The hiring of employees has lately been occurring at will. In legal aspects, an employer or employee can terminate employment for justifiable reasons. The firing of employees has been in the rise due to the need for ensuring high performance. Law should not allow an employer to fire an employee with unjustified explanations (Mann, 2013). Legal systems are guided by public policy in their decisions due to their protective role of the interests of citizens.
Violation of an employee’s right to employment, as well as wrongful termination, is thus against the public policy. An employer is only allowed to terminate employment at will only when no implied contract exists, or with justified explanations. Also, legal systems emphasize the covenants of good faith to ensure that no employees are fired unreasonably. Therefore, the law should be against wrongful dismissal of employees unless acting for public interest or under contractual terms.
For example, in the case Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a performance contract entered would ensure continued employment if only Petermann’s performance bore fruits. However, he was fired after testifying against the company in a court case concerning corrupt dealings.
In that case, the courts should protect the interests of individuals who are wrongfully fired (Painter, 2012). Recently, I came along a worker that was fired for no reason; the employer only directed the presentation of a dismissal letter. I believe the employer did not act by public policy and good faith since the employee was not allowed to make any representations. Thus, legal systems should amend rights as well as obligations in employment as a way of protecting employees.
Agency affiliation is created when an individual hires another to act and transact business on his or her behalf. In the case at hand, Steve, an employee of Big Mart accuses a customer, Karen, of shoplifting. Steve thinks that Karen had not paid for an umbrella she was carrying. However, Karen explains to Steve that she has for a long time owned the umbrella and shows him signs of it’s wearing off.
Defamation denotes any false accusation imposed on an individual that presents that individual as dissolute in public view; common law allows Karen to claim compensation for defamation since she was not guilty of any offense.
However, equity prevents her from being successful in a court case against Steve, who was acting in the course of employment to safeguard the employer’s property (Painter, 2012). Also, Steve was innocently acting rightfully on his duty, and thus, the tortious act was unintentional. More so, Steve’s apologies and setting Karen free, after realizing the mistake, was meant to clean her name.
There are set guidelines when an agent is personally liable for wrongs done on others, and when the principal becomes liable. Agents are legally responsible if they act for the unidentified principal (Mann, 2013).
The principal is liable for the actions of an agent that lead to court suit if they are authorized and in the ordinary course of employment. In this case, Big Mart would be liable for the wrongs done by Steve if it turns out intentional and authorized. In the same case, Steve would be personally liable if his actions turn out to be unauthorized as well as more than powers bestowed on him.
References
Mann, R. A. (2013). Business law and the regulation of business. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Painter, R. (2012). Cases and materials on employment law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.