This paper examines the employment-at-will doctrine, which permits employers and employees to enter into or terminate employment contracts freely and without prior notice. It outlines the major exceptions to this doctrine, including collective bargaining agreements, individual employment contracts, statutory protections against discrimination, implied contracts, and the covenant of good faith. The paper then applies these principles to three workplace scenarios involving privacy violations, retaliation for refusing to falsify records, and wrongful termination for jury duty attendance. Ethical frameworks—deontological and utilitarian theories—are used to justify the recommended actions in each case. The paper concludes with a real-world example from Washington State.
The employment-at-will doctrine is a legal principle that permits both the employer and the employee to enter into or terminate a contract of employment freely and without prior notice. Under this doctrine, an employer may hire an employee who is willing to accept the job under the given terms and conditions. Moreover, the doctrine allows an employer to terminate an employee's contract for any reason—even one that is not fully justified—without prior notice. Similarly, the doctrine allows the employee to terminate their contract of employment with an employer without prior notice (Mixon, 2014).
Several exceptions apply to the employment-at-will doctrine, covering situations in which the doctrine may not apply. The first exception arises when employees and employers have collective bargaining agreements. Employees who are members of workers' unions have pre-negotiated collective bargaining agreements that stipulate employee remunerations, increment procedures, and conditions under which an employee may be discharged. These agreements also establish an appeal procedure through which an employee can challenge a termination that is not justified under the provisions of the agreement (Chuff, 2014). Consequently, an employer cannot terminate an employee's contract unless the grounds are justified under the collective bargaining agreement, nor can the employer reduce the employee's salary at will.
In addition to collective bargaining agreements, an employee may have an individual employment contract that is binding on both parties. This contract stipulates the employee's remunerations and the conditions under which the contract may be terminated (Butsch & Kleiner, 2011). The law requires the employer to follow the provisions of that agreement, which limits the employer's power to terminate the contract willfully unless the specific circumstances are provided for within the terms of employment.
Another exception is statutory protection. Various state and federal laws protect employees from discrimination at the point of both hiring and termination. Protected categories include race, gender, religion, family status, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, and age, among other factors (Butsch & Kleiner, 2011). These statutory protections limit an employer's ability to fire an employee unless the employer can demonstrate that the dismissal is in no way related to any form of discrimination.
Implied contracts also form a basis for exceptions. Implied contracts encompass employment policies that describe the process of hiring as well as situations that may lead to termination. Although such policies may not constitute a written contract between the employer and the employee, they create an implied agreement that protects the employee against unjustified termination and thereby limits the freedom of employment termination that the doctrine would otherwise provide.
Labor law in the United States holds that termination of an employee's contract must have justifiable reasons. An employee who believes that their termination was not justified may file a lawsuit under the covenant of good faith (Mixon, 2014). This covenant therefore provides another exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.
In the first case, Bill criticizes a company customer and disciplinary action is taken against him. He threatens to sue the company for infringing on his privacy, noting that the customer is a personal friend and that he used his personal email, albeit on a company computer. Bill cannot be fired under the employment-at-will doctrine due to the covenant of good faith exception. The employer lacks sufficient justifiable grounds for dismissal because Bill had a personal relationship with the customer and used his personal email account. The criticism could reasonably be considered non-work-related and personal in nature. Furthermore, Bill is protected under the public policy exception, which guarantees every individual a right to privacy. By accessing his personal emails, the company contravened Bill's right to privacy, and the public policy exemption protects him from termination based on this conduct.
In the second case, Mitch requests approval to fire his subordinate—a secretary who refused to falsify expense reports on his behalf. The secretary cannot be fired because of the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The conduct the secretary was asked to perform was unlawful, and by refusing to engage in that unlawful activity, the employee is protected under public policy. Approving the dismissal would expose the company to significant legal liability and would effectively penalize an employee for acting lawfully.
In the third case, Lori was absent without approved leave after requesting permission to attend jury duty and being denied. Under statutory protections, an employee attending a legal proceeding has the right to do so without facing victimization. This exemption from the employment-at-will doctrine protects Lori from termination based on that absence.
In the first case, the appropriate action is to reinstate Bill and withdraw any disciplinary action against him. This preserves the company's public image as an organization that upholds employee privacy and will help attract competent employees. This action is consistent with the deontological theory of ethics, which holds that an action is ethical when it aligns with an individual's duty to the organization and to the rights of others.
In the second case, the dismissal of the secretary should not be approved. By refusing to authorize this termination, the decision protects not only this secretary but also other subordinates who may face similar pressure to engage in unlawful conduct. This course of action is consistent with the utilitarian theory of ethics, which considers an action ethical if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
In the third case, Lori should be reinstated, given that she had requested permission but been denied. The broader consequence of this decision is that all workers with genuine and legal reasons for absence can be allowed to attend to those obligations without fear of termination. This action is also supported by the utilitarian theory of ethics, which evaluates the morality of an action based on its consequences for the wider group.
The garnishment policy is an example of a state-level rule that restricts the employment-at-will doctrine. In Washington State, employers are barred from dismissing employees solely on the basis of garnished wages. This provides a state-based exception to the doctrine. Alaska Airlines, headquartered in Washington State, is an example of a company that complies with the employment-at-will doctrine and its exceptions. With over 1,200 employees, the company allows workers to enter into and terminate employment contracts at will while also observing both federal and state exemptions in its application of the doctrine (Butsch & Kleiner, 2011).
"Deontological and utilitarian justifications for each ruling"
"Washington garnishment policy and Alaska Airlines example"
You’re 93% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.