Employment at Will

Retaliation for Whistle Blowing and At Will Employees
Waddell vs. Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Inc.
In the case Waddell v. Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Waddell sued for wrongful termination claiming that his dismissal violated his contract. He was an at-will employee, however, and there were no clear guidelines regarding termination; thus, the court found that Waddell did not present a proper claim for breach of contract. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court and argued that Waddell did not make a proper claim.
While I agree technically with the court’s decision, I disagree with the spirit of the ruling. Waddell was possibly fired because his boss did not like that Waddell was calling her out for being late with financial filings. There could have been fraud involved. Waddell should have sued for wrongful termination based on violation of the whistleblower policy that the company had instituted. The court ruled against Waddell because he failed to properly make an effective claim. What bothers me is that everyone can probably see what the proper claim should have been—so why can’t they just address the claim and change it so that it works? Then the court could rule in his favor. I do not think it is to the keeping of the spirit of the law to rule against someone based on a technicality like this when the evidence suggests that the person suing does have a valid claim. Just because it was worded incorrectly should not be a reason to dismiss the suit altogether.
If Waddell had been allowed to bring a claim for breach of contract, his supervisor Sophia Darling might have defended her conduct by saying that at-will employees can be terminated without cause. She could have said that she did not need to give a reason for his termination and that if he felt he had been discriminated against it was up to him to prove that point.
That is the argument that would best help her defense because she is not obligated to prove her own innocence; someone else is obligated to prove her guilt if that person is going to make charges against her. So the best defense in this situation would be to simply say nothing and argue that the law does not oblige her to justify her actions on this matter.
Had Waddell approached the claim differently and argued that he was terminated for blowing the whistle on his supervisor, it would be a different story. In that case, the supervisor would have to defend herself and argue that she was not terminating Waddell for that reason. Against that claim, she would have to justify her actions because the nature of the claim is one that raises into question her motives, since the company had a clear policy on whistleblowing and retaliation.
I feel that the employment at will is fair to employees because employees are not indentured servants or slaves, and if they want to leave a job, they can. If the contract forbade them from doing this it would mean that the employee was basically an indentured servant or slave. Employees are not going to like that kind of arrangement in most cases because it can lead to them being taken advantage of and abused. Employees want freedom in terms of where they work and who they work for. The best case for employers and employees is to have at-will employment as both are free to walk away at any time if they feel the contract is not working for them. It may not seem fair at times, but it is the best option considering the other alternatives and what they could lead to if used.
References
Waddell v. Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research. (n.d.).