Introduction
In order for human resource managers to maintain efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out their duties, they should ensure that they are well aware of all aspects related to human resource. These include Laws governing the hiring of employees and termination of their employment. One of the areas they need to be well versed in is the doctrine regarding employment at will. This paper looks at various aspects regarding employment at will, including its inference and exceptions to employment at will in relation to termination of employment as was the case with Dan.
At Will Employment
At will employment refers to a situation where the employment relationship existing between an employee and an employer can be terminated by either of them without accruing any form of legal liability, as long as there was no written or express contract to begin with. This doctrine as practiced in various states in the United States is of the view that where there is no written employment contract between an employer and an employee, one can be fired either for a bad cause, good cause or no cause at all (Muhl, 2001, p. 3). Some of the reasons that would lead to termination of employment under this doctrine include insubordination, association with people whom the employer is not in good terms with and failure to perform assigned tasks and duties, among others. There are however exceptions to this rule in order to prevent wrongful termination of employment.
Exceptions to the Employment at Will Doctrine
It is important to note at this point that different states apply the employment at will doctrine depending on their interpretation, and as such human resource managers in different states should ensure they are aware of the interpretation of the doctrine in the state in which their organization operates. Exceptions to this doctrine also depend on the state in question and as such, to avoid unnecessary legal liabilities, human resource managers should be careful when dealing with termination of employment where the employment at will doctrine is in force. The exceptions to this doctrine are as follows:
The Exception of Implied Contract
This exception applies when an employee and an employer form an implied contract, even in the absence of a written document or express terms defining the relationship between the employer and the employee. Such as when an employer makes written or verbal representations to an employee concerning matters such as job security and processes and procedures to be followed during the term of employment. If the employee can prove the existence of an implied contract, then the employer can be held liable for wrongful termination of employment (Muhl, 2001, p. 7).
Exception Based on Public Policy
In this case, the doctrine behind employment at will is not applicable if the termination of employment is in contravention of the federal or state public policy. This means that an employer will be held liable in a court of Law if he discharges an employee from duty in a manner that contradicts public policy, or for reasons that go against such policy (Gibson & Lindley, 2010, p. 91). Public policy contains certain exceptions regarding termination of employment, such as whistle blowing by an employee, where an employee is fired as a result of filling certain claims and where an employee refuses to commit illegal acts on behalf of the employer.
Exception Based on Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Where an employer violates an agreement based on good faith and fair dealing between him and an employee, then the doctrine of employment at will no longer hold. This therefore means that termination of employment based on an unjust cause, bad faith or malice is not permitted. As such, any decision made by an employer regarding termination of employment must be based on good faith and portray a sense of justice for the employee in question.
Other general exceptions to the employment at will doctrine include termination of employment due to racial, gender, ethnic, age and religious discrimination (Gibson & Lindley, 2010, p. 92). Employers are also not allowed to fire their employees based on their disabilities.
Dan’s Case
Terminating Dan’s employment would be wrong under the Public Policy exception since he was fired after he noted and reported some illegal discrepancies in the Medicare billings of Briar hill Memorial Hospital. As a director, I would take issue with Dan’s supervisor for wrongful termination of employment because even though the doctrine of employment at will is in place, it does not hold in Dan’s case. Dan in this case is a whistle blower and as such his employment cannot be terminated by virtue of the fact that he reported irregularities while in the process of discharging his duties.
Conclusion
As evidenced by the information given above, adequate knowledge is necessary on the part of the employer when it comes to discharging an employee from duty on the basis of employment at will, in order to avoid legal liability. The exceptions to this doctrine are subject to various interpretations and over time this has led to questions regarding their legitimacy and application, but this has not stopped employees who have lost their jobs under the mentioned circumstances from seeking legal redress. It is therefore necessary for the concerned authorities to come up with clear standards regarding what can be considered as lawful and unlawful termination of employment, for the sake of employers, lawyers and employees. This will enable each party to familiarize him/herself with his/her responsibilities regarding employment under the employment at will doctrine.
Reference List
Gibson, W. H. & Lindley, L. (2010). The Evolution of Employment-At-Will: Past, Present, and Future Predictions. American Journal of Business Education. Vol. 3, issue 2. pp. 89-101.
Muhl, C. J. (2001). The Employment –at-Will Doctrine: Three Major Exceptions.Monthly Labour Review. Web.