The Pros And Cons Of Employment-At Will Doctrine

Employment-At Will Doctrine

In the state of Georgia, most workers are usually regarded as employees working "at will." This means that employees are working at the will of their employer and the employer can subsequently fire them at any time, for any reason, and without any legitimate notice (At Will Employment in Georgia – FindLaw, 2011). Essentially, a worker can be terminated for pretty much any reason at all, regardless if it is good or valid (At Will Employment in Georgia – FindLaw, 2011). Most workers however are protected under federal laws and employees also can 't be fired because they opposed unlawful employment practices (At Will Employment in Georgia – FindLaw, 2011).

Facebook

It is in my opinion that employees should have the

The act states that employees are able to freely talk about work-related topics such as wages and poor working conditions. Ellen does not have the right to talk badly or in a negative manner about her boss. She does not have the right to blatantly disrespect her bosses by calling them things such as “know-nothings and ‘’out of-touch”. In instances such as these you see employers taking action against disrespectful employees because that kind of behaviors cannot be tolerated. Employers need to make sure that other employees understand that they will not condone that sort of behavior. Despite the fact that employees have free speech in the workplace, they still are held to a standard where they have to conduct themselves in a professional manner and respect their leaders even if they do not always agree with the choices that the leader makes. Long-term affects will be that, managers will ultimately lose trust and respect of subordinates, which will reduce production as well as profit. In this scenario Ellen could be fired for bad mouthing her bosses, but she could not be fired for protesting that she hasn’t received a raise in

In Home Health LLC is a recent case that deals with the employment At-Will Doctrine. In 2013 the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld Georgia’s employment at-will doctrine, despite the fact that the sympathies were with the employee in the situation (Root, 2013). In 2009, a hospice, which is the employer in this scenario offered to hire a young lady for full time employment for a specific location (Root, 2013). Despite having offered her a full time position, the hospice had already decided to close that specific location. This information about the hospice location being closed was unknown to the plaintiff. The employer sent a letter confirming her acceptance for the position to the employee, telling her she would start her position on August 6, 2009 (Root, 2013). Because of this news of the job confirmation the plaintiff quit her job on July 24, 2009 that she’d had for the last 30 years. However, before she got the opportunity to start her new job, the hospice company informed her that they were closing and that they were rescinding her promise for a job. After hearing this news the young lady decided to sue and try to get around the employment at-will doctrine. The plaintiff argued that the trial court should not have dismissed her fraud claim without considering whether she had an equitable claim for relief as an exception to the employment at-will doctrine (Root, 2013). Despite her argument, the court dismissed her claim. The reasoning behind the dismissal of her