Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
ethics in employment
employment at will and due process
employment at will" doctrine yes or no
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: ethics in employment
Employment at will is commonly known for being an outlet for employers to terminate employees or employees to leave employment at any time, for any reason, without notice. Employers in “at will” states generally apply a written agreement to fashion the law their own. States suggest that the at-will doctrine is designed to help both parties from being involved in an employer/employee relationship that is not beneficial to both parties. When it comes to the medical and law fields, employees are often terminated for following what it is right instead of company policy. When the law is followed over company protocol, employers should encourage, not terminate, ethical behavior.
The employment at will doctrine was designed in the United States from an adopted law in England that mandated employers to apply just cause for employee termination. This lead to the law Americans now know all too well; employment can be terminated, for any reason, at any time, by either the employer or employee (Sentell & Robbins, 2008). Many Americans have experienced this type of employment, and have suffered from a termination that they did not understand. In many cases, long-term employees who thought they were in their careers, are let go without explanation, left to lose their income and feel unvalued. Is this fair?
…show more content…
In one particular case, a nursing assistant was terminated for filing a lawsuit against a former patient of hers. When the hospital “demanded” that she drop the lawsuit, she refused and the hospital “deemed that she had resigned” (Cavico, 2005, page 192). In this case, the hospital used employment at will to pressure the nursing assistant to drop a legal matter. From a legal standpoint, the nursing assistant was well within her legal rights to file a lawsuit against an abusive patient, and yet her employer fired her because of it (Cavico,
In the case of Michael T. Vandall, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant v. Trinity Hospitals, a corporation, and Margaret C. Nordell, M.D., the issue is about retaliatory discharge. It deals with problems with Trinity Hospital in North Dakota, Dr. Margaret Nordell and Dr. Michael Vandall, both physicians working in the OB-GYN department.
In 1980, a precedent was set in a Michigan court case involving a man named Charles Toussaint who was suing his employer, BlueCross Blue Shield, for wrongful termination based on the guidelines set in the employee manual (Alfred and Bertsche 33). The manual stated that employees would only be terminated for just cause, and the court decided that Blue Cross had violated the agreements in the employee manual (34). The court also ruled that even with Blue Cross’s efforts to provide a document that “issued non-binding guidelines” the employee manual was a contract and Toussiant was wrongfully terminated (34). After the precedent set by this case many employers and employees for that matter were reviewing their employee manuals for the type of ambiguous language that could allow them to get sued or sue. Consequently, a slew of wrongful termination lawsuits followed this one, which is why it is now important for employers to draft their manuals with experienced legal staff. Even with the best legal team and the perfect wording there is still no definite assurance that an employer will be completely protected from such lawsuits, but taking these preventive measures helps in the long run.
Today, there are so many legal dilemmas dominating trial for the courts to make a sound legal decision on whose right in a complicated situation. Despite the outcome of the case, the disagreement usually has a profound effect on the healthcare organization, and the industry as a whole. Many cases are arguments centered around if the issue is a legal or moral principle. Regardless what the situation maybe, the final decision is left to the courts to differentiate between the legality issues at hand opposed to justifying a case based on moral rules. According to Pozgar (2012), an ethical dilemma arises in situations where a choice must be made between unpleasant alternative. It can occur whenever a choice involves giving up something good and suffering something bad, no matter what course of action is taken (p. 367). In this paper, I will discuss cases that arose in the healthcare industry that have been tried and brought to justice by the United States court system.
In the case study 4.1 (Tardif v. Wiebe), we learned that vicarious liability does not always applied on employers for employee’s wrongdoings. In most cases, the decisions are made upon determining weather employee was acting in their own personal capacity and interest, or in the course of their employment.
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
This case study examines a case of an LPN who became ill while about halfway through her shift and chose to go home. This LPN was assigned to care for five patients in an obstetrical ward, four of which were considered stable. The fifth patient was awaiting an obstetrical consultation when the LPN became ill and vomited. At this time, she notified the other nurses and, subsequently, the charge nurse that she needed to leave due to illness. The charge nurse instructed her to notify her supervisor prior to leaving the facility; however, the LPN chose not to do so and went home. Her reasoning in not notifying her supervisor as she was instructed was that she feared that the supervisor would ask her to go to the emergency room for care. The LPN testified that she did not want to pay for an emergency visit and that she intended to make an appointment with her family doctor early that same day. The facility terminated the LPN’s contract and also reported her to the state board of nursing for patient abandonment. As a judgment, the board of nursing suspended here nursing license pending a psychological examination and fined her $1000 for abandoning her patients. In this paper, we will examine the viewpoints of the LPN, the charge nurse, and the nursing supervisor as they relate to the Nurse Practice Act and the board of nursing.
The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was eight long years in the making. After many bitter debates between the Republicans and Democrats, Congress passed the Act on February 4, 1993. President Clinton signed the measure into law the following day. The Act became effective on August 5, 1993. The Act required employers with fifty or more employees within a seventy-five mile radius to offer eligible employees up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave during a twelve month period for a variety of medical reasons. Some of the general medical reasons are, for the birth or adoption, to care for a seriously ill parent, spouse or child or to undergo medical treatment for their own illness. The Act spelled out provisions on employer coverage; employee eligibility for the law's benefits; entitlement to leave, maintenance of health benefits during leave, and job restoration after leave; notice and certification of the need for FMLA leave; and protection for employees who request or take FMLA leave. (1) The law also requires employers to keep certain records. It was estimated that the Act would affect five percent of America's employers and forty percent of all employees. This paper will show the ethical standpoint on how employers handle FMLA. In addition, this paper will show the progress FMLA has made in five years, becoming more ethically correct.
Can dissatisfied workers just pick up and go if they hate their job? We saw this typical employer response play out at the beginning of Norma Rae. Norma’s mother started having hearing problems in the middle of the factory workday. When Norma’s noticed the issue she immediately took her mother to the company doctor, who just dismissed the medical issue. After a brief exchange, the doctor stated that if the mother is having issues with her hearing she could just find another job. Frustrated, Norma replied “What other job in this town? This is the only job!” (“Norma Rae,” 1979) This appears to be the condition of many workers in the current economy. So in many cases, it does indeed appear unfair for companies to approach the issue like the doctor
Employment at will is a law that is present in all fifty states in the US; although, in Montana there requires a stated cause for termination. Employment at will creates dissent among employees when they have been terminated for a cause that is thought to be unsubstantial or when no cause is given. There are pros and cons to the presumption, and employees and employers have different views. Employment at will means that the employer can terminate an employee at any time, for any cause without warning. However, even an at-will employee cannot be terminated because of discriminatory reasons. Employment at will also means that an employee can leave a job at any time without the fear of facing any legal consequences. An employer can also change the terms of employment without notice and no penalties. Throughout this paper, the two sides to employment at will will be discussed, and different examples of employment at will cases will be given. At its most basic, employment at will is not the best path because it can create feelings of violation and betrayal in the employee and can create a negative public opinion or loss of profit for the business.
Bennett-Alexander, D.; Hartman, L (2012) Employment Law for Business 7th Edition. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
United States of America. National Employment Law Project. National Employment Law Project. N.p., Jan. 2011. Web. 18 May 2014.
The decision to terminate an employee may be difficult for some managers depending on the situation at hand. Today, many states have adopted the employment at will law to fire employees for any or no reason, with the exception of employees that have a contract in place. According to Erickson (2008), “The basis for an employer to terminate an employee without being sued is the employment-at-will doctrine. This doctrine is a statement that is signed by both the employee and employer at the time of hire that states that the employee can quit at any time for any reason without notice and that the employer can terminate the employee at any time for any legal reason.” On the contrary to the definition of “At-Will” employment, Pozgar (2012) states, “The employment-at-will common law doctrine is not truly applicable in today’s society and many courts have recognized this fact. The twentieth century has witnessed significant changes in socio-economic values that have led to reassessment of the common law rule (p. 494). An example of an organization hiring on an employment on an at-will basis but terminating an employee without justifying the cause of action was the case of Joseph Casias versus Corporation. By law, an employer has to follow guidelines that essentially make ethos rules null and void because there is nothing to adhere to, especially in a circumstance where the employee is terminated by the at-will policy. In this situation, if the employer terminated by allegations that this employee was an active drug user. However, by law, according to Mr. Casias and his attorney, this employee had legitimate reasons for being involved in obtaining and smoking marijuana. As discussed in the case, the law protect employees from illegitimate...
Employers can be charged with negligent retention or negligent hiring. Negligent retention refers to an employer not terminating the employment of an individual who was known to be violent, or who continually exposed his or her dishonesty. Negligent hiring is when an employer hires a person without checking to see if that candidate has a history of violence. “Negligent hiring suits are founded on an obligation to hire only safe, qualified employees.” (Walter, 1991). Another potential tort or common law suits that can be filed against an employer is a liability
The doctrine of employment at-will provides that employers may hire, transfer, promote, or terminate employees at any time for any cause, and employees have the right to resign at any time with or without notice (Reed & Bogardus, 2012)....