According to an article by Charles Muhl titled “The Employment at Will Doctrine: Three Major Exceptions”, the mentioned doctrine is a United States Labor Law that allows employees to be fired or terminated from their position at their place of employment by their superiors without warning and for any reason that supplies just cause. (2001) It is also known as at-will employment, generally describing employment that can be granted and taken away without required reasoning and without notice. According to the Supreme Court of California:
“An employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason - the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without ...view middle of the document...
My decision to immediately terminate John’s employment would be final and without any hesitation.
The second scenario is Jim, an employee that sent out an email to his fellow sales employee’s suggesting that they boycott their next sales meeting in an attempt to demand a change in commission schedules and bonuses. While I would possess just cause to legally fire Jim, there would be a strong argument regarding the invasion of his privacy is this email was sent from his home computer, and the email was simply presented to management by someone that disagreed with his views. Before resorting to the decision to fire Jim, I would attempt to sit down in a meeting with him and discuss his actions and ask what sort of compromise that we could possibly come to that would prevent him from provoking our other employees and remaining happy with our company policies, without involving the company in lawsuit regarding using private emails as basis for termination of employment, even if the emails were work related.
The third scenario is Ellen, an employee that started a blog insulting her bosses, calling them “know-nothings” and protesting the CEO bonus, stating that no one below the director position has received any sort of raise or bonus in over two years. While she would not have been able to be fired for simply stating knowledge that can be found on the companies taxes annually, her employment can be terminated for insulting her bosses and calling them derogatory names. She posted this information to a public blog available to anyone on the internet, making it public knowledge and in no way private. There would be no issues or hesitations with her termination.
The fourth scenario involves Bill, who has been found to be using his company issued
Blackberry to also run a side business. Bill would not be terminated, but let off with a warning and possible probation, and would also lose his cell phone privileges for a specific period of time. The fifth scenario involves a group of secretaries that decided to collectively dress in black and white striped outfits on the same day in order to silently protest a memo that announces the companies new key logger software installed on company computers. There is no way to definitely prove their intentions by wearing the colors other than simple hearsay, so this matter would be dropped without further discussion.
The sixth scenario involves Joe, who was reprimanded for sending an email with content that insulted a top client from his personal email account on a company computer. After being confronted, he threatens to sue the company for invasion of privacy; however in the previous scenario the secretaries wore black and white stripes in a silent protest...