Employment At Will Doctrine
Stephen C Wilburth Jr
LEG 500
May 1st, 2014
Lateefah Muhammad

Abstract
This is the doctrine in American law which defines how the employment relationship can be terminated by either party by giving advance notice or even without one. Privacy management tools help organizations conduct privacy impact assessments, check processing activities against requirements from privacy regulations, and track incidents that lead to unauthorized disclosures (investigation, remediation and reporting). They analyze and document data flows of personal information (nature of data, purpose of processing, data controller), support authoring and distribution of privacy policies (for which they provide templates), and track user awareness (users acknowledging having read the policies).

Employment-At-Will Doctrine
The employment-at-will doctrine is a legal ruling supported by companies that allows an employer the ability to dismiss an employee for any reason, other than an illegal one or no reason, without legal liability. The doctrine allows an employee to leave a position or job, at any time, without reason void of any legal consequences (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). With employment-at-will, an employer has the right to change its policies or terms of employment without notice. Wages or benefits can be altered or reduced at any time. The doctrine can be modified by contracts drawn by the employer. The contract may specify the terms of employment or may state that any termination will be for a specific cause such as poor job performance or misconduct on the employee’s part. Since the inception of employment-at-will, courts have made exceptions to this rule.
The main exceptions to employment-at-will include implied covenant of good faith, implied contract, and public policy. The exception of public policy prevents termination of an employee for refusal to participate in an act that is prohibited by state law, reporting of an act that violates the law, acts that are of public interest, or exercising any right of a citizen, such as filing a worker’s compensation claim. Implied contracts are created sometimes orally or through language presented in the employee handbook for a company. There may be some verbal assurance from an employer that an employee’s employment will not be terminated or some procedure outlined in the employee handbook that gives an implication the employer will not terminate employment. Finally, implied covenant of good faith is based on prohibiting an employer from terminating employment based on spite or bad faith. For example, an employer terminates an older employee to keep from having to pay out his/her retirement benefits. This exception prevents this from occurring.
Along with the three major exceptions, there are two statutory exceptions to employment-at-will, such as illegal discrimination that is based on religion, race, sex, national origin, etc.; and retaliation. Federal and state laws are in place to prohibit discrimination. Under the exception of retaliation, an employer cannot terminate an employee for claiming compensation for overtime, participating in a union, filing for workers’ compensation, or whistleblowing. An employee is protected in the private sector in some states from being terminated for reporting an employer’s wrongdoing or illegal actions (NCSL, 2013). When there are no state law statutes in place, private employees have to review many different rules to determine if they have a case at all in proving wrongful termination.
Having been newly hired as Chief Operating Officer (COO) with a company, several personnel issues have been brought forth. As a result, the employment-at-will doctrine needs to be analyzed with each issue to conclude what course of action should be taken. An evaluation of any exceptions and/or liabilities will need to be addressed to ensure each situation is properly handled and no impact on operations. Furthermore, there is no whistleblower policy in place for the company. A decision will need to be made whether or not the company should implement such a policy.
Issue Number One
John has decided to publicly rant his feelings about one of our most valuable clients by posting those feelings on his social media page. First, the human resources representative should be consulted to evaluate if our company has in place a policy that addresses employee conduct on social media networking. Next, we should receive a copy of the statement made by John. Under the employment-at-will doctrine, there are certain protected activities that should be reviewed to determine if John should/should not be terminated (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). In this particular situation, John decided to publicly criticize our most important customer. Employees are representatives of the company. His actions might imply to the public that his opinions are the opinions of our company. The statement should be evaluated to determine if John was venting or if he was really trying to improve on something. Content created in a rant reflects on the company. Based on the utilitarianism ethics theory, in a situation where there are many stakeholders involved, an evaluation of the consequences, both good and bad, must be done. The decision has to be for the overall good of the entire organization internally and externally. The impact of John’s statements outweighs the good in this situation. Based on the National Labor Relations Act, John’s actions were made on his own behalf and not as a group (Rubin & Stait, 2011). Only government is restricted from limiting speech. With this being a private company, we can recommend termination of this employee. To mitigate any future occurrences and to ensure all employees are aligned with the code of ethics and standard of conduct of the company, the company will implement a new policy, detailing the company’s code of ethics and standards of conduct and its view on social media networking. The company will also provide training to each employee on compliance, requiring all employees to sign attestation statements in agreement.
Issue Number Two
Jim was displeased about the company’s change in the schedules for commissions and bonuses. He voiced those concerns in protest through email to other employees, suggesting a boycott of the next sales meeting. When using company email, there is normally no privacy and the company has a right to keep surveillance of email accounts. Under employment-at-will, the company is allowed to change and/or reduce compensation at any time and for any reason (Rubin & Stait, 2011). Also, there is no violation of public policy. In this situation, Jim could be terminated for misuse of the company email system. However, there is a greater good that would come out of this by not terminating Jim. Under utilitarianism, the decision that would result in the greatest good would be to verbally reprimand Jim for his tactics. In addition to the verbal reprimand, the company should hold a meeting with all salespeople to discuss everyone’s opinion on the change. The meeting should be held in an environment that welcomes differences of opinion and fosters willingness of management to entertain other ideas of a better compensation schedule to be considered. A survey should be distributed to ascertain the overall opinion of the new schedules and to gauge how many would be willing to offer some suggestions. This effort would empower the employees to feel as if their opinions and feelings matter to the company. If employees have the company behind them, they are more willing to do the work.
Issue Number Three
Ellen is not happy about the CEO receiving a bonus and started a blog in protest. On her blog, she stated no one lower than director has received a raise in the last two years. Her statements also depicted her bosses as people who knew nothing and were out of touch. Under employment-at-will, there are no apparent exceptions that would prevent the company from terminating Ellen. Ellen is writing on this blog on her own behalf and not with the coalition of a group of employees. Ellen, however, is bringing to light a situation that should be thoroughly investigated by the company to confirm there is indeed a discrepancy in bonuses by the company. In light of this, Ellen should be recommended for termination. Utilitarianism theory provides that it would be of far greater benefit to the company keep her than to terminate her. The National Labor Relations Board asserts that an employee’s public complaints about an employer’s behavior without group activity are not a protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act (Rubin & Stait, 2011). However, it’s best to discuss the complaint with the employee to begin an investigation into the issue. The company should form a hotline, if necessary, to evaluate situations such as this to determine the validity. If the company were to terminate Ellen, the situation might never be validated and the image of the company might be tarnished if the allegations were found to be true and nothing was done to rectify the situation.
Issue Number Four
The company has found out Bill has been using the Blackberry issued by the company to conduct his side business. The company has the right to monitor company issued property. Human resources should first be consulted to determine if the employee manual has specific language that speaks to special disciplinary procedures before termination. The company has the right to terminate Bill for wasting work time and misuse of company property. The decision would be based on the theory of deontology where a person’s choices are based on a set of rights and duties they adhere to. Most companies when issuing company property have an implied rule the property should be for company business, not personal. The company going forward should ensure there is an explicit policy, maybe a written agreement that is signed by the employee when property, such as a phone is being issued to the employee. This agreement should outline rules the employee should follow while the property is in his/her possession.
Issue Number Five
The accounting department secretaries dressed in black and white stripes in protest of a memo that announced special keylogger software has been installed on all company computers. Under employment-at-will, the company has a right to install any software it pleases on the company property. Unless the company has a specific dress code, the secretaries are not in violation of any policies set forth by the company. The protest is not taking away from their work performance or productivity for the day. They are also acting as a group in protest and not individually. So, their group activity would be a protected activity under the NLRA, should they use that exception as grounds for wrongful termination. The ethical theory of utilitarianism should be used as a basis for the decision to not terminate the secretaries. There is an opportunity to limit liability in this scenario and the impact on operations by meeting with the secretaries and management to discuss their reasons for protest and brainstorm ideas so their feelings are heard. In most cases of this nature, employees just want to hear that their feelings matter to the company (NCSL, 2013)
Issue Number Six
Joe is threatening to sue the company for invasion of his privacy after he has been disciplined for his criticism of a customer via email that was sent from his own email account on the company computer. Joe has already been disciplined for his actions. If the company terminated Joe at this time, implied covenant of good faith might be compromised. This means terminating Joe might be viewed as being spiteful. Because Joe is only threatening to sue the company at this point, from the viewpoint of a utilitarianism theory of ethics, the company should meet with Joe to resolve any issues to avoid any litigation from occurring.
Issue Number Seven
A department supervisor wants approval to fire his secretary, citing insubordination. Because the secretary has always gotten high performance reviews, a meeting is scheduled to discuss the issue. As a result, it is determined she refused to falsify expense reports for her supervisor. Approval of termination should not be granted in this situation as this is prevented under the employment-at-will exception of public policy (NCSL, 2013). It is not lawful to falsify any documents. From the aspect of utilitarianism, there are far too many consequences to terminating the secretary in this case. Instead, there should be a formal investigation internally of the supervisor’s actions and abuse of power. The opportunity presents itself to uncover other acts or potential acts of this nature. The company should implement a compliance program that trains all employees including management in the standards under which the company governs itself. There should also be annual refresher training on compliance and the values the company has and expects of its employees.
Issue Number Eight
One of the supervisors wants to recommend termination of Anna for being out from work without his approval, though the absence was due to jury duty. She had asked off due to jury duty in advance but he did not want to approve it. All citizens have a right to serve jury duty and it is a public policy exception to terminate an employee because they are exercising that right (NCSL, 2013). To limit any liability and impact to operations, the company should ensure human resources conducts a comprehensive training for management to review policy and procedures the company follows, as well as regulations. Upper level management and human resources should meet personally with Anna’s boss to review his actions and to ensure he understands regulations and policy. This decision is based on deontology, being that this public policy is universal to everyone and the decision made has a far reaching effect on all within the company. The way this situation is handled ultimately impacts everyone in the company (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012).

So In conclusion based on the personnel issues presented to the COO, it is in the company’s best interest to institute a whistleblower policy. Whistleblowing occurs when an employee brings attention to potential wrongdoing within the company (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). By handling issues internally, a company avoids the negative impact a situation might present and the damage that might be incurred should the incident go public. Cases are documented where a person has brought attention to wrongdoing within the company, terminated, then upon filing a case for wrongful termination, received compensation because the wrongdoing was validated and not addressed by the company (Barnett, 1992). It is becoming more necessary for a company to have some type of whistleblower policy in place due to the increased number of federal laws passed to protect a whistleblower. In 1989, the Whistleblower’s Protection Act was passed under the Bush Administration. State whistleblower policies are increasing as well. The policy will work as long as there are at least three fundamental points included in the policy. First, it has to be more than just a policy on paper. Have a clear statement that the company follows this policy by having everyone including management complete training classes that review the policy. Second, by including management in training, this shows everyone it is supported by the entire company. Have managers include review of compliance policies in their staff meetings and division meetings so employees see how important the policy is. Third, ensure open communication and honesty within the company by establishing a formal process for reporting in wrongdoing such as a compliance hotline monitored by an outside firm to ensure issues are brought to the company’s attention and the issues are taken seriously by having them investigated by the outside firm and reported back to employees via case studies in the annual training sessions.
With any company, personnel issues will arise. To adequately address each situation, an officer should ensure each situation is properly analyzed and evaluated based on employment-at-will. By properly evaluating the company’s rights and limitations under the law, it ensures legal ramifications are minimized.

References
Barnett, T. (1992). Why Your Company Should Have A Whistleblowing Policy. SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075); 57(4), 37.
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law & ethics in the business environment (7th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
National Conference of State Legislatures, (2013). The At Will Presumption and Exceptions to the Rule. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved on July 27, 2013 from http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/labor/at-will-employment-overview.aspx
Rubin, H. & Stait, D., September 9, 2011. Legal View: When Can An Employer Fire An Employee Over An Offensive Facebook Posting? Detroit Legal News. Retrieved on July 27, 2013 from http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/1070272