Long Q Nguyen
Dr. Charity Lanier
Law, Ethics, & Corporate Governance
Broadly speaking, the employment at will doctrine states that either the employer or the employee may terminate the relationship without cause and without notice. However, federal and state laws restrict full authority of the employment at will doctrine. As Chief Operating Officer, I have a civic duty to act not independently in my own title, but instead I will have to act accordingly under the employment-at-will doctrine and within the scope of my authority. This evaluation of the employment at will doctrine seeks to provide an overview of its roots. This evaluation also seeks to identify several factors that influence or restrict one’s ability to exercise full authority under the rule.
Since its establishment in 1877, several factors have influenced how the rule is enforced. There are several exceptions to the at-will doctrine, public policy, anti-retaliation, anti-discrimination, implied covenant of good faith and implied contract. The public policy exception states that an employer cannot discharge an employee for operating under an established public policy. The discrimination exception states that an employer may not discharge an employee and “remedies against employers who fire workers because on race, national origin, color, religion, sex, age, or disability” (Halbert and Ingulli, 2012). The anti-retaliation exception was established to prevent discharge of employees who participated in union activities. Finally, the implied contract exception states that an employer’s powers are limited when the employer creates an environment that implies a contract with the employee. The implied good faith exception was used to evoke a sense of fairness in the at-will doctrine when the rule was applied on a whim.
1. John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most...