LEG 500: Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance 10/29/2013
Employment-At-Will is a policy that most states in the United States conform to in terms of employment. “At-Will” is when an employer can end a relationship with an employee at any given time, for any reason with the exception of an illegal one, for no reason without having any legal liability. At the same time, the employee is also free to leave their job at any point, for any reason, without any legal consequences. “At-Will” employment does not have a definite period of time, and can be altered by a written contract from the employer. There are exemptions to the doctrine:
Illegal Discrimination: An employee can be protected from an adverse employment action because of their membership in a legally protected class (race, sex, age, disability, etc.)
Retaliation: An employee can also be protected from an adverse employment action if the employee engages in protected activity (whistleblowing, opposing unlawful discrimination practices, etc.)
Common law has also created exceptions to employment-at-will. Courts in some states have set limitations by grounds of contract law. Those two approaches include:
“Imply a promise of good faith and fair dealing in the contract of the employment.”
To contractual terms from a handbook, policy statement, or behavior. (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012).
Only a few states use the first approach, and while most states recognize the second approach, employers are more unlikely to make any implied promises that might go against the at-will rule. Instead, companies will more than likely to promise the opposite. The following scenarios will discuss at-will in more depth as well as ethics that may be used. John an employee posted a rant on his Facebook page criticizing a customer. John can be terminated on the grounds of making private company practices public, and putting the company at risk of losing any possible revenue from the current customer, and from any potential customers who may want to conduct business with the company. The ethical theory being put to the test in this scenario is the free market ethics. In terms of the company, the main responsibility is to enhance the value of the shareholder’s investment in the company (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). Based on the exceptions of the at-will rule, the company would not face any backlash from John’s termination. John was not fired due to illegal discrimination, or retaliation for protected activity, but instead he placed the company at risk of losing one of their important investors. Jim sent out an email to other salespeople protesting a change in commission schedules and bonuses, suggesting a boycott. Jim can be legally terminated on the grounds of causing disruption in the workplace amongst other employees. Jim’s case would not fall under any of the exceptions to the at-will rule and therefore the company would not be liable if Jim was to attempt to sue. If we were to take a look at deontology, one would say that Jim’s action was based off what he felt was right. However, Jim is causing a disruption in the workplace by sending an email to the other salespeople on company time and on the company’s computer. Ellen started a blog to protest the CEO’s bonus regarding no one being able to receive a raise for the last two years. She has also called her bosses “no nothings” and “out of touch.” Because Ellen used a public blog to display her opinion about the company and its executives, Ellen can be terminated sharing the company’s operation to the public. While some may think Ellen is protected under the whistleblowing policy, Ellen also called her bosses “no nothings” on a public networking site. Ellen should have brought her concerns to her superiors before making it a public matter. Ellen would not be protected under