Employment-At-Will Doctrine
Tonia M. Igo
Strayer University
LEG500
Professor Renee Berry
February 10, 2015

Employment-At-Will Doctrine

2

“See only that thou work; and thou canst not escape the reward”
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
Introduction
While many Americans agree that satisfactory job performance should be rewarded with job security, amongst other benefits, the United States is the only major industrial power that maintains a general employment-at-will doctrine. As written, this doctrine is a legal ruling which gives employers broad discretion to fire employees “for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all”, (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). Likewise, an employee can quit a job at any time without legal consequences. However, it is my opinion that this doctrine provides little legal protection for at will employees; it rather serves to empower the employer because it also allows the employer to change its policies or terms of employment without notice or explanation. For instance, an employer can adjust wages, benefits, or reduce paid time off leaving at will employees at risk for sudden dismissal, modified work schedule, and unannounced decreases in pay and/or benefits. Late in the 19th century, employment at will came under heavy fire in the
United States resulting in revision of state legislation to implement exceptions to the rule.
Guidelines relating to employment at will are still developing in many states. The common exceptions are: (1) breach of contract by the employer, (2) breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and (3) violation of public policy by the employer.
In addition to these three major exceptions, there are two statutory exceptions to employment-at-will. The first is discrimination based on race, religion, age, color, gender,

Employment-At-Will Doctrine

3

national origin, sexual orientation, disability, etc.; and the second is retaliation. There are both federal and state laws exist to prohibit discrimination. Under the exception of retaliation, an employer cannot terminate an employee for claiming compensation for overtime, participating in a union, filing for workers’ compensation, or whistle blowing (in most states). In some states, an employee is protected in the private sector from being terminated for reporting an employer’s wrongdoing or illegal actions (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2013). Unfortunately, in the absence of state legislation, private employees have to review many different rules and employment contract to determine if they have a case of wrongful termination.
As a recently hired Chief Operating Officer (COO) in a mid-size company, I quickly discover multiple personnel problems that require my immediate attention. Therefore, I will analyze the employment-at-will doctrine and determine appropriate actions, based on existing exceptions and liabilities. Furthermore, I discovered there is currently no whistleblower policy in place for the company so I will also try to determine if there is a need for the company to implement this type policy. This paper will provide an assessment of exceptions based on unique scenarios and analyze appropriate actions to be taken to minimize liability and avoid interruption of operations.
Situation Number One
The first unfortunate situation is John publicized his personal feelings and criticism of our most important customer in a rant on his Facebook page. A common misperception by most employees is that communications on social media are private and protected by the First
Amendment. However, there is a fine line between protected online speech and unprotected

Employment-At-Will Doctrine

4

threats, harassment, insubordination, and defamation. The first question to be answered is how was the information acquired? This is important in determining if the employee’s privacy was violated. Additionally, a representative from human resources should be consulted to determine if our company has a policy that addresses employee conduct in particular regarding social media. Next, utilizing our company’s legal representation, I would request a statement from
John so that I could ascertain if there was a particular issue or concern that he was attempting to address. This could be cause for concern if there is a possibility that it could be protected under the Wagner Act as shared employee concerns regarding terms and conditions of employment,
(Rubin & Stait, 2011). Under the employment-at-will doctrine, there are certain protected activities that should be reviewed to determine if termination is valid, (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012).
In this case, John decided to publicly criticize our most important customer. Understanding that each employee is a representative of the company, his actions are offensive and unacceptable, as the public may perceive that his opinions are aligned with that of the company. The negative criticism in his Facebook post has a negative impact on the company. Based on the utilitarianism ethics theory, requiring us to consider the consequences of an act for all those affected by it, the right way to behave in a given situation is to choose the alternative that is likely to produce the greatest overall good. Further investigation of this situation revealed that
John had no intentions of affecting positive change or improvements nor was he acting in concert for others, so the adverse affect of John’s post outweighs the good. Because this is a private company, termination of this employee is legal. In an effort to avoid future occurrences, the company will incorporate training to ensure all employees understand their personal

Employment-At-Will Doctrine

5

responsibilities regarding ethics and ethical conduct as members of this company, requiring all employees to sign compliance agreements.
Situation Number Two
One of the department supervisors requests approval to fire his secretary, citing insubordination. However, since the secretary has always received high performance reviews, I scheduled a meeting to discuss the issue. In this meeting unfolds, I discover that she refused to falsify expense reports for her supervisor. This situation is protected under the employment at will exception of public policy, as it is not lawful to falsify documents, and termination is not an option, (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2013). From the aspect of utilitarianism, I believe she is acting in interest of the greater good. A formal investigation should be conducted regarding the supervisor’s actions and abuse of power to determine if there are other abhorrent actions or behaviors occurring within his section. As this is an isolated incident, annual refresher training is implemented to for all employees, including supervisors and management, to ensure each person understands the moral and ethical expectations the company maintains for all members. Situation Number Three
One of the department supervisors wants to terminate Anna for being out from work without his approval. She was assigned jury duty and submitted her leave request in advance, but the supervisor refused to sign it. All citizens have a right and obligation to serve jury duty and it is protected as a public policy exception under the employment at will doctrine, (National
Conference of State Legislatures, 2013). To limit liability and avoid impact to operations, the

Employment-At-Will Doctrine

6

human resources department will conduct comprehensive training for management to review all company policies and procedures, as well as regulations. I immediately scheduled a meeting with upper level management, human resources, and Anna’s boss to discuss his actions and review current policy and regulations regarding this matter. This decision is based on the deontology theory, understanding that this public policy is universal to everyone and how this situation is handled is far-reaching and will ultimately impact everyone in the company, (Halbert
& Ingulli, 2012).
Louisiana, Recent Real-World Example
On July 28, 2011, Robert L. “Bob” Hawley, Jr. was fired from his position as Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) of Slidell Memorial Hospital. This decision was based on two separate offenses of driving while intoxicated (DWI). Because of his first DWI, in 2006, then-state
Senator Tom Schedler authorized the board of commissioners to enter into a renewable, two-year term employment agreement with Hawley as CEO of Slidell Memorial Hospital. It was explicitly stated that this contract could only be canceled by voluntary resignation, disability termination, death, conflict of interest, felony conviction, prohibited conduct, or use of confidential information. It had been renewed to 2013, but Hawley was quickly terminated following a DWI arrest on the morning of July 13, 2011. Although his trial was not scheduled until December for this offense as well as other related offenses; i.e. speeding, etc., the board unanimously voted to fire him on July 28, 2011 based on his prohibited conduct. Not only is Louisiana an “at-will” employment state, it is also one of the few states that has not statute requiring the three common exceptions to the employment at will doctrine. The basis for Louisiana’s position is Civil Code

Employment-At-Will Doctrine

7

Article 2747, which states, “A man is at liberty to dismiss a hired servant attached to his person or family, without assigning any reason for so doing. The servant is also free to depart without assigning any cause.” (Louisiana Workforce Commission, 2009). Undoubtedly, this is an archaic mindset, but remains part of the Louisiana Civil Code since 1825, engrained into our law for centuries past and expected to continue into the unforeseeable future.
Conclusion
As an astute manager, I have concluded that it is in the company’s best interest to institute a whistle blower policy. By definition, a whistleblower is any member of an organization who reports illegal or unethical acts within the organization, typically acts of or under the control of a superior that he has knowledge of or participated in because of his regular duties. Whether they work for a private company, non-profit organization, or the government, they are considered to be a whistleblower when they disclose information of this nature to supervisors, regulators, or the media. The common thread amongst all whistleblowers is the overwhelming need to bring to light a disturbing issue that should be corrected, (Halbert &
Ingulli, 2012). Implementing a whistle blower policy could be advantageous for the company by allowing management the opportunity to handle issues internally. The company can avoid potential negative impacts of a situation that could be exacerbated if the incident were to become public. There are numerous documented cases of legal rulings in favor of the employee for wrongful termination resulting from actions of a whistle blower because the wrongdoing was

Employment-At-Will Doctrine

8

validated and not addressed by the company (Barnett, 1992). As the paradigm shifts, it is becoming more necessary for companies to implement whistleblower policies, because the federal and state laws are expanding whistleblower protections. Whistle blowing policies should have the following components, at a minimum: (1) a clear statement that employees who are aware of possible wrongdoing within the organization have a responsibility to disclose the information to appropriate parties inside the organization, (2) the designation of specific individuals or groups outside the chain of command as compliant recipients, (3) a guarantee that employees who, in good faith, disclose perceived wrongdoing to the designated parties inside the organization will be protected from adverse employment consequences, and (4) the establishment of a fair and impartial investigative process. This is a policy that must be embraced by every member of the organization, and most importantly, from the top down.
Personnel issues are inevitable in any company. However, each must be handled objectively and equitably, closely following procedural guidelines within legal parameters, for the sake of all stakeholders and to minimize liabilities and legal ramifications.

Employment-At-Will Doctrine

9

References
Barnett, T. (1992). Why Your Company Should Have A Whistleblowing Policy. SAM
Advanced Management Journal (07497075); 57(4), pp 37-42.
Halbert, T. & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law and Ethics in the Business Environment, 7th Edition.
Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
National Conference of State Legislatures, (2013). The At Will Presumption and Exceptions to the Rule. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved on February 7, 2015 from http://www.National Conference of State Legislatures.org/research/labor-andemployment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx
Rubin, H. & Stait, D., September 9, 2011. Legal View: When Can An Employer Fire An
Employee Over An Offensive Facebook Posting? Detroit Legal News. Retrieved on
February 7, 2015 from http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/1070272
Prentice, R. & Bredeson, D. (2010). Student Guide to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Louisiana Workforce Commission, (2009). Employer Handbook. Business Owners Manual.
Retrieved on February 9, 2015 from http://www.laworks.net/Downloads/Employment/
EmployerHandbook.pdf