarize the employment-at-will doctrine and evaluate each of the eight (8) scenarios described by determining: • • Whether you can legally fire the employee;...
Words: 4230 - Pages: 17
...employment at will doctrine is void if reason states that it is specifically forbidden by some external source of law, such as an antidiscrimination statue (Bagenstos, 2013). Employees formed unions during the industrial revolution, in order to toughen their negotiating power against large corporations, which fired employees at will to keep labor cost low and profits high (Muhl, 2001). Before employees formed unions the working conditions were unethical, and favored the employer who could fire the employee at will (Muhl, 2001)The 1960’s was where Federal legislative protections started to play a major part in protecting employees. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act put a damper on the unethical treatment of employees by their employers. The Federal legislation protected employees from illegal discharge based on race, religion, sex, age, and national origin (Muhl, 2001). These Federal protections changed the way that employer and employee relationships where being viewed. Courts and governing bodies gradually began to recognize that employers repeatedly have organizational and fiscal advantages when negotiating with employees (Muhl, 2001). Public policy is an exception to the employment at...
Words: 1470 - Pages: 6
...law in order to prepare for an IPO (Initial Public Offering). Sadly the midsize company where the COO was hired has some issues that must be addressed before addressing the public. Here are the eight scenarios that the company and new COO currently face. 2 First scenario, John posted a rant on Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer. Nowadays when working for a company, employees should know that there is no privacy when it comes to what you as individuals do or express on a social media, there is always somebody that will get the message and pass the information to a superior. In this case, John not only put the credibility of the company in jeopardy, but also his job and the trust of the client. Now the company not only has to do some damage control repair but also needs to review the policy regarding social media and let know the employees the consequences of posting negative comments about the company’s client on personal blogs or social media. The company should implement something similar to what hospitals use to protect patient confidentiality called HIPAA that stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Word of mouth can make or break a business or company, since it does not look like the company has a policy that address this issue, John should be sanction or suspended. Employees must attend a new training on what information not to disclose outside of the company...
Words: 1403 - Pages: 6
...at-will workplace there is no esoteric form of fairness or justice that can be protected or enforced by the courts. In the states whereby employment at-will doctrine is observed, an employer or supervisor can terminate an employee because they do not like their style of dress, choice of music or maybe even the color of their shirt, and the employee would have no real legal recourse in most instances. Because employees can be terminated for no reason, it does create a dilemma for employees who attempt to report or “blow the whistle” on misconduct by their immediate supervisor or the company. For example, Melissa Nelson, dentist assistance in Iowa City, Iowa was fired by her employer for being too attractive (Ryan Foley, 2012). Employers have even begun to threaten employees with termination for off-duty legal conduct such as smoking outside the workplace (J. Peters,...
Words: 2892 - Pages: 12
...Doctrine Introduction Employment-At-Will is a common legal doctrine that an employment contract of indefinite duration can be terminated by either the employer or the employee at any given time for any reason. In essence, an employer can discharge an employee for any reason which can be good, bad, or no reason at all. At the same time, the employee is equally free to cease work at any time without giving a reason to the employer. This doctrine of Employment-At-Will has been well established in the American legal system since the 19th Century, but nowadays employers find it confusing and with potential liability. This paper will provide different scenarios where employees’ behaviors trigger the Employment-At-Will ruling and how the newly hire Chief Operating Officer (COO) should address these scenarios following the company policies and the law to limit the company’s liability, as well as, the Whistleblower Policy. Scenarios Scenario 1 John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer. In my opinion, the COO has grounds to fire John because there are several clauses in the employee handbook that talk about the limitations on sharing information of the company and its customers on social media such as Facebook. Specially, if John has placed the name of the company in his profile. John can be terminated immediately due to his critics against the company’s most important customer because this could lead the company to lose...
Words: 1695 - Pages: 7
...hire, fire, suspend, or discipline any employee at any time and for any reason-good or bad- or for no reason at all. However, an employee may not discriminate against any employee on the basis of the employee’s race, sex, age, religion, color, national origin, or disability (TN.Gov).” An employer may choose to terminate an employee at any time without notice or consequences. If an employee feels as though they were wrongfully terminated due to any reason justified in as discrimination, they can act on those judgments and persecute. Every state has different laws as to wrongful termination, and not all laws apply to the same states. In 2010, Gossett, Inventory Control Manager for Tractor Supply, claimed he was asked to remove products from the inventory so it would increase their earnings when reported to the SEC. He refused to falsify the documents and was fired from his position. Gossett sued the company for “common law retaliatory discharge based on a violation of public policy for refusing to participate in illegal activity (South Western Learning).” His case was dismissed because he failed to inform anyone of the wrongful act. However, because of this, Tractor supply had to face The Supreme Justice of Tennessee. Even though this was an unfair case for Gossett because he stood up for what he thought was right, he was still terminated in the end. Is it fair, no, but it is legal based on Tennessee’s policy’s. In one scenario, Anna’s boss refused to sign her leave request...
Words: 1570 - Pages: 7
...Assignment 1: Employment-At-Will Doctrine LEG500 – Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance Employment-At-Will Employment at will was installed in United States labor law during the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800’s. Initially without modifications, employment at will meant that a worker who labored for an unspecified time labored at the wishes of the owner. However, lacking a clause in an agreement, either participant may possibly end the employment without a motive. At first sight, employment at will seemed to be an impartial policy that gave the owner and the worker a way out of an unwanted working relationship. Nevertheless, the policy actually worked to the advantage of the owner, the person who typically has the upper hand in the relationship (Zachary, 2012, p. 21). This does not insinuate that managers can randomly terminate workers with no good faith consultation, equality, and unbiased procedures. Managers have to express an honest attempt to rectify the worker’s performance or the additional problems that led to firing the employer. “Because we have at will employment” it shall not be exercised as grounds to terminate a worker (Heathfield, n.d.). As the manager, I must analyze the employment-at-will doctrine and determine what, if any, exceptions and liabilities exist before taking any action in regards to the following scenarios: 1. John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer. John can legally...
Words: 1672 - Pages: 7
...your immediate attention. John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer. Facebook is used for social networking and social media. John should not have criticized a customer simply because he thought was important in disclosing the problematic situation. Facebook blogging is an unrestricted segment for permitted communication that not quite the same as the water cooler. Blogging can spread throughout company cubicles and respond within seconds of the latest gossip in the company or with employees (Pike, 2011). John’s duty as an employee would have been respected if he followed proper channels by requesting to see his supervisor, discuss the situation with the proper authority and left it at that. Upon initial employment, employees are required to attend company policy meetings. During these meetings, employees are mandated to sign an agreement to adhere to company policies. Employees are encouraged to use discretionary means when using Facebook or blogging on the internet any information in an approximate manner so as to keep from criticizing the company or employees. “Failure to follow this policy may result in disciplinary action, including possible termination. All blogs and other public Internet communications are subject to the other policies contained in the company handbook, including but not limited to the Internet and Computer use policies”(Gary, 2009). When an employer hires employees, they are hiring...
Words: 706 - Pages: 3
...style of dress, or the way one behaves (Pitchford, 2005). Scenario 1: John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer John should be terminated because he violates the Ethic of Care by leaking critical information about the on social media. The social media could damage company reputation and it may lead to financial losses. Customers have to right to sue the company for sharing their information on Facebook without the consent. John jeopardizes the company and the customer’s relationship (Halbert, P25). Scenario 2: Jim sent an email to other salespeople protesting a change in commission schedules and bonuses and suggesting everyone boycott the next sales meeting In this scenario, manager needs to have a one-on-one discussion with Jim. Jim is not violating any law. There is a Freedom of Speech; he can say whatever he wants. But to protect a company’s interest, manager should handle this internally with Jim and other team members. Company legally can’t fire Jim because the Nation Labor Relation Act protects him; this Act protects employees as they communicate with one another to organize and form a union or to...
Words: 1130 - Pages: 5
...are due to respect for freedom of contract, employer deference, and the belief that both employers and employees favor an at-will employment relationship over job security (Muhl, 2001). Charles Muhl stated that “at-will mean that an employer can change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences.” An example would be an employer terminating benefits and cutting cost by not issuing raises. Due to the at-will doctrine, many employees are left vulnerable to arbitrary and sudden dismissal, a limited or on-call work schedule, which depends on the employer’s needs, and unannounced cuts in pay and benefits (Stone, 2007). In the next paragraphs I will evaluate eight scenarios and describe whether I can legally fire the employee and what action I should take to limit liability and impact on operations. Later on in the paper I will also explain my reasoning behind recommending that my company adopt a whistleblower policy. Scenario 1 John post a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer. When you first read this statement your first thought is, not so much a big deal due to the fact that it is his personal opinion and his personal social media website. The problem with this scenario is that John criticized the company’s most important customer. By most important I understand this as bringing in the bulk of the money to the company. Ask yourself a question in this situation. Do you replace John or loose...
Words: 1909 - Pages: 8
...employment relationship in the U.S (2005, Ewing, North, Taylor). Most countries of the world allow employers to dismiss employee only for cause. Some of the reasons given for the retention of the at-will presumption include respect for freedom of contract, employer deference, and the belief that both employers and employees favor an at-will employment relationship over job security. At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason excluding some discriminatory reasons, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Similarly, an employee has right to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences. Paul Karen (Karen, 2013) also states that: At-will also means that an employer can change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences. For example, an employer can alter wages, terminate benefits, or reduce paid time off. In its unadulterated form, the U.S. at-will rule leaves employees vulnerable to arbitrary and sudden dismissal, a limited or on-call work schedule depending on the employer’s needs, and unannounced cuts in pay and benefits. The at-will presumption is a default rule that can be modified by contract. For example, a contract may provide for a specific term of employment or allow termination for cause only. Typically, U.S. companies negotiate individual employment agreements only with high-level employees. Collective bargaining agreements usually provide that represented...
Words: 1155 - Pages: 5
...common law doctrine under which either party may terminate an employment relationship at any time for any reason, unless a contract specifies otherwise. Today this common law doctrine is widely used and applies in every state except Montana. However, state and federal statutes that govern employment relationships prevent the doctrine from being applied under certain circumstances. As such, employees who are wrongfully discharged may bring legal action against their employer based on violations of employment contract or statutory law. These state and federal statutes collectively are known as the exceptions to the employment at will doctrine that the courts adopted because of the harsh effects on employees. Public-policy exception According to Sentell & Robbins (2008), under the public-policy exception to employment at will, an employee is wrongfully discharged when the termination is against an explicit, well-established public policy of the State. For example, in most States, an employer cannot terminate an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim after being injured on the job, or for refusing to break the law at the request of the employer, or for discriminatory reasons. The majority view among states is that public policy may be found in either a State constitution, federal or state statute, or administrative...
Words: 2826 - Pages: 12
