Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
discrimination within the workplace
due process at will employment
an essay on discrimination practices
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: discrimination within the workplace
Employment at will is a law that is present in all fifty states in the US; although, in Montana there requires a stated cause for termination. Employment at will creates dissent among employees when they have been terminated for a cause that is thought to be unsubstantial or when no cause is given. There are pros and cons to the presumption, and employees and employers have different views. Employment at will means that the employer can terminate an employee at any time, for any cause without warning. However, even an at-will employee cannot be terminated because of discriminatory reasons. Employment at will also means that an employee can leave a job at any time without the fear of facing any legal consequences. An employer can also change the terms of employment without notice and no penalties. Throughout this paper, the two sides to employment at will will be discussed, and different examples of employment at will cases will be given. At its most basic, employment at will is not the best path because it can create feelings of violation and betrayal in the employee and can create a negative public opinion or loss of profit for the business.
In class this session, we discussed the case of a man, John Stone, fired for wearing his Packers tie at work where his boss was a fan of the rival team. In this case, Stone’s boss was a Bears’ fan, which was explicitly known at the dealership and by Stone. When Stone wore his Packer’s tie to the dealership one day, he was fired. Stone’s boss states that he repeatedly told Stone to remove the tie and that Stone did not comply. Stone retaliates by saying that he was in the middle of speaking with customers during these orders and his boss told him to continue with his job. Immediately afte...
... middle of paper ...
...ion, then it can be true cause for termination.
Works Cited
Dannin, Ellen. "Why At-Will Employment is Bad for Employers and
Just Cause is Good for Them ." Labor Law Journal . n. page. Print.
employment-bad-employers-and-just-cause-good-them>.
Farnham, Alan. "Florida Law Firm Fires Workers For Wearing Orange." ABC News 19 Mar
2012, n. pag. Print. workers-for-wearing-orange/>. Pfeiffer, Eric. "Law firm fires 14 employees for wearing orange shirts." YAHOO! News. n. page.
Web. .
"Salesman fired for wearing Packers tie." ESPN [Chicago] 26 Jan 2011, n. pag. Print.
.
The white-collar union organizer affiliates in the case consist of: an office worker and the Office Employee International Union organizer, Nancy Rogers (Sloane & Witney, 2010). Base on Sloane & Witney (2010), “white-collar workers have long felt superior to their blue-collar-worker counterparts and tended to believe that joining a union decreases their occupational prestige” (p.13). It is synonymous to the office worker’s explanation to Rogers on the company’s culture as management’s influence toward nonunion workers to reframe from joining unions has resulted in paying them greater salaries, impose the idea of unions are only for manual workers and inappropriate for white-collar people to join (Sloane & Witney, 2010).This case provided a reference t...
In 1980, a precedent was set in a Michigan court case involving a man named Charles Toussaint who was suing his employer, BlueCross Blue Shield, for wrongful termination based on the guidelines set in the employee manual (Alfred and Bertsche 33). The manual stated that employees would only be terminated for just cause, and the court decided that Blue Cross had violated the agreements in the employee manual (34). The court also ruled that even with Blue Cross’s efforts to provide a document that “issued non-binding guidelines” the employee manual was a contract and Toussiant was wrongfully terminated (34). After the precedent set by this case many employers and employees for that matter were reviewing their employee manuals for the type of ambiguous language that could allow them to get sued or sue. Consequently, a slew of wrongful termination lawsuits followed this one, which is why it is now important for employers to draft their manuals with experienced legal staff. Even with the best legal team and the perfect wording there is still no definite assurance that an employer will be completely protected from such lawsuits, but taking these preventive measures helps in the long run.
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
In the case of a reasonable person test, “a reasonable person in [the employee 's] position would have felt that he was forced to quit because of intolerable and discriminatory working conditions.” The evidence was inconclusive due to Thomas’ “subjective personal discomfort, however, was most likely not the product of any action by appellees but, rather, the product of human nature.” Thomas v. Douglas
Bennett-Alexander, Dawn D. & Hartman, Laura P. (2001). Employment Law for Business (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Publishing. Downloaded February 4, 2008 from the data base of http://www.eeoc.gov
The question before the Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital is if an employer should be held responsible if an employee who is biased and does not make decisions has an influence on a decision that an unbiased administrator or manager would not usually make. In this case, Mulally and Korenchuk fabricated an allegation that caused Buck to fire Staub. The Court decided that an employer can be held responsible when a biased employee intends to cause an unfavorable employment action by either taking an action or influencing an unbiased administrator. This is because of discriminatory animus which is intent, motive, or state of mind that discriminates against someone else. At the end of the decision, the question that is left to the lower court to
According to Halbert & Inguilli (2012), Employment-At-Will is a rule that was developed giving employers that right to fire employees for a good cause, a bad cause, or even something that is morally wrong. This legal rule allows employers to do this without any legal ramifications. With many changes throughout the years, there are a few exceptions to the legal rule and employees cannot be fired for the state’s Public Policy Exception. This exception means that an employer cannot wrongfully terminate an employee for any reason that is protected under public policy. The Public policy exception means that an employee cannot be terminated because of four major situations: 1) An employee refuses to perform an illegal act at the request of an employer;
The law specifies the facts that can prompt employers to terminate employees from work, hence they are not allowed to terminate them at will (Fisher & Putman, 2016).
United States of America. National Employment Law Project. National Employment Law Project. N.p., Jan. 2011. Web. 18 May 2014.
In recent news, a Utah court is pondering if the right to self defense superceeds a Walmart “de-escalation” policy, which led to the firing of six Walmart employees. (Kieler, 2014) The former Walmart employees’ behaviors appear to be within human nature to protect oneself and the organization. Why would Walmart view the former employees’ behaviors as damaging to the corporation? What are the impacts of the firings on Walmart’s remaining workforce? How do Walmart’s actions influence employer and employee relationships? The aforementioned questions come to mind when contemplating if Walmart made the right decision(s) following their employees’ actions. Although Walmart views their former employees’ actions as black or white, others within
The decision to terminate an employee may be difficult for some managers depending on the situation at hand. Today, many states have adopted the employment at will law to fire employees for any or no reason, with the exception of employees that have a contract in place. According to Erickson (2008), “The basis for an employer to terminate an employee without being sued is the employment-at-will doctrine. This doctrine is a statement that is signed by both the employee and employer at the time of hire that states that the employee can quit at any time for any reason without notice and that the employer can terminate the employee at any time for any legal reason.” On the contrary to the definition of “At-Will” employment, Pozgar (2012) states, “The employment-at-will common law doctrine is not truly applicable in today’s society and many courts have recognized this fact. The twentieth century has witnessed significant changes in socio-economic values that have led to reassessment of the common law rule (p. 494). An example of an organization hiring on an employment on an at-will basis but terminating an employee without justifying the cause of action was the case of Joseph Casias versus Corporation. By law, an employer has to follow guidelines that essentially make ethos rules null and void because there is nothing to adhere to, especially in a circumstance where the employee is terminated by the at-will policy. In this situation, if the employer terminated by allegations that this employee was an active drug user. However, by law, according to Mr. Casias and his attorney, this employee had legitimate reasons for being involved in obtaining and smoking marijuana. As discussed in the case, the law protect employees from illegitimate...
During an authorized plant inspection by Ruben Warshovsky, part of the unionization campaign, the union representative would stop and address employees ¡§Hello, I am Ruben Warshovsky from the United Textiles Workers Union of America,¡¨ or some other greeting identifying himself as a union representative while traveling through the plant. Management threatened to get an injunc...
In the state of Georgia, most workers are usually regarded as employees working "at will." This means that employees are working at the will of their employer and the employer can subsequently fire them at any time, for any reason, and without any legitimate notice (At Will Employment in Georgia – FindLaw, 2011). Essentially, a worker can be terminated for pretty much any reason at all, regardless if it is good or valid (At Will Employment in Georgia – FindLaw, 2011). Most workers however are protected under federal laws and employees also can 't be fired because they opposed unlawful employment practices (At Will Employment in Georgia – FindLaw, 2011).
The doctrine of employment at-will provides that employers may hire, transfer, promote, or terminate employees at any time for any cause, and employees have the right to resign at any time with or without notice (Reed & Bogardus, 2012)....
In this case, Saito Sdn. Bhd. unilaterally terminated the benefits enjoyed by Roslan. When Roslan believes that her employer is accused of breaching an implied term of the employee’s contract of the employment as her employer had removed the benefits from her and generally it clear that the employee is no longer important. Therefore, constructive dismissal occurred. In this situation, Roslan was advised that make a formal complaint to her employer requesting that the problem be rectified. For instance, Roslan should write a formal letter to her employer asking for the reinstating the previously benefits. If no satisfactory rectification is made, the employee can walk off the job. The law of constructive dismissal requires the employee to leave in a timely manner. She must not delay too long.