Management
Summary of Employment-at-Will Doctrine
The employment-at-will doctrine has its roots in the feudal doctrine of master and servant, wherein the master-servant relationship is viewed based on status rather than contract. H.G Wood’s treatise on the master-servant relationship held that ‘a general or indefinite hiring is prima facie a hiring at will’ (DeGiuseppe, 1981, p.6) This concept evolved in the United States as employment-at will. According to the doctrine, an employer can terminate the services of an employee at any time for any reason except an illegal one, and even for no reason at all, without risking legal ramifications. Similarly, an employee is at liberty to leave the employment at any juncture without proffering any reasons, with no danger of being legally prosecuted (Muhl, 2001). The doctrine reflected the belief that the employer and employee were on equal footing regarding termination of employment in the absence of any contract specifying any constraining clauses.
Over a period of time, the doctrine has been eroded by the emergence of unions, recognition of the fact that employers hold relatively larger economic and bargaining powers, and that jobs are a prime source of livelihood. Accordingly, exceptions have crept into the doctrine. Terminations that violate a State’s public policy, terminations done after an implied contract for employment has been established by way of policies or assurances, and terminations violating good faith or done as acts of malice have been recognized by states in varying degrees as exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine (Muhl, 2001, p.4).
Evaluation of Scenarios
Based on the articulation of the employment-at-will doctrine, three scenarios as described are analyzed below.
John’s Rant on Facebook of Company’s Most Important Customer
Undoubtedly, John might take recourse to suing the company for firing him. To limit liability, the company should have in place an appropriately worded policy regarding social media interaction with its employees. The policy should state that employees must identify themselves with the company when they communicate information about the company, and that they are prohibited from disclosing the company’s confidential information or its customers’ private information (Johnson & Murphy, 2011). The ethical theory that is upheld by firing John is Utilitarian ethics, as the greater good of the company is held hostage in this case by John’s outpourings on Facebook.
Request to Fire Secretary
The department supervisor has requested to fire the secretary for insubordination. Inquiry has revealed that the secretary was refusing to prepare false expense reports for her boss. The fact that the secretary is refusing to become an accessory to an illegal act falls under the ambit of ‘public policy’ (Muhl, 2001, p.4), because there would be clauses in the state constitution and administrative rules that prohibit people from being accessories to illegalities. Therefore, the request of the supervisor to fire the secretary should be denied. The ethical theory that is upheld by not allowing the secretary to be fired is virtue ethics, which enjoins people to uphold virtues such as honesty as displayed in this case.
Request to Fire Anna who left for Jury Duty
Anna had requested for leave of absence so that she could meet the requirements of being a lawful citizen called up for jury duty. On refusal of her request for leave, Anna nevertheless reported for jury duty. While Anna’s boss wishes to fire her based on the employment-at-will doctrine, Anna is covered under the exception of public policy, as jury duty is considered an important public duty (Lenard, 1986, p. 540). Therefore, it would be illegal to fire Anna under the ambit of the employment-at-will doctrine. The ethical theory that is upheld by refusing to fire Anna is deontological ethics, which enjoins Anna to do jury duty as a moral and social obligation.
Examination of North Carolina’s Policy on Employment-at-Will
North Carolina is an employment-at-will state. In the case of North Carolina, the public policy exception is the only exception that applies to the employment-at-will doctrine. North Carolina does not recognize the implied contract exception and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Muhl, 2001, p.4.).
In North Carolina, the most common protected categories are those protecting an employee’s civil rights based on ‘age, race, sex, religion, national origin, color, disability or pregnancy’ (Berry, n.d.). Employees are also protected under the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA), protecting retaliation by employers when employees engage in activities protected under the ‘Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the Mine Safety and Health Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and Workers Compensation Act’ (Berry n.d.).
In a recent case, the North Carolina town of Taylortown was made to pay damages to the tune of $100,000 for wrongful discharge. The case revolved around Timothy Blakeley, who was hired as police chief of Taylortown in 2003. In 2004, Blakeley had a difference of opinion with the town’s mayor regarding the use of an Armored Tracked Vehicle (ATV) on the town’s streets. Blakeley contended that the ATV, operated by a town employee, violated the law. When Blakeley reported the matter to the mayor, he was dissuaded from progressing the matter further. Once Blakeley persisted and presented his findings to the town council, he was admonished for not having followed the chain of command in his actions. During a period when a drug drive was ongoing, Blakeley refused to provide confidential information regarding the drive to council members. In retaliation, the town council passed a resolution terminating his employment on grounds of performance. Blakely appealed to court that he had been victimized because he was upholding the law. He argued that while discharging his duties, he was required to uphold the integrity of his sources in his drive against drugs. Parting with the information of his sources would have jeopardized the anti-drug drive, and would have violated the public policy of action against crime and criminals. The court upheld Blakeley’s claim, and held that he had been discharged in violation of public policy (Rainey, 2014). The case, therefore, highlights the fact that North Carolina adheres to the public policy clause as an exception to the employment-at-will statute.
References
Berry, C. (n.d.). Employment-at-will. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from http://www.nclabor.com/wh/fact%20sheets/eaw.htm
DeGiuseppe, J. (1981). The effect of employment-at-will rule on employee rights to job security and fringe benefits. Fordham Law Journal 10/1: 1-70. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from http://www.bpslaw.com/files/20130923102243-Employment-At-Will%20Rule.pdf
Hill, K. (2011). When you can and can’t fire employees for social media misbehavior. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/08/25/when-you-can-and-cant-fire-employees-for-social-media-misbehavior/#1ea798236b95
Johnson, M.B., & Murphy, M.R. (2011). Social media policies after the NLRB ‘Facebook firing’ case settles: what are employers to do? Retrieved May 8, 2016, from http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/Templates/media/files/publications/2011/social-media-policies-after-the-nlrb-facebook-firing-case-settles-what-are-employers-to-do.pdf
Lenard, P. M. (1986). Unjust dismissal of employees at will: are disclaimers a final solution? Fordham Urban Law Journal 15/2: 533-565. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1306&context=ulj
Muhl, C. (2001). The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions. Monthly Labor Review Jan 2001: 1-11. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf
Rainey, R.L. (2014). North Carolina town tagged $100k for wrongful discharge. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Performance-Termination/Employee-Termination-with-Discharge/North-Carolina-town-pays-100K-wrong-discharge/
