Companies have found a way to protect their mutual interests by creating the Employment-at-Will Doctrine. In this doctrine employees and employers acknowledge a voluntary relationship based upon employment. Unless there is a contract or exception between the employer and employee, the Employment-at-Will Doctrine is a legal judgment supported by companies that permits an employer the power to terminate an employee on any basis; other than an illegal one or no reason, without legal responsibility (N.C Department of Labor). The doctrine authorizes an employee to depart from a position or job, at any time, without reason void of any legal consequences (Muhl, 2001). An employer has the authority to make changes to their terms of employment without …show more content…
Damage control by Public Relations will probably be engaged depending on the level of press his statement attracts. Human Resources would be contracted in order to determine if there are any policies regarding misconduct over the internet via social media (Paget, 2014). Next, someone from higher up would meet with John to receive a statement of his side of the story to compare. The legal division would review any legal bindings that could possibly protect John such as freedom of speech, the First Amendment of the Constitution. Under the Employment-At-Will Doctrine, there are protected practices that should be reviewed to determine if John is still eligible for employment or termination (Muhl, 2001). In this particular scenario, John decided to publicly criticize our most important customer. In the public eye, an employee represents the company. Therefore, John’s statement may have come off as a company ideal. A potential customer or current customer may take offense also to the fact the John is sharing personal opinions regarding employees, questioning whether or not a customer’s information is protected. Although both negative and positive consequences will have to be considered, employers should also take interest as to why John made those statements. Throughout the investigation of John’s statement the best interest of the company must be kept in mind at all times. For example, some …show more content…
The distribution of wealth may be unfair ethically but as long as employees are paid fair wages and benefits, there is no violation of law. Furthermore, Ellen was not forced to go against public policy or commit any crimes as a result of the raises. Morally, this will raise awareness and shed light to company finances which could not be in the company’s best interest. Ellen does not seem to be protected under any whistleblower acts or any legal provisions as she was not with a group of employees (Muhl, 2001). A company in this scenario would use the most effective approach to determining Ellen’s fate. Considering the negative backlash that may come from the media and federal agencies it would be in the company’s best interest to take action. In light of this, Ellen should be recommended for termination. If Ellen had been with a protected group activity, she would have grounds to appeal the decision of the company. However, it’s best to discuss the complaint with the employee to begin an investigation into the issue. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commitment (EEOC) now has, at most company’s hotlines for employees to report misconduct of a company. Ellen should have expressed her concerns though the proper chain of command and then proceeded to other means of whistleblowing if that was
In Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, plaintiff was looking for a job with defendant, Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. Plaintiff, Laduzinski, claimed that he was lured away from his job under false pretenses since defendants hired him to get access to his contacts. Nine months later, after plaintiff had given all his contacts, the manager of the Alvarez companies fired him because there was no work for him. Laduzinski brought a claim to recover damages for fraud in the inducement. The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises.
she received was fair as I believe her manner of speaking to her CEO was just plain Unprofessional.
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
A rehabilitation clinic dismissed two drug rehabilitation counselors for using peyote in a religious ceremony. The two counselors, including Smith, sought unemployment benefits. Possessing peyote is a criminal offense in the State of Oregon. The rehabilitation clinic denied the counselors unemployment on grounds of misconduct. Smith filed suit again the clinic. The Oregon Supreme Court overruled the rehabilitation clinic’s verdict. The court stated that Smith’s religious use of peyote was protected under the First Amendment's freedom of religion. The Employment Division, Department of Resources appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that possession and use of peyote is a crime. The Supreme Court returned the case back to Oregon State Courts to determine if Oregon law prohibits the use and possession of peyote for religious purposes. Oregon State court ruled that consumption of illegal drugs for religious purposes was still considered illegal; however, they were also aware that this ruling also violated the First Amendment. The main issue is whether the government can prevent the religious use of peyote under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, even if a law prohibits it for everyone else. In addition, can the state deny unemployment benefits to someone who has been fired for using peyote for religious purposes?
Discrimination in the workplace continues to be topics and issues of discussion, despite efforts to minimize or eliminate its ugly head. Discrimination is defined as the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people based on race, gender, disability or age (Fieser, 2015). Furthermore, some companies has used other forms in conjunction with discrimination like sexual harassment to mask unjust treatment in the workplace. Lilly Ledbetter was an employee at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc. for over 19 years. During this period, she consistently received low rankings in her annual performance-and-salary reviews. As a result, Lilly received significantly lower raises than her male counterparts, which led to her filing a civil lawsuit
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
Bennett, Alexander, Hartman (2003), Employment Law for Business, Fourth Edition I., The Regulation of the Employment Relationship, The McGraw-Hill Companies.
In this situation an employee, new to office politics was continuously making slanderous or racial remarks. Not that they were blatantly slanderous or racial he did them ignorantly. The employee would make remarks such as “old people should not drive. Anyone over the age of 50 should be restricted from driving. They always cut me off. Forget it if they are Asian, it doesn’t matter what their age is” or “well, all the people who live in that neighborhood are white and rich” or “only tall Mexicans hold positions of management” which were obviously against the diversity policy at the organization. On another occasion, frustrated by the lack of Starbucks Coffee houses in the area, he made a comment to another employee upon arriving at training one morning. “Don’t Asians drink coffee around here?” Several employees had made other observations in regards to comments made about African Americans and Asians; however, after this last comment, several employees brought it to the attention of the employee’s manager to address.
United States of America. National Employment Law Project. National Employment Law Project. N.p., Jan. 2011. Web. 18 May 2014.
The 21st Century has witnessed Asia’s rapid ascent to economic prosperity. As economic gravity shifts from the Western world to the Asian region, the “tyranny of distance [between states, will be] … replaced by the prospects of proximity” in transnational economic, scientific, political, technological, and social develop relationships (Australian Government, 1). Japan and China are the region’s key business exchange partners. Therefore these countries are under obligation to steer the region through the Asian Century by committing to these relationships and as a result create business networks, boost economic performance, and consequently necessitate the adjustment of business processes and resources in order to accommodate each country’s employment relations model (Wiley, Wilkinson, & Young, 2005). Cognizant of the fact that neither Japan nor China has given up on its external (protectionism or parity) adjustment tools, it is posited that they can nonetheless coexist since both “produce different things and in different ways” and as such avoid the cited perilous US and Mexico competition; but due to globalization, the operating environment portends a convergence or divergence of Industrial Relation (ER) strategies between China and Japan (Lipietz, 1997; Zhu & Warner, 2004).
Whether you are a manager or an officer in the military, the scenario that was presented is something that we need to have in the back of our mind that could occur on any given day. Have you ever had any situations occur under your command that was similar to the scenario that was presented that revolved around Coach Kramer and Coach Folley? If so, how did that happen, and how did you resolve the issue? With this situation having so many unknowns, how do you really proceed? Would you set up a team of administrators to make that decision? Would you seek advice from a mentor/colleague? Would you just immediately report it to the necessary individuals just to avoid getting caught in the middle? We truly do not know how we would react in
The employees was confronted and she stated that she has used the internet and email for personal reason, but didn’t know that it would have been a big
There is one way she could have resolved the situation. The solution is simple; stop being immature and gossiping about others. I do not think there is anything wrong with communicating with your employees an...
Employment at-will means that the employment relationship may be terminated, with or without cause and with or without advance notice at any time by the employee or LLB (Falcone, 2016). No statements made in this handbook, or by management, may alter the at-will status of employees (Smith & Harris, 2014). Policy Against Harassment LLB is committed to abiding by local, state, and federal laws regarding immigration, discrimination, and harassment laws, and we have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to harassing, bullying, and other unacceptable behaviors. LLB encourages employees to report any incidents of harassment or other prohibited conduct immediately so that complaints can be quickly and fairly resolved.