Scenario for Post 3

Now you choose. Read the posts submitted by the class. Which side seems more logical to you? Should the medical industry abide by an "at-will" doctrine? Why / why not? Be sure to cite to a fellow student's post.

The case NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp in 1937 modified the definition of at-will employment to ''all may dismiss their employees at will, for a good cause or for no cause, but not for an illegal cause'' (1). Unfortunately, Mr. Fused has been recently terminated due to his inability to follow instructions, which has been documented over time. This reason for termination is not an exception to the employee-at-will doctrine; there is no issue with public policy (he was not fired because of his race, sex, religion, etc.), contractual relationships, or retaliatory discharge. Some may feel this is an unfair termination; however, it is valid based on our by-laws and employee manual. When he was hired, Mr. Fused was given both documents and signed documents acknowledging that he thoroughly read and understood his employment expectations. When an employee cuts corners, they are endangering patients, fellow employees, and themselves. Therefore, Mr. Fused's inability to follow directions has become a liability to his patients, fellow employees, and this organization.

WC 169

1. Hackstock, 2002

References

Hackstock, C., & Heyroth, A. (2002, April 24). EMPLOYMENT AT WILL: THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. Houston; Values-Based Leadership, Section 2.

Jan Paul Maldonado- De Jesus

week 4 post 1

COLLAPSE

Rendering to Pozgar and Santucci (2019) the not unusual place regulation employment-at-will doctrine provides "that employment is at will of both the enterprise or the worker, wherein the worker or enterprise may also terminate employment for any or no cause, except there may be a settlement in location that specifies the phrases and period of the employment." Throughout history, and worker's termination of employment for any cause turned into typically accepted, however current wondering has modified that. Mr. Fused turned into terminated as a worker at our business enterprise for his incapability to observe commands, a few might not suppose this cause for termination is legitimate however in line with our business enterprises via way of means of-legal guidelines and employment guide it is far very legitimate. This isn't always an exception to the worker-at-will doctrine; there could be no issue with public policy (he wasn't fired because of his color, sex, religion, or other factors), contractual relationships, or retaliatory dismissal. When Mr. Fused started working for our company, he was given his personal copy of our policies and procedures, as well as our employee handbook. These papers detail how we want our employees to behave in the workplace and how we want them to carry out their duties. Mr. Fused believed it was permissible to cut corners and disregard directives that had been laid forth for him and the other workers, as stated in the employee handbook. Mr. Fused had stopped obeying orders and was now putting patients, coworkers, and himself in danger. Mr. Fused is a legal responsibility to our business enterprise therefore he turned into terminated and our business enterprise will hold to abide via way of means of the "at-will" doctrine.

Reference:

Pozgar, G. D., & Santucci, N. M. (2019). Legal aspects of health care administration. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Findlaw defines at-will employment as ''either the employer or the employee is free to end the relationship at any time, with or without advance notice, and for any reason (or no reason) at all'' (1). One exception to at-will employment is applied when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, even though no explicit, written contract regarding the employment exists. ''The most common example is a handbook provision stating that an employer will follow specific procedures before disciplining or terminating an employee'' (1). As you mentioned, Mr. Fused was given an employee handbook that outlined the discipline and termination of employees. However, this process was not followed. Mr. Fused was never issued a verbal or a written warning or an official write-up for these alleged mishaps. Since there has been no communication on what corners were cut, Mr. Fused is requesting information on what he was accused of doing wrong to learn from this and move past it. Based on this, Mr. Fused is entitled to return to his previous position.

WC 174

1. Findlaw

References

At-will employment and wrongful termination. Findlaw. (2018, December 5). Retrieved September 22, 2021, from https://www.findlaw.com/employment/losing-a-job/at-will-employment-and-wrongful-termination.html.