Jane recently started working for Sundown Community Hospital in the claims/billing department. Her duties included preparing and submitting Medicare/Medicaid claims for payment. Shortly after being hired Jane discovered irregularities which were potentially illegal billings to Medicare. When she raised the issue to her supervisor James, she was terminated. Jane inquired as to the reason and was told that according to the staff handbook all employees are hired “At Will” thus, no reason or notice was needed for termination.
Employment at will can be defined as the right of both employer and employee to terminate their relationships without any further liability for each other. However, there is one indispensible condition: if there is a provision in the employment contract, specifying the reasons for the dismissal of the employee, the employer cannot discharge the worker without giving any valid reason for doing it. In the overwhelming majority of cases, such dismissal can be caused by the reduction of the stuff, merger, or poor performance of the company. Naturally, this list can be easily continued, and there are cases, when employer violates civil rights of the worker. In fact, this form of employment makes the worker defendant on his or her employer (Dannin, 2007). Additionally it is not easy for the employees to uphold their rights in the court, because they cannot often prove that they were wrongfully discharged.
According to the existing legislation, there are cases, which can be classified as wrongful terminations, even if we are speaking about at-will employment. For instance, a person cannot be dismissed for not following the employers’ orders, if such orders compel the worker to commit an illegal act. Additionally, the employer does not have a right to fire the employee if he or she takes a medical or family leave. As regards the procedure, itself, it is worth mentioning that the termination of the contract cannot be viewed as legal, if the notice was not given but the contract must contain a clear provision for this issue; otherwise, the worker can be fired without any warning (Cornell Law School, 2003).
Another exception to at-will employment is the so-called implied contract, which means that de jure, there are no legal obligations between the parties; however, de facto, it is quite possible to speak about the agreement between the employee and employer. The government contact law gives the following definition of this agreement “It is founded upon the meetings of the mind, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred as a fact”(American Bar Association, 2007). For instance, if a woman goes to a hairdresser, she (as a temporary employer) is expected to pay the employee for the service. Their contract cannot be terminated without payment.
Furthermore, racial, personal, or religious prejudices against employees and the subsequent termination can be viewed as the violation of the law. However, it is very difficult for the employee to prove such violation actually took place, besides American legislation does not provide clear interpretation of this aspect (William J. Holloway, 2003).
Among laws, regulating the relationships between the employer and the employee, we can single out the so-called “whistleblower laws”, for instance, False Claims Act (amended in 1990) or Major Fraud Act, which are aimed at protecting the rights of those workers, who report an illegal act, testify against the employer or allege misconduct. In order to achieve the status of a whistleblower, a person must prove that actions taken by the employer are prohibited by law or the statute of the organization, otherwise, the worker can be dismissed any warning or reason.
Regarding the particular case, concerning a woman (Jane), who was fired from Sundown Community Hospital; Jane prepared and submitted Medicare bills for payment and discovered irregularities, which she viewed as illegal billings to Medicare; she raised this question to her supervisor, subsequently she was fired without any warning or reason. In this case, it is quite possible to speak about the violation of the labor law, in particular False Claims or Major Fraud Acts. Certainly, at will employment implies that the employer is not obliged to specify the reason for the employment termination, but Jane was reporting a violation of the law, otherwise she would have acted illegally. If she files a lawsuit against the organization, it will not be easy to prove that she was engaged in whistle blowing activity. HR director can refer to the handbook of employees, stating that the organization can discharge workers, without any notice or reason. Moreover, he or she can easily say that Jane was erroneous in her judgment and those irregularities were not illegal or prohibited by the statutes of the organization. Thus, Jane would no longer be a subject to “whistleblower laws”. We can observe a very interesting paradox; theoretically, the US legislation protects the rights of employees report illegal acts, but in practice, the employers are always at an advantage.
Thus, we can arrive at the conclusion that at-will employment is more beneficial for the employers, because it allows them to dictate their terms to the workers; however, in some cases, the termination of employment can be viewed as illegal, in particular, if the worker reports an illegal act or refuses to commit one.
Bibliography
Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute (2003). Employment Law: an overview. Web.
Dannin, E.(2007). Why at-will Employment is bad for employers, and just cause is good for them. Labor Law Journal, 58(1), 5- 16.
Judge Advocate General’s School (United States. Army), Section of Public Contract Law, American Bar Association, American Bar Association Section of Public Contract Law (2007).
Government Contract Law: The Deskbook for Procurement Professionals. American Bar Association pp 20-22.
U.S. Department of Justice (2003). Americans With Disabilities Act, ADA Home Page. Web.
William J. Holloway, Michael J(2003). Leech Employment Termination: Rights and Remedies. BNA Books.