Employment-At-Will Case Study

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;

2) an employee attempts to exercise a legal right provided by statute, such as filing a workers’ compensation claim; 3) the employee reports on an employer’s illegal acts, also knows “whistleblowing;” and 4) an employee attempts to perform a public duty, such as serving on a jury (Public Policy, 2010).
The second exception to the employment-at-will is Implied Contracts. The Implied Contract exceptions are when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, although no written document exists. The last exception would be to imply a promise of “good faith and fair dealings” in the contract of employment (Halbert & Inguilli, 2012). Most states recognize the good faith and fair dealings exception, but most companies require an employee to sign paperwork or include a paragraph in the employment handbook that says just the opposite of this exception. As the law changes, more exceptions will be added, but some of the major additions are tort-based claims that will protect an employee are trying to form a union, discrimination (Title VII), and retaliation for reporting workplace violations for environmental or workplace safety laws. Under the protections of these new exceptions then an employer must have a valid reason to fire an employee.
The scenarios presented are unique in their own way, so as a Chief Operating Officer (COO), I need to analyze the information presented to determine if the employee can be legally fired, and any exceptions to the employment-at-will. With the first scenario, John criticized the company’s most important customer on Facebook. As the company’s COO can I legally fire John for his post? The answer is yes. There is no state policy or exceptions for employment-at-will doctrine that will prevent John from being terminated. Obviously, John does not respect the company or the customer to publicly criticize them on Facebook. This type of behavior cannot be tolerated, because it is unethical. John is jeopardizing the company’s most important customer by criticizing them and this could impact the company by the major customer giving their business to someone else. It would be the best interest of the company to terminate John.
Utilitarianism would be the best theory for this case because it asks us to compare the harms versus the benefits of acting a certain way. The way John acted not only affects him, but it affects the company as a whole. Utilitarianism asks, “Who all will be affected by the decision?” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012) John should issue an apology statement to the customer, and remove the Facebook rant immediately. This action should limit the liability of and the impact on the operations of the company. John is risking the company losing it’s most important customer, which could lead to bigger issues. The company could lose this customer and that means losing money, which means they might have to let more employees go.
Another scenario that the COO may have to be dealt with is Joe is threatening to sue the company for an email that was sent on his personal email account from a company computer.

We have learned from Pillsbury v. Smyth, which is a similar case, that Joe could, in fact, be terminated for his actions. He could be terminated legally because there is no exception to the employer’s right to terminate an employee-at-will doctrine. His termination does not violate Public Policy. In the Smyth v. Pillsbury (1996) case, it was ruled that Smyth had no reasonable expectation of privacy because he was using a company computer. Joe was using a company computer to write the email, so there is no expectation of privacy either. In order to limit the liability of the company, termination of Joe would be the best step. The company should expect for Joe to follow through with the legal action, so they should be prepared to defend themselves in court. Joe will be jaded for being fired and possibly want revenge. As for the impact on operations, I would send out a memorandum that explains the privacy policy of the company, and the policy for criticizing customers. Letting people know what is expected this would limit the impact on

operations.
Deontology would be the best theory that would suit this scenario. The approach of this theory is that making ethical choices are guided by moral actions. The behavior by Joe shows that he has no respect for the customer or the company that he works. He would not be sending the out email blasting the customer if he cared about the company. I understand that people can get frustrated in their job, but talking about customers is morally wrong. All employees have responsibilities and obligations that they must follow. Instead of taking the responsibility for his actions, Joe decided to sue the company. Joe should accept the repercussions and not sue because he has no legal leg to stand on.
The last scenario that will be discussed is Anna’s boss firing her for having Jury Duty. Should Anna be fired for being absent for Jury Duty? The answer is no. Anna cannot be legally fired because she was absent for jury duty. Anna would be covered by the at-will-employee public policy exception. The exception states that an employee cannot be removed for performing a public duty, like serving on a jury (Public Policy, 2010). Anna’s boss legally could not reject her leave request for jury duty. Anna’s employer violated the public policy by removing her, and the reason (being absent without permission) that Anna’s boss fired her does not override public policy. The actions that should be taken by the COO are to make sure that the supervisor understands that they cannot legally fire Anna, and to help them understand the public policy exception of the Employment-At-Will Doctrine. Maybe a training class should be set up to help all of the supervisors understand what exceptions are covered under the doctrine.
Also, maybe a whistleblower program needs to be put in place at the company. Obviously, people within the company do not care if they are violating the law, and something should be put into place to stop this behavior. The Whistleblower policy would protect the employees from being treated illegally (Kohn, 2002). This program could help limit the liability of the company by giving the employees a way to report this illegal activity before it happens. The company would have major problems if they allowed the supervisor to fire Anna. They would be violating the law and they could be sued for the violation. This violation could impact operations by causing the company to be investigated for wrongfully terminating an employee, and long drawn out court case. The theory that supports this scenario is Virtue Ethics. This theory looks at what people are capable of being, and what they are being exposed to within the family or community. This theory supports this scenario because Anna’s boss was using a learned behavior. Maybe his previous boss or mentor acted this way and got away with it. Having good habits could encourage others to have to want to perform to their fullest potential (Halbert & Igulli, 2012).
Virginia is an employment-at-will state under the Virginia Code 40.1-51.2:1. This code states that an employer in the state of Virginia may terminate any employee at any time, for any reason, or for no reason (Virginia Department of Labor and Industry, n.d). The Virginia law is pretty standard when it comes to Employment-At-Will because it follows the basic premise of the doctrine and allows a few exceptions like the employee cannot be discriminated against, Public Policy, or fired for filing a safety complaint. Other than these few exceptions, an employee cannot challenge his or her termination.
An example of an Employment-At-Will case that happened in the state of Virginia is Shomo v.

Junior Corporation, No. 7:2011 cv -508. In this case, Abigail Shomo was in a relationship Junior, the son of the president of Junior’s Corporation. Ms. Shomo was hired to be a waitress, but when she told Junior’s father, the owner, that she was pregnant with Junior’s child, he proceeded to tell her to abort the child or be fired. He stated that no one wanted to see “a waitress with a belly” and that customers did not want to be served by a pregnant woman. After Ms. Shomo refused to abort the child, the owner of Junior’s Corporation fired her. Ms. Shomo filed for wrongful termination in the Commonwealth of Virginia stating that it violated the Public Policy exception of the Employment-At-Will Doctrine. Although the federal court stated “ terminating an employee because they refuse to have an abortion offends the conscience of the court” (Krauss, 2013) there was no law that protected Ms. Shomo from termination. During the case, it was determined that the Shomo case did not meet any of the exceptions for the Virginia-at- will rule although it was morally wrong. The federal court of the Commonwealth of Virginia dismissed the

case.