Employment-At-Will Doctrine - Essay Example

Similarly, the Employment-At-Will Doctrine provides that an employee can leave his/her job without any reason, cause or warning (Stone, 2007). Thus, when employees feel that they do not wish to continue working for the current employer, they can just leave their work station without any explanation whatsoever. This doctrine has emerged as controversial, considering that the proponents of the doctrine observes that it is a balanced contractual policy, where both the employer and the employee are given absolute freedom to determine whether they should continue with an employment contract or not.

However, those opposing this doctrine observe that it serves to create more injustice, considering that the bargaining powers between the employer and the employee are not equal (Stone, 2007). The employer always have an upper hand, and thus those opposed to the doctrine finds it inappropriate, since it allows the employer to dismiss employees anyhow, while the employees are left without any remedy or cause of action, when such an action is taken. Therefore, the bottom-line of the Employment-At-Will Doctrine is that there exists no law that protects the employee or the employer against any action that any of the party to the employment contract may take, whether on the basis of good reason, bad one or no reasons at all (Stone, 2007).

Evaluating each of the eight (8) scenarios and assessing whether one can legally fire the employee The action taken by John is not within his rights under the employment-at-will doctrine, which grants an employee the right to strike, quit freely or cease to work (Stone, 2007). The doctrine does not provide the freedom for an employee to take any action that can harm the employer, other than quitting at will or striking for any reason. Therefore, the action taken by John warrants his sacking, since he is destroying the relationship between the employer and its clientele.

The action taken by Jim to send an email to the rest of the employees, protesting a change in commission schedules and bonuses is within his rights under the employment-at-will doctrine, since it entails protesting against wrongful discrimination, which is an exception under employment-at-will doctrine, within the protected actions (Stone, 2007). Therefore, it will not be right to fire him, since he is protesting against discriminatory change in commission schedules and bonuses. Similarly, Ellen has taken an action that is within her rights under the employment-at-will doctrine, through criticizing the employer on the blog, on the basis of what she believes to be wrongful discrimination in CEO’s bonus, which only favors director, leaving out the rest of the employees.

This action is provided for under the exceptions to employment-at-will doctrine, where the employee should not be fired for protesting against protected actions, such as wrongful discrimination (Stone, 2007). Bill, on the other hand has taken an action that is against his rights, through using the company’s assets to run his side venture. This is not a right guaranteed to him by the employment-at-will doctrine, and thus warrants the employer to fire him. Joe is another employee that lacks any legal basis for suing the employer under the employment-at-will doctrine.

Joe threatens to sue the company for invasion of privacy after being disciplined for