Employment at – Will Doctrine, Research Paper Example

John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer.

Discussion

Legal Response: The employee could be fired under the at-will doctrine based on what was said about the customer. If the employee complained that the important customer was very cheap in paying for solutions and this was public knowledge that the company cuts corners, then in the case we have no grounds for releasing this employee. This was a rant or passionate complaint about the important customers.The employee did not say anything that was dangerous or physical harm implied. We are taking the high road that this information is verified to be already public knowledge. The employee cannot be fired under the Employment At-Will Doctrine. Employers need to be aware of possible lawsuits thus, they should make sure they document reason for releasing the employee. According to Lynott(2005),”You may have heard about the legal concept of “wrongful termination,” a serious problem for employers that has grown more troublesome in recent years. When you find yourself faced with the need to discharge an employee, it’s important that you keep yourself aware of the legal pitfalls inherent in that task”.

Exceptions

Employee is not part of union. There is no public policy to protect employee. There is no individual contract with employee that prevents being fired. The employee is not being fired based on race,gender, nationalorigin, age,religion, or disability. There is no implied contract and no unjust reasons for the employees release. Assumption is made this conditions do not exist.

Limit Liability

In order to limit liability to the company, ensuring that the company has a professional liability insurance coverage. The legal department needs to check the commercial liability policy to ensure this type of incident is covered. This would protect company against a lawsuit by a client based on perceived inappropriate statements by employees.

Impact on Operations

This could have a negative impact on daily operations because of the Facebook issue. It would be my recommendation to immediately create a policy that “any employee that accesses Facebook at work using Internet connection owned by the company will be released immediately. This will clarify to everyone in the company that this is not tolerated. In the current technology driven era, most people check their Facebook accounts daily for activity and social interactions. This policy will ensure operations run smoothly because the policy is clear.

Whistleblower Policy

As CEO, I would not recommend we adopt awhistleblower policy for this type of incident. I would suggest we adopt an Internet policy that does not allow access to Facebook or Tweeter during working hours. In this case, the whistleblower policy does not apply; the employee is making a complaint about a client not opposing some type of illegal actions by the company.However, if this wereillegal actions by the client then the whistleblower policy would include: (1) providing the proper platform for the employees to report wrongdoing or unethical actions (2) Providing a believable and supportive avenues for the employees with assurance that the wrongdoing will be investigated. (3) Most importantly those employees are insured they will not face any retaliation because of their reporting wrongdoing.

Ethical Theory

The reason this decision to prevent others from accessing Facebook because this is an invitation for a lawsuit.The Facebook and Twitter has become the avenue for people to vent their feelings or personal thoughts. However, sometimes those thoughts or comments hurt a person or a company. This is the best ethical decision including a mandatory ethical refresher course for the entire company.

Jim sent an email to other sales people protesting a change in commission schedules and bonuses and suggesting everyone boycott the next sales meeting.

Discussion:

Legal Response: The employee would not be fired under the Employee At-Will-Doctrine because this can be considered on federal law that employees can strike for economic reasons over labor dispute and wages or this could be an attempt by the employees to bring in a union. However, this could be considered an offense that could get the employee fired if they mentioned the monetary commissions. However, many companies have the unsaid rule that discussing salary will get your fired; however, most companies do not have this spelled out in clear language or the policy is ambiguous. The most important issue here is the employee disclosure public information. In most sales environments when commissions and bonuses are an issue it probably is public knowledge thus Jim did not expose anything that was not already public knowledge.According to Nolo.com(2013)”By definition of Employee At-Will Doctrine the employee would not be fired. If you are employed at will, your employer does not need good cause to fire you. In every state but Montana (which protects employees who have completed an initial “probationary period” from being fired without cause), employers are free to adopt at-will employment policies”.

Exceptions

If employee in this example of was part of union, Jim could not be fired under the Employee At-Will Doctrine.

Limit Liability

In order to limit liability to the company, the company should review the handbook to ensure they include any employee inciting physical disruptions to the company’s operations or the suggestion that employees to be disrupted are subject to immediate termination. The employees use the handbook as a basic guideline to explain the companies policies and procedures while ensuring the employee understands their roles(Feldman,2013).

Impact on Operations

This would have an impact on those involved in the emails but would not affect the overall operations because it was not sent to all employees. This email has very little to no impact on daily operations.

Whistleblower Policy

In this case, the whistleblower would only apply, if the employee were reporting some wronging with disbursement of payroll or bonuses, which is not the case. However, there should be a whistleblower policy for internal employees to address the wrongful incidents.

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”

Discussion

Legal Response: We have to make the assumption that the employee did not use company Internet because most companies to do not give employees access or the ability to create blogs. In the case, the Employee At-Will Doctrine would not apply nor would the employee be fired. The information was posted on the employees own time and not using company resources. The blog was not malicious even though it was questioning the CEO’s creditability. In addition, the CEO bonus structure is public knowledge, so the employee did not divulge any confidential information.

Exceptions

Employee is not part of union. There is no public policy to protect employee. There is no individual contract with employee that prevents being fired. The employee is not being fired based on race, gender, nationalorigin, age, religion, or disability. There is no implied contract and no unjust reasons for the employees release. Assumption is made this conditions do not exist.

Limit Liability

In order to limit liability to the company, should provide employees with grievances procedures internally that allow the employee to make their complaint anonymous. The more the employee trusts that there complaints are addressed, the more the company can use this platform as a preventive measure before incidents are made public.

Impact on Operations

This could have a negative impact on daily operations because the overall perception that an incompetent CEO is getting millions in bonus when employees are not being paid for bonuses will cause the company to lose their top employees.

Whistleblower Policy

As CEO, I would not recommend we adopt awhistleblower policy for this type of incident. I would suggest we adopt a whistleblower policy only if the employee was identifying wrongdoing with CEO bonuses. My suggestion would be (1) providing the proper platform for the employees to report wrongdoing or unethical actions (2) Providing believable and supportive avenues for the employees with assurance that the wrongdoing will be investigated. (3) Most importantly those employees are insured they will not face any retaliation because of their reporting wrongdoing.

Bill has been using his company-issued BlackBerry to run his own business on the side.

Discussion

Legal Response: The employee would be fired under the Employee At-Will-Doctrine. The employee was using company materials and the possibility of trade secrets being mistakenly released is a possibility. More important this serious offense could affect any company not to mention the non-compete clause.

Exceptions

If employee in this example of was part of union, Bill could not be fired under the Employee At-Will Doctrine but the issue would be handled by the union representatives.

Limit Liability

In order to limit liability to the company, the company should review the handbook to ensure they include any employee usingemployee’s business platform including printers, phones, cell phones and mail for their own business outside of the company business will be released.

Impact on Operations

This would not have an impact on operations because this incident has nothing to do with the daily activities of the business.

Whistleblower Policy

In this case, the whistleblower would only apply, if the employee releasing patent protected information or using a secured Blackberry only to be used with company business then the employee would need a platform to report, which should be protected and trusted as a resource to report wrongdoing with company property.

The secretaries in the accounting department decided to dress in black-and-white stripes to protest a memo announcing that the company has installed key logger software on all

Discussion

Legal Response: The secretaries would not be fired under the Employment At-Will Doctrine. The employees are not violating any policy nor inciting physical harm with wearing black dresses with white stripes.

Exceptions

Employee is not part of union.

Limit Liability

In order to limit liability to the company, the company should ensure there was no previous contract agreement concerning tracking software.

Impact on Operations

This could have a negative impact on daily operations because the secretariesbelieve they are being tracked inappropriately. The company should implement other less intrusive ways of calculating the secretary’s keystrokes such as how many projects complete on time and how many did not meet guidelines.

Whistleblower Policy

As CEO, there would be no whistleblower policy to adopt.

After being disciplined for criticizing a customer in an email (sent from his personal email account on a company computer), Joe threatens to sue the company for invasion of privacy

Discussion

Legal Response: The employee would be fired under the Employee At-Will-Doctrine. Because he has been documented for using the companies Intranet or Internet to make these complaints about customers in email. If Joe accesses his own personal email from home posted criticism about clients would not warrant him being fired. Joe would also be wrong about invasion of privacy because he was using the company’s property.

Exceptions

If he was part of a Union.

Limit Liability

In order to limit liability to the company, include policies and procedures concerning derogatory actions that may affect the business.

Impact on Operations

This would not have an impact on operations because this incident has nothing to do with the daily activities of the business.

Whistleblower Policy

In this case, the whistleblower would only apply. There is no internal wrongdoing by client or company.

One of the department supervisors requests your approval to fire his secretary since the secretary has always received glowing reviews, you call her into your office and determine that she has refused to prepare false expense reports for her boss

Legal Response: The employee would not be fired under the Employee At-Will Doctrine. The company is asking the employee to break the law and incriminate herself in a potential crime with the IRS.

Exceptions

Employee is not part of union. There is no public policy to protect employee. There is no individual contract with employee that prevents being fired. The employee is not being fired based on race, gender, nationalorigin, age, religion, or disability. There is no implied contract and no unjust reasons for the employees release. Assumption is made this conditions do not exist.

Limit Liability

In order to limit liability to the company, the company should reconsider their position that request for the employee to break the law. An investigation should be completed with the release of the manager or supervisor that asked the employee to lie about reports.

Impact on Operations

This could have a negative impact on operations because the employees did not trust management. The upper management needs to deliver the message that any dishonest actions regardless of manger, supervisor, or director are not acceptable.

Whistleblower Policy

As CEO, I would not recommend we adopt awhistleblower policy for this type of incident. I would suggest we adopt a whistleblower policy because the employees can report the manager who asks them to sign or create false reports. My suggestion would be (1) providing the proper platform for the employees to report wrongdoing or unethical actions (2) Providing a believable and supportive avenues for the employees with assurance that the wrongdoing will be investigated.(3) Most importantly that employee

Anna’s boss refused to sign her leave request for jury duty and now wants to fire her for being absent without permission

Discussion

Legal Response: This is illegal under the law. According to Doyle(2013),”Other reasons that could be construed as wrongful termination include retaliation i.e. being fired for being a whistle blower or complaining, or for not being willing to commit an illegal act when asked to by an employer” The employee would not fire under the Employee At-Will-Doctrine. Because under the request by the federal courts the employee has been requested to fulfill their civic duty. Anna’s boss has no ground to fire Anna and this could lead to a lawsuit, which the company would not win.

Exceptions

We are going to assumed not part of a union.

Limit Liability

In order to limit liability to the company, Anna’s boss should be reprimanded or terminated

Impact on Operations

This would have a direct impact on operations because employees would be afraid to lose their jobs for legitimate reasons to be off from work.

Whistleblower Policy

As CEO, I would recommend we adopt awhistleblower policy for this type of incident. I would suggest we adopt a whistleblower policy because the employees can report the manager who askswill not let them leave work for jury duty. My suggestion would be the same (1) providing the proper platform for the employees to report wrongdoing or unethical actions (2) Providing a believable and supportive avenues for the employees with assurance that the wrongdoing will be investigated.(3) Most importantly that employee. In addition, employers can make sure they clarify the languge in any contracts with employees to cut down on any lawsuits. According to Business.Ca.Gov(2013),”An employer can potentially reduce exposure to wrongful discharge liability by emphasizing using an at-will language in all written and verbal communications with employees. This extends from job announcements and interviews to employee handbooks, training seminars and employee reviews. It is also advised to avoid references in all situations that indicate job security or permanence”.

References

Business.Ca.Gov.(2013). At-will employment and wrongful termination. Retireved from http://business.ca.gov/StartaBusiness/AdministeringEmployees/EqualEmploymentOpportunityLaws/AtWillEmployment.aspx

Doyle,A, (2013).Wrongful termination. Retrieved from http://jobsearch.about.com/od/jobloss/g/wrongfultermination.htm

Feldman, S. W. (2013). Distinguishing Employee Contractual Rights and Company Workplace Policies. Tennessee Bar Journal, 49(2), 18-37.

Lynott, J, W. (2005, May 15). You’re fired: Six steps for avoiding employee lawsuits. Urology Times, (6), 36, Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.libproxy.edmc.edu