Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory Issues in Business - Case Study Example

Case Any form of employment termination without justifiable cause is prohibited by law. This issue is not new to us anymore. There are thousands of employees filing complaints against their employers for termination without reasonable grounds. But the existence of an Employment At Will, can be a good defense against the claim of termination without sufficient reason or no reason. An at-will employment or employment at will means that in the absence of contract or agreements that indicate conditions of employment, the employment is assumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both the employers and employees under the Doctrine of Employment at Will.

In this type of set-up, employees may quit their job anytime and for any, or no or uneven reason and the employers can likewise fire or layoff employees at any time and for any, no or unfair reasons. But employers are limited by exceptions such as if employment termination is in breach of a contract or illegal. This renders the Employment at Will Doctrine inapplicable. The doctrine will not be applicable if the court determines that an employer was guilty of discharging an employee for a discriminatory reason (employeeissues.

com, At Will Employment). There are a number of federal laws that protect the employees against discrimination such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (www.eeoc.gov, Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers). The federal and state laws of the United States forbids employers or companies from discriminating against employees on the basis of their age, race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disability and physical handicap.

The act of discrimination can take place as early as recruiting to discharging of employees (public.findlaw.com, Employee Discrimination). In the case of Elaine, there is a clear case of discrimination because she was just laid off her job without given a reason of termination. The hiring of Kramer, a person with less job experience and education, supported the claim for employee discrimination, one that is based on gender. Jenny was working well and she was qualified, but she was terminated without given a reason and was replaced by a less qualified male employee.

Jerry’s action was a clear example of violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Doctrine of Employment at Will is not applicable in Elaine’s case. Elaine can file a complaint at the nearest office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She can also claim from damages through the Civil Rights Act of 1991 which provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination. It should be noted that in the case of Elaine, her termination can be said to be a legal or permissible act because of the “at-will employment” setting that they have.

But because of the hiring of the male employee, Kramer, to replace her job, the employer showed an act of discrimination. Elaine was more qualified than the newly hired male employee. Thus there was a discrimination based on gender. Jerry showed a clear sign of preference of male employee than female which is prohibited by law. And since this discrimination is not permissible in the “Doctrine of Employment at-will”, the employer cannot claim the defense of the rule of “at-will” employment that justifies his firing of Elaine without a valid reason or explanation.

Jerry therefore committed and violated the law against discrimination and can be held liable. Case 2: Exotic dancers are considered employees of the club. Every person has the right to make a living. But in the case of Uriah Heep, an accountant who has good work record, working as an exotic dancer during weekends is a different scenario. Uriah worked as an accountant for the City of Boca Grande. He has a really good work record and has served the office for seven good years. But when he was fired due to his work as an exotic dancer, there is a need to evaluate if the City has violated rules employment and if there is wrongful termination.

Wrongful termination is defined as unfair employment discharge. This kind of discharge is sometimes referred to as wrongful discharge, wrongful firing, wrongful dismissal, illegal discharge, illegal termination, illegal dismissal, and unfair dismissal. It is very important to know if there is employment that is “at-will” to understand whether or not there is an unfair employment discharge. If there is “employment at will”, the city can discharge Uriah without any explanation needed (employeeissues.

com, Wrongful Termination). Unless the employment is “at-will”, every employee has the right to due process or proper termination. Before a company or employer can fire an employee, the employers must make sure that they were able to comply with the process on how to terminate an employee. The first step is to notify the employee about the violation which will possibly cause his or her termination. As soon as the employee is informed, he or she has the right to explain him or herself regarding the matter.

There should be a proper investigation regarding the matter before the employee can be fired. If the employee is found guilty or still fails to improve or follow the conditions of the employer, the employer has the right to terminate the employment of the employee (Heathfield, n.d.). It is also important that there is a condition specified in the contract that a government employee is prohibited to work or display any wrongful activities that can discredit the city. This condition will be the basis on why the employee is said to have violated a rule or condition of contract.

If there is no condition regarding the “display or engagement of activities that will discredit the city” as one of the causes of termination of contract, then the discharge can be said to be a discriminatory act of the city against Uriah. Uriah has the right to choose his work, but he is also expected to obey the conditions of the city as an employee. So if there is a rule or condition that says being an exotic dancer is a major cause of termination, the city has the right to discharge Uriah based on this.

Otherwise, the city violated the federal law against discrimination. Owl city cannot always assert the rationale that Uriah has engaged in activities that discredited the city to justify the termination if there was no clear and specific rule or condition that says so. Both the city and Uriah have the right to protect themselves against discrimination and possible threats. But it must be noted that Uriah has also the right to choose his work even if this means being an exotic dancer during weekends.

He has his responsibilities to do and if this other job is his way to support his family or himself, then the city cannot just fire him only because of the nature of his work without a valid ground. References: Employment At Will.” employeeissues.com. (n.d.). Web. 14 July 2011 “Employee Descrimination.” public.findlaw.com. Findlaw. (n.d.). Web 14 July 2011 “Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers.” www.eeoc.gov. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2009). 14 July 2011 Heathfield, Susan.

How to Fire an Employee, (n.d.). Web. 14 July 2011 “Wrongful Termination.” employeeissues.com. (n.d.). Web. 14 July 2011