Employment-at-Will Doctrine
LEG500 (Law, Ethics & Corp. Governance)
Professor Timothy S. Griffin, JD, MPA
Maurice Miller
February 10, 2015

The employment-at-will doctrine states that an employee can be fired or released from a company for cause or no cause at all. The employee also has the right to quit a job for any reason. Under this legislation, neither the employer nor employee incurs “adverse legal consequences” (NCSL, 2014). There are three exceptions that are observed by the law to include a dismissal that “violates a state’s public policy, where there is an implied contract for employment, or where there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” (Muhl, 2001, p4). People cannot be fired based on the “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p134). An individual can also not be fired based on a disability or due to filing a workman’s comp claim.
John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer.
John’s actions took place on his own time, and the information was posted on his personal site. The action from the company would depend on whether John made the post and none of his coworkers chimed in or agreed with him, or if someone did agree with him. Concerted activity is protected under the law but not grunts and groaning from one employee. According to (Eidelson, 2012), “concerted activity will take different forms for different workers”. Quite simply put, John’s post could cause a loss of business for the company or even a disgruntled customer, not to mention the company’s most important customer. The company would be protected in firing him. I made this decision based on the Ethics of Care. John made a comment about our most important customer, and it is the company’s business to make sure the customer continues to be our most important customer.
Jim sent an email to other salespeople protesting a change in commission schedules and bonuses and suggesting everyone boycott the next sales meeting.
Jim’s case is interesting. The answer to firing him is it depends. If Jim is disgruntled and just decided to send out an email to all of his coworkers to get them roweled up, then he could be fired legally. However, if he had been talking to other employees and then sent them an email to further talk about actions to take, he would be protected under the law as “protected concerted activity” (Eidelson, 2012). Also, the judge may look at Jim’s case to see if he talked with any of the upper management about concerns before trying to get others to boycott. The judge would check to see if Jim was part of a union as well. In one case where an employee sent an email, the judge ruled that her firing was legal, because her email "merely expressed an individual gripe rather than any shared concerns about working conditions" (Newby, 2013). Since this description did not say that other employees joined in with Jim, the judge would rule that his firing was legal. After firing Jim, I would call a meeting with the rest of the employees to make sure that Jim’s attitude towards the company had not spread to others and to try to find some solutions if it had. I made this decision based on the Virtue Ethics model.
After being disciplined for criticizing a customer in an email (sent from his personal email account on a company computer), Joe threatens to sue the company for invasion of privacy.
Company computers are company computers. The company has the right to information that is sent on its’ computers, especially during work hours. Joe should not be discussing work business through his personal emails. Joe would not be covered under the First Amendment, because it “protects all of us from the government, not from private companies” (NOLO, 2014). I chose this action based on Free Market Ethics. This model focuses on what is good for the company. Joe cannot stay with the company while criticizing the customers, especially