Assignment 2: Employment-At-Will Doctrine
Abstract
Employment-At-Will Doctrine states that states that an employee or an employer can decide to end the employment contract with or without a prior notification. A workplace has a lot of complications and requires some rules and regulations to govern it. Admittedly, there are some exceptions that limit the full application of the employment at will doctrine as the exceptions challenge it. The paper will expound three major exceptions including public policy exception, implied contract and the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Additionally, a case scenario involving employees of a company and the bosses will be discussed, and a real life case scenario (Salmon and Wills Vs Arizon ) case will be explored too. Ethical theory of deontology which applies to most of the cases in the paper will be detailed too.
Under the American Law, employment at will doctrine states how the contract between the employee and the employer can be terminated at any time through notification or even without (Schulz, 2015). There exists a bargaining power between the two parties which is unequal. Organizations make use of privacy management tools to conduct assessments on privacy regulations. This helps them to discover the root cause of any unauthorized information disclosure. Nevertheless, there are some of the exceptions related to Employee At Will Doctrine due to the fact that they get challenged severally. These exceptions are bound to protect the employees interest. Below is a discussion of the three major exceptions.
Public Policy Exception
As per the public policy exception, the employer has no power to terminate the employee contract on the basis of refusing to carry out activities that violate the laws, rules, and regulations. In this respect, the policy protects the employees against any employment act that has not public interest. The policy thus only applies if the employees refuse to undertake any action that violate the public interest, when the employees protest to protect the public and when they file reports of excise statutory rights to curb any violation (Muhl, 2001).
Implied Contracts
This a policy recognized in over forty states in the USA. The implied contracts are made in a variety of ways and serves as an employment contract. Regardless of whether there was a written document at the start of the contract or not, the exception is raised. It turns to be difficult to prove the existence of such contracts. Under the contract policy, an employee follows set regulations that are agreed at the start of the contract and can be protected by those policies throughout the contract (Muhl, 2001).
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
The policy is not as common as the implied contracts and as such, it is only used in some states. The exceptions protect the employee from being terminated from work without any substantial reason. Good Faith and Fair Dealing intend to end a contract with an employee fairly without causing much suffering especially if the worker is the breadwinner of the family (Muhl, 2001).
Notably, there are many exceptions being added to protect the employees. Admittedly, some the exceptions limit the doctrine of employment at will to be excised employees who are found with vices such as discriminations at workplace, whistleblower, handling any off-duty activities and retaliations. Owing to the above reason, there must be a valid reason for an employer to file a dismissal of an employee rest he or she doesn’t succeed due to the protection by the doctrine’s exceptions. Many workplaces are found having issues with the overall employment such that an employee can be dismissed without any valid reason. This is unethical and the need to have rules and regulations to govern the workplace and especially the employee (Larmer & Robert, 2012).
The case presents a number of violations where some are extreme violations and calls for a dismissal. The organization has to check the seriousness of each scenario and decide accordingly. As a matter of facts, the organization cannot proceed at the current situations.
John’s Case
First, John should be the first to be dismissed. He posted a rant on his Facebook page and criticized one of the most important customer of the organization. Every organization values their customers, and this cannot be forgiven. Customers’ critical information cannot be bleached and posted over the social media. This is a serious issue since the customer can even sue the company on the basis of personal information breach. John thus violated the ethical obligations and doesn’t seem to value the company nor the customers.
For John’s case, it is evident that no whistleblower exception that would have protected him from getting a dismissal. Besides being dismissed, he should write an apology statement for posting rants linked to the customer on his Facebook page. A theory that seems to fit this case scenario is the Deontology Theory which states that an employee has to respect the responsibilities and obligations. Thus, there exist no policy to prevent the company from terminating John from employment. It thus follows that all employs should respect the customers and avoid any such misconducts.
Jim’s Case
Secondly, Jim is said to have sent an email to the other sales representatives complaining on the need for a change in the commissions schedules and awards and suggested a boycott in the following sales meeting. This is a case that can be discussed and necessary measures taken. For instance, the higher management can talk with Jim internally and alert the others not to boycott in advance. Admittedly, changes are inevitable in an organization, and there should be a room for workers to share ideas. Nevertheless, it is not ethical to command the other to boycott, and instead, Jim should have asked them to share their views on his idea (Larmer & Robert, 2012). For such a case, the organization can warn him against misleading the others and not following the right channel to raise an issue.
Bill’s Case
Bill’s case is a serious one as company’s properties should not be used for personal interests. The BlackBerry phone provided to him by the company is to be used for official activities only. Using it to run a personal business is a violation, and the company can fire him on legal grounds. Nevertheless, he can be warned to maintain ethical behaviors and use the company’s properties for company activities only. This is likely to stop him from such behaviors. Again deontology ethical theory is applicable for this case as it insist on adhering to the responsibilities and obligations set by the company (Larmer & Robert, 2012).
Anna’s Case
For Anna’s case, she cannot be fired on the basis that she was absent without permission as it was stated with her boss. Evidently, she had asked for permission to meet the jury, and the request was declined. The public policy exception protects her from being dismissed as per the policy; one cannot be dismissed when one had a prior request to see a jury. A leave is legally valid, and the bosses should be ready to allow them. Additionally, it is ethical to cooperate with other workers besides being their boss.
Maryland State Policy
According to Maryland State policy, ‘employees work at the will of their employers.’ This reflects that lack of a clear contract policy or agreement; an employee can be hired or dismissed without any substantial reason and irrespective of whether the dismissal is fair or not. Nevertheless, there exists some exceptions to this state policy which protects the employees from discriminations such as race, sex, color, disability or even the marital status. These exceptions also incorporate laws that protects termination or retaliation for dismissing workers who fails to work for unpaid overtime hours or being paid unreasonably (Schulz, 2015).
In this case, plainfiff Godbolt claimed that her former employer Trinity harassed or discriminated her on gender/sex basis. Godbolt who worked as a contract security officer from July 31, 2011 till the termination of the contract in July 2012 claimed that She worked under CurRie who denied her requests to work during certain shifts. This shift was assigned to newly hired officer who was less senior compared to Godbolt. Additionally, she alleged that Currie also revoked a pre-approved when she discovered that Godbolt was to switch with him. This is against the set exceptions of Maryland State. An employee should not be discriminated on basis on gender. This means Trinity had to compensate her as per the exceptions of employment at will doctrine.
References
Larmer, R. A. (2002). Ethics in the workplace: Selected Readings in Business Ethics. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Muhl, C. J. (2001). The Employment-At-Will Doctrine: Three Major Exceptions. Retrieved from Bureau of Labor Statistics website
Godbolt v. TRINITY PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., No. GJH-14-3546 (D. Md. Mar. 14, 2016).
Schulz, K. M. (2015). Employment At-Will: Termination of Employment - The Maryland Guide
