Running head: EMPLOYMENT AT WILL

Employment-At-Will
Doctrine
Prof. Augustine Weekley/LEG500/Assignment 1

Victor Colon
5/1/2014









EMPLOYMENT AT WILL 1

As Chief Operating Officer of Maizonette Studios, an internet publishing company, my
first order of duty is to address eight serious personnel issues prior to our initial public offering
on Monday, May 5
th
, 2014. I have taken note that as of my recent promotion to COO, Maizonette
Studios does not currently have a whistle-blower policy in place. At the conclusion of my
evaluation of the issues, I will decide on whether or not Maizonette Studios should adopt a
whistler-blower policy.
As I proceed forward with my analysis, I will apply the basis of the employee-at-will
doctrine in determining the outcome in each situation. Halbert and Ingulli (2012) stated,
Employment-at-will is a legal rule that developed in the nineteenth century, giving employers
unfettered power to dismiss their employees at will for good cause, for no cause, or even for
cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of a legal wrong. The economic philosophy
of laissez-faire provided theoretical support for employment-at-will. Its legal underpinnings
consisted mainly of freedom of contract, the idea that individuals are free to choose how to
dispose of what they own, including their labor, as they see fit, and that the voluntary contractual
promises they make are legitimately enforceable.
Our first case involves John, who posted a rant on his Facebook page in which he
criticized the companys most important customer. This defiant act placed the company at risk of
losing its most important customer and having that customer possibly sue the company for libel.
For his disregard to the companys welfare, the decision to dismiss John at this time is
appropriate. In reaching this decision, I weighed Johns total time with the company, as well as
his contributions. His actions threaten the success of the IPO. The overall good for the company
is reached by dismissing John. The ethical concept of utilitarianism supports my decision.
EMPLOYMENT AT WILL 2

The second case involves Jim in sales. Jim sent an email to other salespeople protesting a
change in commission schedules and bonuses and suggesting everyone boycott the next sales
meeting. On the surface, it may seem that Jim is being insubordinate with his leaders by
suggesting a boycott of the sale meeting. Although the employment-at-will doctrine allows me to
dismiss Jim for no reason at all, his actions do not place the IPO at risk. A verbal warning will
suffice at this time. His loyalty to the company was not diminished and reminds management
that transparency and openness is needed in order to achieve better internal communications. The
concept of virtue ethics was adopted in this case.
The third case involves Ellen. Ellen has a blog in which she protested the CEOs bonus.
She noted that no one below the director has gotten a raise in two years. She also has portrayed
her leadership team in a negative way by stating that they are out of touch with reality. Ellen has
not just betrayed the trust of her leadership team, but tarnished the image of Maizonette Studios.
The IPO scheduled for Monday May 5
th
may be in jeopardy of failure if news of the blog
becomes public. Ellens ethical conduct is in question and cost benefit analyses of her actions
have been considered. Using the concept of Utilitarianism ethics, Ellen is dismissed from the
company.
The fourth case involves sales representative Bill. Bill has been using his company issued
Blackberry device to run his own business. Company guidelines regarding the use of company
equipment for personal use are clear. Bills issue is an internal one that requires immediate
action. Although unethical, his actions do not merit dismissal. His tenure and contributions to the
company are taken into account. Bill will be disciplined and reminded of his responsibilities.
EMPLOYMENT AT WILL 3

The fifth case involves several company secretaries dressing in black and white stripes to
protest a memo announcing that the company installed key logger software on all computers.
Protests in the company may be viewed as insubordination. The secretaries signed an
employment agreement stating that company transactions performed on company equipment
may be monitored at all times. Kovacs (2013) stated, On the flip side, key loggers are useful for
monitoring unauthorized computer access. The secretaries concerns will be addressed. The
explanation for the use of key loggers will be made clearer.
The sixth case involves employee Joe. Joe was disciplined for having criticized a
customer in an email sent from his personal account from an office computer. Because key
loggers had been installed on office equipment, the company was able to capture the contents of
the email. Joe has threatened to sue Maizonette Studios for invasion of privacy. The case of
Michael A. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company was used in convincing Joe that his threats of
lawsuit were unfounded. District Judge Weiner (1996) stated, [T]he companys interest in
preventing inappropriate and unprofessional comments or even illegal activity over its e-mail
system outweighs any privacy interest the employee may have in those comments.
The seventh case deals with one of the department supervisors request to fire his
secretary for insubordination. After calling the secretary into my office, I have determined that
she was asked to falsify expense reports for her supervisor. Further scrutiny revealed she was
telling the truth. I have decided to dismiss the supervisor on grounds of fraud, deception, and
unethical and immoral behavior. Falsified expense accounts can have larger repercussions down
the road for Maizonette Studios. An independent financial audit that finds illegal behavior may
place the company in peril. Using the concept of Utilitarianism ethics, this issue has been
properly handled.
EMPLOYMENT AT WILL 4

The eighth and final case involves web artist Anna. Anna was required to show up for
jury duty. Her immediate supervisor refused to sign her leave request for jury duty and now
wants to fire her for being absent without permission. Under state law, no person receiving a
summons to appear for jury duty may receive an excuse from serving for business reasons.
Section 40.013 of the Florida Statutes states the reasons a person may be excused from jury duty.
Anna does not meet any of the acceptable reasons. Her supervisor must be reminded of state
laws and Anna must be allowed to serve her request for jury duty without fear of losing her job.
The concept of virtue ethics was used in assessing Annas case.
Based on the personnel problems previously reviewed, I recommend that a whistle-
blower policy be adopted for Maizonette Studios. The IPO scheduled for May 5
th
requires that
Maizonette Studios adopt a more accountable role in the global role it is about to embrace.
Transparency will not only protect the company, but allow for investors to trust that the
executive team of the company will work towards the benefit and well-being of the company. I
find that at least four fundamental items should be included in the whistle-blower policy in order
for it to be effective.
First, employees should be protected from wrongful discharge for simply bringing to
light issues that may be affecting the company negatively. Good cause for discharge must be
proven and followed by a majority vote of the board of directors. Second, an independent
arbitration committee must review the whistle-blowers claim. This will ensure that the claims are
investigated fairly and without bias. Third, a simple reporting procedure must be established
where employees feel comfortable in whistle-blowing when they sense something or someone is
unethical or immoral. The company must encourage whistle-blowing as normative so as to
encourage employee participation. Fourth, the company must follow through quickly and
EMPLOYMENT AT WILL 5

efficiently with a whistle-blowing incident. This will send a message to all employees that the
company can take swift and immediate action when a crisis arises.
















EMPLOYMENT AT WILL 6

References
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2012). Law & ethics in the business environment (7th ed.). Mason,
OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Kovacs, K. (2013, March 17). 6 Gadgets You don't Want to Find in Your Office. 6 Gadgets You
don't Want to Find in Your Office. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.karlkovacs.com/6-
gadgets-you-dont-want-to-find-in-your-office/
The Florida Senate. (n.d.). Chapter 40. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter40/All
Weiner, D. J. (1996, January 23). Michael A. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company. Return to
Privacy Module III. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/smyth_v_pillsbury.htm