Employment-At-Will Doctrine

The employment-at-will doctrine implies the popular opinion that individuals should be free to subscribe into employment contracts for a stated period of time yet devoid of any obligations by either the employee or the employer where one was hired without such a contract. Just as employees were empowered to leave their jobs with reckless abandon, employers were also allowed to fire employees at whatever time they felt necessary. The doctrine was introduced to provide employers with the latitude to exercise absolute authority regarding the dismissal of employees at will for being morally wrong before their eyes, for a decent reason or no reason at all. The doctrine allows both the employer and employee, in the absence of a written employment contract, to terminate the employment tie without any prior notice or warning and at any time they deem fit with or without cause.

Nevertheless, there exist exceptions to the rule. The first one is that that it is illegal for the employer to use the doctrine either to pressure or threaten their employees. Moreover, employer-induces termination of employment relationship must not be discriminatory or act in violation of certain federal or state laws; otherwise referred to as the public policy exception (Muhl, 2001). This exception provides for the statute that an employee is unfairly dismissed where the termination contrasts the State’s public policy. It is up to the administrative rule, decree or constitution of the state to decide public policy. As one of the exceptions, the public policy cuts across as the most widely accepted gaining recognition in 43 out of the 50 U.S. states. Another employment-at-will doctrine exception involves an implied contract between the employee and the employer. According to Stone (2007), the exception commands the recognition of 38 of the 50 American states. The third and final exception centers on the inferences of the contract terms from the behavior, policy statement or handbook of the employer or the implicit fair dealing and good faith promise. This exception binds both the employer and employee to act in a manner that represents fair dealing and good faith. The exception puts and emphasis on adherence to agreed mutual dependability and resolution as well as justified expectations of one party by another. Only 11 states in the United States of America recognize this exception. 

Issue 1

The first issue I will analyze is John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s loyal customer. As far as the employment-at-will doctrine is concerned, there is a need to review specifically protected activities to decide whether John should or should not be fired. In this given scenario, John made it a point to criticize the company’s most valuable customer in the public domain. Given the fact that employees are more or fewer representatives of the company, John’s actions might create the impression among members of the public that he speaks on behalf of the entire company. The words he used in his criticism should be examined to determine whether he was venting or offering a suggestion on to how to change something. Whatever was said in the flare-up, however, implicates the company.

According to the principles of utilitarianism, an evaluation of outcomes, whether bad or good, must be undertaken in any situation where several stakeholders are involved. The decision has to be taken for the best interests of the company and to ensure healthy internal and external business environments. In this particular situation, the negative effects of John’s statement overwhelm the positive effects. As per the National Labor Relations Act, the actions of John represented him as an individual rather than as a group. In light of the fact that the company in question is a private firm, John may be recommended for dismissal. To prevent the occurrence of other similar incidences and to ensure employees abide by the company’s standard of conduct and code of ethics, a new policy that outlines the company’s stand on social media networking should be implemented. Moreover, the company should be indebted to offer training to employees to promote best practice and ensure approved compliance. 

Issue 2

Bill has been using the Blackberry that was issued to him by the company to run his own business on the side. The blackberry Bill uses is termed as issued property and therefore presents the company with the right to monitor its use. If I were a manager, my first course of action would be to consult the human resource department as to the disciplinary procedures that would lead to dismissal as stipulated in the employee manual. The company wields the right to fire Bill on grounds of misuse of firm property. The decision emanates from the ethical theory of deontology where an individual has the moral duty to adhere to a set of principles and duties. Many organizations have established policies that suggest the use of company-issued equipment must be official and business-related. To mitigate the risk of inappropriate use of company property in the future, employees should be encouraged to sign agreements that detail the rules needed to be observed.

Issue 3

A department supervisor is requesting permission to fire his secretary for insubordination because she refuses to prepare false expense reports. Since the secretary has always received glowing reviews, I summon her to my office to gain more insight into what the issue is. I discover that she has refused to prepare false expense reports for her boss. The employment-at-will doctrine exception of public policy prohibits termination of her employment (Muhl, 2001). It is illegal to provide false information on any document. This is supported by the ethical theory of utilitarianism where too many repercussions would arise as a result of firing the secretary. Calling for a formal inquiry into the actions of the supervisor would serve to unearth other vile acts that could impact the organization in a negative way. The company should devise a program that seeks to train the management and employees on the expected organizational standards. Additionally, another recommendation would be to implement annual refresher training in order to ensure widespread compliance with company policy across all levels of the organization. 

According to Maryland law, employment at will thrives and this infers that employers are free to fire an employee whenever they want with or without reason. An employee may be fired for not observing a particular rule, for showing disrespect or displayed the wrong attitude at work. Under the Coleman v, Court of appeals of Maryland, a gentleman known as Daniel Coleman sued the State of Maryland under the precincts of Family and Medical Leave Act’s self-care provision (Egan, 2012).

Coleman raised the argument that the medical leave provisions of the act need be viewed as a concerted effort to eliminate gender discrimination that allows state employees to file suits against their employers in the scope of the self-care provision; furthermore, that the objective of fighting discrimination on gender lines rescinds immunity of the state. The response of the stat is that the provisions of the FMLA tackle distinct discrimination forms ought to be evaluated at an individual level and that the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the states prohibits lawsuits filed against a state employer in the context of self-care provision. Through the decision as to whether a state employee can undertake any action under law to protect against a breach of self-care provision, the case makes it quite clear the relationship between the state and employment lawsuits aimed at seeking monetary damages under the Family and Medical Leave Act. 

References

Egan, G. (2012). Unreasonable Requirements for Reasonable Enforcement: Concruence and Proportionality after Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland. Cumb L. Rev. , 43 , 29.

Muhl, C. J. (2001). Employment-at-Will Doctrine: Three Major Exceptions, The. Monthly Lab. Rev. , 124 , 3.

Stone, K. V. (2007). Revisiting the at-will employment doctrine: Imposed terms, implied terms, and the normative world of the workplace: Industrial Law Journal , 36 (1), 84-101.