Employment-At-Will Doctrine
Name:
Strayer University
Dr. William Stone
LEG 500 Law, Ethics, and Corporate Governance
May 14, 2015

Employment-At-Will First, I am grateful for the promotion to Chief Operating Officer! This day has been a long time waiting. Know that I will continue to do my best to build this prestigious corporation successfully. Successive to my promotion celebration, a number of concerns were articulated to me. Several issues need to be address immediately. I have taken priority in researching resolutions to the developing issues, which brought me to the employment-at-will doctrine.
Frequently, companies in the United States have possessed the right to terminate their employees at will for any reason. “Employment At-Will" is a legal creed. This gives employers manumit discretion to “dismiss" an employee for good cause, for no cause, or a bad cause, without being thereby guilty of a legal wrong (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p.48). The majority of the United States employees are typically considered “at will” employees. In other words, you or your employer can terminate your job on a moment's notice for any reason. The law in most states presumes that an employee is at-will unless the employee can prove otherwise (Staff, 2015).
After researching my company's employment-at-will doctrine, I conducted and resolved three of the six employee investigations that required my immediate attention. Thus, provided background information that supports my recommendation on implementing a whistleblower policy prior to our public offering.
My first issue, John posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he criticized the company’s most important customer. The employment-at will doctrine does not protect John. The reason that I can fire him is because his internet blasting is a direct violation of company policy. Posting on the internet prohibits privacy. When you post on the internet the whole world is your audience. He has no law to protect him from being fired. Also, he cannot contest the firing because he is violating the privacy of one of our most valuable clients. It is our duty to protect all of our client private business.
Then there is Ellen who started a blog to protest the CEO’s bonus, noting that no one below director has gotten a raise in two years and portraying her bosses “know-nothings” and “out-of-touch”. Certainly, Ellen would definitely be fired. She was out of line when she criticized the CEO of the company and calling him names. The social media policy should be reviewed if there is one. The company, could be covered if the policy states that employees cannot speak derogatorily about their boss or coworkers online. According to the "National Relations Act," workers have a right to discuss their wages and conditions of employment, however, "griping or ranting by a single employee is not protected" (Rogers, 2013).$
Though, she is entitled to her opinion, she implied about is not only her bosses, but my bosses and co-workers as well. This can be considered defamation of character and she has violated her freedom of speech rights. Ellen would be fired based on Deontology which focus on rights and duties, telling the truth and fairness (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012, p.17). Another employee, Bill has been using his company-issued Blackberry to run his own business on the side. The reason that Bill can be fired is because the is using company property illegally. Bill signed a contract agreeing to only conduct company business with his company-issued equipment. He is in violation of that contract and not to mention running up his BlackBerry bill on our tab, in my opinion Bill should be fired. I am certain Bill was aware that the employer ” can monitor, listen in and record employee phone calls on employer owned phones” to include “voice mail and text messages” (Bussing, 2011). His firm is justified to fire him base on Virtue Ethics". This is a classification within Normative