Summary of employment-at-will doctrine from text
The employment at will doctrine is a legal doctrine that states that an employee who is hired for an indefinite period of time, may be terminated or end the employment at any time. Employment at will also means that the terms of the employment with regards to the employee can be altered at any time without notice and without consequences. For instance, an employer can reduce the employee’s wages, make changes in the employee’s benefits or change the terms of paid time off. In many states, employment at will doctrine has exceptions. One of the most common exceptions relates to public policy. This exception provides that an employer cannot terminate an at will employee if the termination violates public policy. Public policy may include a violation of a state law or a federal law, such as criminal laws or anti-discrimination laws. Other examples of public policy include the reporting of a company’s violation of the law and engaging in public interest duties or acts. These exceptions may be created by state law or by common law. Two other exceptions to the termination of an at will employee include the implied contract exception and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing exception. These two exceptions are typically common law exceptions and are not recognized in as many states as the public policy exception. The employment at will doctrine is not as poplar in states as it had been in the past as employees have been extended certain protections under a variety of areas of law including tort law, contract law and property law.
Evaluation of three scenarios
John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer.
An employer cannot legally discipline an employee for activities conducted on their own time, or social media posts that involve concerted activity according to the law in some states and federal law. However, in this situation John did not engage in concerted activity so federal law will not protect him, and Virginia is an employment at will state. Therefore, John can be fired for his Facebook post.
Ellen started a blog to protest the CEO’s bonus, noting that no one below director has gotten a raise in two (2) years and portraying her bosses as “know-nothings” and “out-of-touch”
This situation is similar to the above regarding the law. However, the facts need to be evaluated more closely to determine if Ellen was engaged in a concerted activity. She likely was not since it was a blog that she posted, it simply depends on responses and participation to her blog. So, we do not know for sure if she is protected federally. Ellen, if she is an at will employee, could be disciplined for her actions, and fired, as well. As discussed with John above, the actions to take to limit liability are the same. In this situation.
Anna’s boss refused to sign her leave request for jury duty and now wants to fire her for being absent without permission.
Virginia law prohibits employers from firing an individual because of absence from work due to jury duty, so long as the employee gave the employer reasonable notice. Anna’s boss was aware of her jury duty so he had notice of her absence. Even though he did not give her permission to be absent for jury duty, he may not fire her under Virginia law. The only way in which he could fire her without violating the law is if she did not give reasonable notice that she had jury duty.
Virginia policy on employment at will
Virginia is an employment at will state, however, the law is not created by statute, it is established by case law. In Virginia, an employer-employee relationship is recognized as at-will. This means that the employee is hired for an indefinite period time but the employment may be terminated by either the employer or employee for any reason with reasonable notice. In Virginia, “An employee is ordinarily at liberty to leave his employment for any reason or for no reason, upon giving reasonable notice, without incurring liability to his employer. Notions of fundamental fairness underlie the concept of mutuality which extends a corresponding freedom to the employer”. Sufficient evidence, however, may be presented in Virginia courts to overcome the at will employment presumption that exists. This can only be done by showing that the employee was hired for a definite period of time. Additionally, in Virginia, the employment at will doctrine recognizes the public policy exception. The public policy exception provides that an employer cannot fire an employee who is an at will employee if the firing violates public policy. Also, the common law in Virginia does create a whistleblower exception which was created in the court case of Lawrence Chrysler Plymouth Corp. v, Brooks.
Real world example
Angela Van Buren sued Stephen Grubb, her employer, for wrongful termination after she was terminated when she refused to leave her husband to have a relationship with Mr. Grubb. Van Buren also sued Grubb for gender discrimination. Van Buren claimed that although her employment was at-will, an exception to the doctrine existed in her situation – namely, public policy. Van Buren claimed that she was fired for refusing to engage in adultery with Grubb which is a violation of a statute. Virginia case law sets forth that termination of an employee violates public policy if a statute is violated in some instances. The lower court dismissed the lawsuit but the Court of Appeals remanded for a trial.
References
Sexton, J. M. (2014, April 14). Best Practices for Employers to Limit Liability/Exposure. Retrieved from Sterling Education Services, Inc.: http://www.sterlingeducation.com/the-sterling-blog/bid/100855/Best-Practices-for-Employers-to-Limit-Liability-Exposure
Town of Vinton v City of Roanoke, 195 Va. 881, 80 S.E.2d 608 (Supreme Court of Virginia 1951).
Van Buren v. Grubb, 120348 (United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit November 1, 2012).
