As an example, a signed two-year contract that states an employee can be fired during the contract only for committing a crime, then the employee is not an at-will employee. If the employee is fired for any reason not specified in the contract, the employee will have a legal claim against the employer for breach of contract. Aside from a written contract, the only way an employer can not fire an employee at will is if there were verbal exchanges stating “as long as you do a good job, you’ll have a job” or “we will only fire those unable to meet our standards”, and the employee is able to prove those statements were made. Just about every employer is subject to federal and state laws prohibiting job discrimination, therefore an employee cannot be fired because of race, religion, or gender, discrimination or harassment. An employee also can not be fired “at will” for taking family and medical leave, serving in the military, voting, or jury duty.
RE: Mr. John Doe’s Willful Termination on December 12, 2011 Executive Summary Based on the facts of the case, I believe we are not liable in the discrimination suit brought by Mr. Doe. Constructive Discharge Constructive discharge is defined as “if an employer's discriminatory acts result in working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee's position would feel compelled to resign.” (Finnegan, 1986) Courts generally follow one of two “litmus” tests to determine if a person who willfully terminated their employment was constructively discharged and should receive compensation as a result of the termination. In the majority view, “an employee who resigns after being subjected to unlawful discrimination is said to have been constructively discharged if a reasonable person would have found the discriminatory conditions to be intolerable.” (Finnegan, 1986) The minority view is that the complainant “must show not only that conditions were intolerable, but also that the employer created those conditions with the specific intent of forcing them to resign.” (Finnegan, 1986) Mr. Doe is a member if the production staff. The company changed the production staff’s working hours to a rolling 12 hour shift four days a week that could occur on any day of the week. If the company’s intent was to get Mr. Doe or anyone on production staff to resign by changing the production staff’s hours, it is possible that the actions of the company could be considered a constructive discharge.
In this case scenario there is clearly a difference in opinion, while the boss of the company believes he is giving Beauport (his employee) greater opportunities in the company and a chance to succeed in her career by changing her position to marketing research coordinator; Beauport is convinced that she is being sidelined into a “backroom” job, since she is aware of the stereotyping that goes on with women in this industry. Beauport is highly disappointed with the outcome of her hard work, and feels like she is being demoted rather than promoted. The boss knowing he had this position two years prior to becoming boss is both excited and pleased to inform his employee of his wise decision, and is sure his employee would be thankful for the great opportunity. The second symptom present in this scenario is a misinterpretation of body language by Mr. Gilman (the boss) towards Beauport’s reaction to the aforementioned position. When informed about the change in position, Beauport was shocked and so responded with a long pause and a quiet thank you as she left the office.
Assignment 1: Employment –At – Will Doctrine 1 According to the Employment – At – Will Doctrine rule, it is legal for a company to dismiss an employee without a cause; which means a hiring manager can legally let an employee go for just cause reasons. However, there are some exceptions to the rule, a company cannot dismiss employment based on race, gender, color, or religion, employees cannot be fired for reporting violations of workplace safety nor can an employer fire an employee for exercising the right to file a workman’s compensation or a sexual harassment claim. Bases on the given scenario, I think the company should exercise their legal rights and dismiss the employment of Jennifer, the employee. After the company has given this employee an extensive amount of training, to prepare her for the employment duties, for which she was hired; Jennifer is still unable to perform her job duties. Even though, there is an Employment – At – Will law in place, this company does not have to utilize it for this scenario, since the employee cannot perform the duties to which she was hired to do, especially after the company has taken time and money to train her and to equip her which knowledge and skills to perform the required job duties.
Due to her religious beliefs, the employee felt she was discriminated against and, therefore, was forced to resign. The employee feels that she should receive unemployment claiming constructive discharge. According to Wikipedia.com (2014), “Constructive discharge occurs when an employee resigns because their employer’s behavior has become so intolerable or heinous or made life so difficult that the employee has no choice but to resign.” The question at hand is whether or not the employee can support that she was forced to work under “intolerable conditions”. If the employee made XYZ Toys aware of her religious beliefs and XYZ was not able to accommodate, this may be grounds for constructive discharge. B.
DeVry University Week 6 - Course Project Sexual Harassment Paper What is sexual harassment? Sexual harassment, as defined legally, is any unwanted sexual approach including physical contact, as well as any unpleasant or derogatory remarks, both verbal and non-verbal, which would insinuate that the employees standing within the company and wages depended on said employee reciprocating in a positive manner to sexual advances. Even something that would appear seemingly innocent like telling your secretary that you like her new dress and it looks very sexy on her could be considered sexual harassment even if there is no intent to pursue a sexual relationship or contact. Any statement of a sexual nature made that could make the employee feel uncomfortable within the work environment is considered sexual harassment. What is the difference between sexual harassment and gender discrimination?
EMPLOYMENT AT WILL DOCTRINE A COO’s Ethical Decisions Jeanne M. Catalano Strayer University Authors Note This paper was prepared for Leg 500 Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance Taught by Professor Professor A. Weekley Employment at Will Doctrine: A COO’s Tough Decisions Employment at Will is a double edged doctrine that allows both employees and employers to terminate the working relationship. The United States is the only country that recognizes employment at will and basically gives employers reason to “fire employees for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, pg. 46). Over the years there have arisen many exceptions to the Employment at Will doctrine such as public policy, wrongful termination,
In effect, she is receiving compensation, in the form of a salary, for pursuing employment elsewhere. Her current employer would be justified in reprimanding her int he form of a write up. In the second place, she is also passing forward the resumes of several top employees using the company's time and equipment. This is unethical for the same aforementioned reasons. In addition, while she is a free person with a free will, if she is forwarding other employee's resumes unbeknownst to them, then she is acting both unethically and illegally.
Assignment 1: Employment-At-Will Doctrine Lydia L. Brooks Dr. Richard A.L. Caldarola LEG 500 – Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance July 19, 2012 Assignment 1: Company Introduction, Market Segmentation, and Product Positioning Scenario 1 As a manager or supervisor in the State of Tennessee, which is an Employment-at-Will state, I could fire Jennifer just because she is a low performing employee, particularly since she is not in a protected class such as age, gender, race, etc.. According to the employment-at-will doctrine, either my company or Jennifer as an employee is free to terminate our employment relationship any time we want. We don’t have to provide a reason, but have chosen to act in good faith and try to train Jennifer
If a group of union workers decide that they want a something, such as a pay raise, they discuss the exact details of what they want. Once details are agreed upon by a majority of the workers, the union representative presents the proposal to management. Unless management agrees to give workers what they want, the union and management begin to negotiate. Disagreement between the union workers and the company’s management can have an adverse effect on both the employees and the organization. If the workers are unreasonable, the management can decide to lock them out, meaning that employees will not be permitted to work.