Some courts reject outright promissory estoppel claims made by an at-will employee by contending that an employee cannot reasonably rely on a promise of employment if the employment is at-will. In any case, promissory estoppel provides only a limited remedy in comparison to a breach of contract claim. In addition to the common-law exceptions outlined above, there are also several statutory exception to the at-will employment doctrine.
Specific state statutes may also protect employees from discrimination based on other factors, such as sexual orientation. It is important to recognize that discrimination statutes shield members of protected classes only from adverse employment actions made because of their membership in a protected class.
In other words, an employer may fire Jane because she failed to perform the required functions of her job, but not because she is in a wheelchair. A few states have enacted legislation to protect employees from adverse employment actions resulting from legal off-duty activities.
North Dakota adopted a similarly broad statute. Legislation enacted by Indiana, New Jersey, Oregon, and South Dakota specifically prohibits employer discrimination against smokers. The legislation allows employers to constrain the lawful, off-duty activities of their employees when 1 the restriction relates to bona fide occupational activity; 2 is reasonably and rationally related to the employment activities and responsibilities; or 3 is necessary to avoid an actual conflict of interest or the appearance of one.
Retaliation is another statute-based exception to the at-will presumption. Example of protected activities include claiming minimum wage or overtime compensation, engaging in union activities, opposing unlawful discriminatory practices, filing for workers' compensation, and "whistleblowing. While most states provide whistleblower protection for public sector employees, protection for private sector employees is more limited.
Please see our compilation of state whistleblower statutes for citations and summaries. Where there is no general state statute, private employees are left with a patchwork of federal and state statutes that address a wide variety of issues including workplace health and safety, environmental protection, accounting fraud, and discrimination, that also include whistleblower protections.
The challenge for employees in these jurisdictions is to find a statute that applies to their particular circumstances. Although similar legislation has been introduced elsewhere, Montana is so far the only state to have passed a law with such far-reaching effects.
The statute prohibits discharge for other than good cause after a designated probationary period and gives the employee the right to challenge a termination in court or before an arbitrator.
The statute also limits damages to up to four years of lost wages, including the value of fringe benefits, with interest. See Mont. Code Ann. Beginning in , the Montana Supreme Court made a series of pro-plaintiff decisions that expanded the good faith and fair dealing exception to the at-will employment rule. These decision created uncertainty for employers, and led them to advocate for a more consistent regime.
In essence, Montana employers were willing to trade certainty and limitations on damages for constraints on their ability to fire employees at-will. Although both common-law and statutory exceptions to the at-will rule exist, the presumption remains an important feature of the U.
While an employee may be able to make a variety of claims, they can be hard to prove. Disclaimer EAF provides information about current developments in labor and employment law. This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website.
We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies.
But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. Theoretically, you don't have to sign an at-will agreement—but most courts have held that your employer can fire or refuse to hire you for failing to do so. And, even if you don't sign the agreement, the default rule is that employees work at will. Even though you may not have much choice about signing an at-will agreement, that doesn't mean your employer will rely on it to fire you without a good reason.
Savvy employers know that they have nothing to gain by firing employees arbitrarily. Instead, employers are often motivated to work through issues with you before resorting to such drastic measures. Be wary of signing an at-will agreement if you relied on your employer's promises of continued employment when you decided to accept the job. For example, let's say that your employer promised, during the hiring process, that it would give you at least one year to learn your new job and that you would not be fired during that time.
If that promise influenced your decision to take the job, you should not sign an at-will agreement contradicting the promise. Virtually every court will treat a signed at-will agreement as the final word on the subject, no matter what your employer said to you earlier.
If your employer wants you to sign an at-will agreement that seems to undercut its promises, ask about the discrepancy. If the employer stands by its earlier statements, ask that they be put in writing.
If your employer refuses to honor its statements or changes its tune, it might be time to talk to a lawyer--particularly if you quit another job on the basis of those broken promises. For more information on finding and working with a lawyer, see Nolo's article How to Find an Excellent Lawyer. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site.
The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service.
Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Grow Your Legal Practice. Meet the Editors. Employment law isn't static, so employers and employees should both be alert to changes.
Right-to-work sounds like the opposite of at-will employment, but it's actually a separate matter. At the time of writing, Workplace Fairness says, 28 states have right-to-work laws that prohibit employers from requiring employees to join a union. Right-to-work employees gain the same rights as their unionized coworkers but without having to pay union dues. All government employees, state or federal, are protected by right-to-work laws.
State laws extend this to private enterprises as well. The Taft-Hartley Act established that employees didn't have to belong to a union to get hired, but could be required to join one after they were employed. State right-to-work laws eliminate that option too. This policy was, and is, controversial. Supporters argue that it's unfair to require someone to pay union dues, which could then be spent lobbying for positions the member would oppose.
Opponents argue that it allows non-union employees to free ride, getting the benefits of membership without contributing. Being in a right-to-work state does not affect at-will employment. Belonging to a union, however, can affect the employer's options of at-will employment vs. If the union contract requires just-cause firings or guarantees a specific procedure, the employer has to play by those rules.
Union members' protection against at-will employment termination, LawShelf says, may not apply to members who choose not to join. Right-to-work requires that non-union employees receive the same pay and benefits the union negotiates for its members. If, however, the union has counselors to help members at risk of being fired, it's not obligated to provide those services for non-members. If the collective-bargaining agreement protects union members from at-will firing, this might cover non-members.
0コメント