Essay about Employment at Will Doctrine

1636 Words Dec 1st, 2013 7 Pages
| Employment-At-Will Doctrine | | | Alishia Bush | | Kimberly Ford, Esq. LEG 500 10/23/2013 |

|

Employeement-at-will Doctrine/Evaluation
The employment-at-will doctrine was established giving employers autonomous power to terminate employment at will for no reason, a good reason or for being found morally wrong, even if they aren’t wrong in the eyes of the law. Within this doctrine the employer or employee, without a written employment contract, can terminate the employment relationship without warning at any time and with or without cause. There are exceptions to this rule. One being that the employer cannot use this doctrine to intimidate or coerce their employees. Employer initiated termination
…show more content…
To determine under the employment at will doctrine, if the termination is legal, would be based on the contents of the rant. Also, it would be based off whether the company has an internet privacy policy that supports employees outside of the workplace, during their personal time. Because of the employees’ lack of respect for the company and its’ client, John is to be held responsible for not protecting the best interest of the company. In order to limit liability, an internet privacy policy needs to be established, based off of the principle of deontology, therefore establishing parameters for the employees as well as protecting the company. The question has arisen whether or not Jim, who emailed his fellow co-workers regarding protesting changes in commission schedules and bonuses and suggesting a boycott of the sales meeting, can be terminated legally under the employment-at-will doctrine. Jim was using his personal email; however he was not doing any harm to the company, only expressing his concerns to his fellow co-workers. Jim should be reprimanded for suggesting the boycott, but termination would not be viable in this case. If a whistleblower policy were in place, it would help limit liability and the impact of the business. Jim would be expected to voice his concerns through that means so he is protected from retaliation. The ethical principle of utilitarianism best supports this case,

Related Documents