Question 1
Hernandez-Canton’s case presented several factors that the lawyers could have used to invoke the employment-at-will doctrine. First, she had just received a significant raise when the allegations of her relationship surfaced (Bodie, 2017). Thus, the lawyers could argue that the allegations were made with the intention to deny her new remuneration. Hernandez-Canton was summoned for the meeting that would lead to her dismissal only a week after receiving the raise. The changes in payment constitute an implied covenant which prevents the company from invoking the employment-at-will doctrine to terminate her.
Secondly, the facts of the case indicate that she had no chance to defend herself or act according to the ultimatum that had been presented by the manager. Given Hernandez-Canton’s track record, she was an important employee and there is no doubt that the company valued her. She had also contributed to the company’s growth and progress and dedicated her life to her work at the company (Snell et al., 2016). The company’s past actions are a stark contrast to the drastic measure of her dismissal without a chance of defense or a warning to alter any undesired behavior. The lawyers could prove that the company’s past behavior built an expectation of job security and constitute an implied contract.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Thirdly, Domzalski has left CEC for the rival company in 2015. The allegations of their affair were used as a reason for Hernandez-Canton’s dismissal two years later (Snell et al., 2016). The lawyers could use this action as a clear indicator of bad faith on the CEC’s side. The relationship between the two individuals seemed to have been acknowledged within the company. If the nature of her work deemed their relationship unacceptable according to company policy, the matter should have been raised as soon as Domzalski left for the rival company. Given that the purported relationship had been allowed to continue for two years, the company could not claim her violation of the prohibitive CEC policy as a basis for dismissal. The previous two year relationship that existed unhindered by the company gives the lawyers proof that there must be an ulterior motive to Hernandez-Canton’s dismissal.
Question 2
The confidential information policy adopted by CEC is problematic. This policy demands that employees should choose between their careers and their family. This policy initiates a clash between the employee’s personal life and their professional capacity (Chory & Gillen, 2017). A deserving and qualified employee may therefore fail to be employed in a certain position simply because they are in a romantic relationship with an individual working in a competing organization.
The organization also may need to infringe into employees’ personal lives to enforce this policy. For instance, CEC would need enough evidence to prove the existence of a romantic relationship. Without enough proof, any actions based on the policy can easily be challenged in a court of law. However, attempts to obtain such information could amount to a breach in the employee’s right to privacy.
Being in a romantic relationship with an employee of a rival company may also not necessarily lead to leakage of confidential and sensitive information. Moreover, there need not be any romance for a leakage to occur. Information can be leaked for many other reasons and in other numerous circumstances. Using a relationship prohibition among the work requirements of certain employees may be counterproductive and costly to the company. It may negatively affect employee motivation, reduce loyalty to the company and expose the organization to avoidable court cases.
Question 3
Dating constitutes a romantic relationship. It originated from Western cultures and remains most common there. However, forms of dating have spread to other parts of the world. In most cultures, dating often connotes that two individuals are spending time together in order to evaluate each other for suitability as partners in a long-term personal relationship (Chory & Gillen, 2017). The dating individuals social and involve casual interactions. The definition of dating as a romantic relationship may, however, be challenged depending on the specific circumstances under scrutiny.
Friends and co-workers at CEC stated that Hernandez-Canton was “extremely fond” of Domzalski. “Extreme fondness” is a characteristic of romantic relationships whereby the proclivity of two people towards each other supersedes a normal friendship or workplace relationship (Snell et al., 2016). According to the case, they had a relationship that exceeded their cooperation at work and extended into their private lives. Dating, in this case, is a romantic relationship. If they were considered to be extremely fond of each other only while at the workplace without any private engagements, then their relationship may not be considered romantic.
Hernandez-Canton and Domzalski had dated before he left CEC in 2015. In her conversation with a friend after her meeting with the manager, Hernandez-Canton stated that she had considered “breaking up” with Domzalski (Snell et al., 2016). This means that the two individuals were still in a romantic relationship by 2017. Dating is supposed to be a precursor to higher levels of intimacy and commitment, hence their relationship can be assumed to have progressed.
Relationships can be deemed romantic based on the kinds or levels of intimacy involved, if any. Intimacy can be physical, emotional or a combination of both. There are instances where physical intimacy is absent during initial stages of dating. It is difficult to determine whether physical intimacy characterizes Hernandez-Canton’s relationship but if it does, the relationship is definitely a romantic relationship. Relationships involving only emotional intimacy as described in the phrase “extremely fond of” may not necessarily be considered romantic. An individual who values their work as exemplified by Hernandez-Canton’s commitment to her career is difficult to manipulate and is unlikely to leak any confidential information.
References
Bodie, M. T. (2017). The Best Way Out Is Always Through: Changing the Employment At-Will Default Rule to Protect Personal Autonomy. U. Ill. L. Rev., 223.
Chory, R. M., & Gillen Hoke, H. (2020). Coworkers’ Perceptions of, and Communication With, Workplace Romance Participants: Proposing and Testing a Model. International Journal of Business Communication, 2329488420908321.Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2020). How Does Workplace Romance Influence Employee Performance in the Hospitality Industry?. Sustainability, 12(13), 5478.
Snell, S., Morris, S., & Bohlander, G. W. (2016). Managing Human Resources . Cengage Learning.
