Introduction
Agency law regulates interrelations between the agent and the principal. An agent is a person who is authorized to act on behalf of another person or organization called “principle” in order to manage a business. There are three types of authority, including express authority, implied authority, and apparent authority. Express Authority is provided to the agent directly by the principal verbally or in writing. The implied authority provides the agent with the right to conduct actions that are reasonably necessary to achieve the company’s objectives. Apparent authority may occur when the principle induces an impression that the agent has authority, but in fact, the agent is not authorized to act on behalf of the principle.
Case Analysis
The process of recruiting employees is closely linked with express authority as the ability to act on behalf of a particular organization is usually provided and supported by written documentation. In Leo’s case, express authority is involved as he was hired by the company to manage employment costs and insurance. Even though Leo is authorized to conduct a variety of activities on behalf of the organization, there are some limitations. Scope of employment, which represents a range of duties the worker is reasonably expected to discharge, plays a significant role in this particular case. Although vaguely defined, Leo’s scope of employment is limited to managing employment costs and insurance. Therefore, he is not authorized to make any business deals with other parties without reconciling with the owner. Moreover, he made a deal, which may not be considered reasonable in terms of the company’s goals during off-hours. A combination of the above-mentioned factors may indicate that under these particular circumstances, Leo was not acting on behalf of the organization, and hence it is not liable to restock Dan’s store.
Employment-at-Will Doctrine
The Employment-at-Will doctrine states that any employee is able to leave the job regardless of reasons, and the employer can terminate a worker regardless of reasons. However, there are four major exceptions, which may prevent at-will employment. The first exception is closely linked with public policies, as there is strict legislation related to anti-discrimination and employee protection. For instance, it is strictly prohibited to terminate an employee because of race, age, or gender. The second exception is called the covenant of good faith, which implies that there must be a just cause to terminate an employee. Another exception is written or implied employment contracts that limit the employment-at-will doctrine. For example, the contract may contain concrete regulations regarding termination reasons, procedures, and compensations. The last exemption shares a similar principle as trade unions, and collective bargaining units may establish specific rules regarding the conditions under which a worker can be fired.
Case Example
Alleyton v. Ball case may serve as an example of employment-at-will doctrine violation and wrongful discharge. Joseph Ball worked for Alleyton as a concrete mixer truck driver. Alleyton claimed that Ball was discharged due to low job performance (Alleyton Res. Co. v. Ball, 2021). However, Ball stated that the termination was caused by his worker’s compensation claim (Alleyton Res. Co. v. Ball, 2021). Such reasoning may correspond with the covenant of good faith exception as the termination may not have a just reason. Sufficient evidence supported Ball’s claims, and the jury found that the employer violated anti-discrimination legislation.
Response
My college’s discussion provides a comprehensive overview of legal regulations regarding authorities and the employment-at-will doctrine. Even though I used a slightly different approach to analyze the case, there are some significant similarities and ideas, which I strongly support. The Dimanche v. Mass. Bay Transit authority case may serve as a prime example of public policy exception and provides sufficient information regarding anti-discrimination laws violation.
Reference
Alleyton Res. Co. v. Ball, 2021 Lexis 4324 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021). Web.