Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Employment at will" doctrine yes or no
Assignment 2: Employment-At-Will Doctrine
Describe the employment law and how it works
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Employment at will" doctrine yes or no
Employment-At-Will Doctrine
The employment-at-will doctrine is a reasonable rule that gives businesses the capacity to terminate workers. Managers can fire a worker "for a justifiable reason, an awful reason, or no reason by any stretch of the imagination" (Halbert and Ingulli, 2012, p.46). This tenet was created in the nineteenth century under the hypothesis that it would be generally as reasonable for a business to fire a representative for any reason, as it would be for a worker to leave from job whenever. Since the principle is so expansive, there have been a couple exemption. The conditions under which a representative can assert their end is unlawful is hard to demonstrate.
Employment-at-will refers to American Law's doctrine that defines an employment relationship in which employer or employee can right away terminate the employment relationship at any time with or without any notice. Also, no subsequent liability is considered, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer
…show more content…
They include discrimination against color, race, sex, national origin, disability or age. Other exceptions are a promise of good faith or fair dealing in an employment contract, wrongful dismissal in breach of public policy or suggesting contractual duties based off of the employer's handbook. A tort is also an exception whether the policy originates from administrative practices, legislation, legal hearing, constitution or other sources. The tort presents the employee with an opportunity to persuade a jury to grant money awards (damages) for unlawful dismissal. Discharge of workers may be prohibited by some state or federal statutes if the employees it is based on a worker's filing of a compensation claim, participation in jury duty, involving a military duty, get involved in the union or particular incidence in whistle-blowing (Venn,
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.
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.
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?
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
Primarily, the employee was in violation of federal laws, which protect employees regarding slanderous or racially remarks. According to Title VII, it is...
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 dealing with a person’s livelihood, and often, sense of self, it is of no surprise that ethical issues regarding employment practices are of great concern. The issues of employment at will and due process contracts in the workplace are among the most widely contentious in the realm of employment. Employment at will is the doctrine that employment may be ended, by either party, for good, bad or no cause at all.1 Due process, on the other hand, is the employment practice in which a person may appeal a decision as a means of receiving an explanation and the opportunity to argue against it.2 Employment at will is the standard in the majority of private corporations today and is argued for relentlessly by freedom of contract enthusiasts, however, it is becoming ever more apparent that employment at will contracts reflect the old corporate maxim where the single bottom line, profit, is accented and the well being of other stakeholders, in this case the employee, are of little or no influence. Due process should be accepted as the prevalent employment system as it shelters employees from the hostile actions of the more powerful employer, provides a stable, bilateral contract between both parties and portrays the growing ethical concerns of society.
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s...
employer or employee to lose property, money, or a valuable security or any service. This
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).
Part 2 of Employer Duties and Rights- management rights, subcontracting, just-cause discipline and discharge, and safety standards.
Constitution Law and Labor Law Introduction Despite the form of governance in any country, formulation of laws is vital and essential to both the institutes in authority and the citizens being governed. Besides maintaining order within the nation, laws facilitate preservation of freedom, protection of citizens and resolution of conflicts. Considering the various laws that exist, in this essay, we shall concentrate on the constitution and labor laws. On the other hand, example of cases that elaborate the mentioned laws shall be highlighted to expound in details the components of these legislations.
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 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).