Introduction
Labor laws in the United States are aimed at protecting the rights of employees and employers. They prohibit discrimination and harassment based on factors such as age, ethnicity, and gender. There are procedures that should be followed when discharging an employee, and this depends on whether they are employed “at will’ or whether they are exempt from this rule. Montana is the only state that does not have the employment-at-will rule. This rule protects individuals from being stuck in a job they dislike. It also gives employers the freedom to dismiss employees at will. It is imperative for organizations to evaluate the employment laws that operate within their jurisdictions in order to ensure that they conduct terminations legally.
Constructive Discharge
Constructive discharge refers to the coercive resignation of an employee, owing to the creation of a harsh or unbearable working environment at the workplace. In cases where an employer wants to dismiss an individual and they lack a legitimate reason to do so, they force them to leave by creating a hostile work environment. Examples of factors that comprise harsh work environments include mistreatment, demotion for reasons that are not work-related, harassment, and discrimination based on sex, gender, race, or age (Collins 54). In employment law, a prerequisite for a dismissal to be defined as a constructive discharge is the violation of federal laws that prohibit harassment or discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, race, religious affiliation, or physical condition.
A court could focus on the factors to determine whether a constructive discharge exists. Other factors that could be considered include the use of force to compel an employee to engage in an illegal activity, proof of mistreatment, and evidence that the case was reported to human resources, the management team, or a supervisor and the issue was unresolved (Collins 56). A court will want to prove that the working environment was unbearable and the employee had no other choice but to quit. Organizations can avoid claims of constructive discharge in several ways. First, allow for flexibility in the employment agreement, enhance effective communication, revise the terms of an employment agreement, and an offer of mitigation employment based on the revised terms (Collins 64). In case an organization wants to make a fundamental change, it is important to give employees a reasonable notice.
Pure Employment-at-will and Employment-at-will with Exceptions
Pure employment-at-will refers to a doctrine that gives an employer the authority to terminate or dismiss a worker without prior notice, warning, or explanation. It means that an employee can vacate their job at any given time, either for a valid reasons or for no reason at all (Rassas 44). On the contrary, employment-at-will with exceptions is a doctrine that protects individuals from dismissal or having their employment terms altered. These exceptions include employment contracts, implied contracts, public policy, and good faith and fair dealing (Rassas 44). Under the employment-at-will doctrine, an employer can covertly change the terms of unemployment without the involvement of the employee (Howe 65). In contrast, the employment-at-will with exceptions doctrine bars companies from changing the employment terms. State and federal governments have laws that prohibit wrongful termination. For instance, it is illegal to dismiss a person because of disability, race, gender, whistleblowing, sexual orientation, and age (Rassas 48). Employees can be dismissed at any time and for any reason if they are employed at-will. On the contrary, an organization cannot fire an individual if an implied contract exists between them. In addition, an employer cannot terminate an individual in order to avoid making health care or retirement payments for them.
The Fairness of Employment-at-will
Employment-at-will is fair because it benefits both employers and employees. The doctrine gives both parties the opportunity to take actions that are in their best interests. They work together without the involvement of long term contracts that could be limiting (Rassas 76). For example, it allows an employee to leave a current job in case they are dissatisfied or because they have received a better opportunity. On the other hand, an employer can dismiss a worker freely if they have disagreements about changes in wages and benefits. The doctrine is beneficial to employers who are accused of wrongful termination (Rassas 78). An employee might sue an organization for wrongful termination. In that case, the firm can rely on the legal concept for absolution. In reality, the doctrine is not applied frequently because the federal and state governments have employment laws that impact the doctrine (Howe 65). In that regard, many employers implement programs that are aimed at improving performance, rather than terminating employees, lowering their wages, or changing their job descriptions.
The Montana Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act
The Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WEDA) is an employment law enacted in 1987 by the state of Montana. It is an amendment of the employment-at-will rule, and it is the only legislation of its kind in the United States. The Act honors the rule, but provides a legal definition for wrongful discharge (Howe 78). According to the law, it is illegal to discharge a person for refusing to violate public policy or for reporting a contravention of public policy (Rassas 88). An employee is wrongfully discharged if he/she is dismissed without a good cause, prior to the completion of a probationary period, assigned as a prerequisite of employment. Moreover, it is unlawful for an employer to violate the provisions of a written personnel policy that they have implemented in their organization. The law provides a provision that allows the employer to be at will: an employee can be dismissed without a reason during the probationary period (races 93). However, the dismissal is illegal if any form of discriminatory action is involved.
This act is beneficial to employees because it protects them from wrongful termination based on factors such as race, age, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. If an individual is terminated without a good cause, they can challenge the decision either through mediation or a court of law. On the other hand, the legislation protects employers from condoning poor performance and bad behavior from employees (Rassas 67). A termination can be based on poor performance or unethical behavior, both of which fit the definition of a good cause for termination. The WDEA encourages both parties to seek arbitration, rather than pursuing legal action (Howe 78). In case mediation fails, then the party that loses in court pays for the costs and attorney fees incurred by the other.
Actions to Consider for Legal Employee Terminations
The unlawful termination of employees usually has dire legal consequences for employers. Many organizations have paid hefty fines for contravening employing laws, both at the federal and state levels. Therefore, it is necessary for firms to make certain considerations as they seek to handle employee terminations legally. First, it is imperative to establish the reason for discharge (Howe 51). Legally, an employer should be able to provide proof that a termination was for a good cause. For instance, records of performance appraisals and prior warnings can be supplied to support the reason for a discharge.
Second, organizations should establish whether the employees fall under protected status according to federal, state, or local employment law. The majority of people are likely to qualify for protected status because of their gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical health, or religion (Howe 54). All labor laws prohibit the harassment or discrimination of employees based on the aforementioned factors. These factors expose employers to potential discrimination claims, which override a genuine reason for a dismissal. Moreover, the organization should evaluate previous terminations in order to establish whether they affected a specific group.
Third, organizations should consider the existence of any collective bargaining or individual employment agreements. The majority of employees in the United States are employed “at will” and they can be dismissed without prior notice or without a reason. However, individuals who are exempt from this form of employment through collective bargaining and individual employment agreements cannot be dismissed without a good cause (Howe 61). Otherwise, an organization could be sued for contravening employment laws. Before dismissing an employee, it is important for an employer to check for the existence of such agreements.
Conclusion
The majority of individuals in the US are employed “at will,” meaning that they can be dismissed at any time without a reason, provide discriminatory actions are not involved. There are several reasons for exemption from this rule: employment contracts, implied contracts, public policy, and good faith and fair dealing. Montana is the only state that’s has a statutory modification of the employment-at-will rule. It protects employees from wrongful terminations and protects employers from condoning misconduct and poor performance. It is imperative for organizations to evaluate the legitimacy of the reason for a release, consider the employment status of employees, and the existence of employment agreements before discharging an individual.
Works Cited
Collins, Erica C. The Employment Law Review. 8th ed., Law Business Research, 2017.
Howe, Joanna. Rethinking Job Security: A Comparative Analysis of Unfair Dismissal Law in the UK, Australia, and the USA. Taylor & Francis, 2017.
Rassas, Lori B. Employment Law: A Guide to Hiring, Managing, and Firing for Employers and Employees. 4th ed., Wolters Kluwer, 2020.