Vice-Principal

Introduction

The doctrine of employment-at-will emerged in the nineteenth century in the United States in a climate of unbridled, laissez-faire expansionism, social Darwinism, and rugged individualism. It is often referred to as Wood's Rule, named after Horace C. Wood, who articulated the doctrine in an 1877 treatise Master and Servant. No doubt the title of the treatise says all that need be said regarding Wood's view of employment relations and, unfortunately, the view shared by most of his legal contemporaries (Mauk, 1985).

According to Wood, an employee must be free to quit at any time, otherwise there is the possibility of involuntary servitude, which is prohibited in the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine of mutuality of obligations then required a symmetrical right of the employer to terminate the employee at any time.

At- Will Employment: Definition and Application

In its narrowest sense, the doctrine of at-will employment only speaks to when an employment contract can be terminated: the contract can be terminated at-will of either party, i.e., at any time. A separate issue is why (i.e., for what reasons) the employment contract can be properly terminated. From the beginning, the concept of at-will employment meant that the employment contract could be terminated for any reason by either party (Mauk, 1985).

Most employees of state governments in the USA are not at-will employees. And most members of labor unions in the USA are covered by a written contract, called a "collective bargaining agreement" that contains a clause specifying that their employment can be terminated only for just cause. This clause makes union members not at-will employees.

Recognizing that this rule of law is too harsh, courts in the 1960s began to develop an exception to the absolute right of an employer to terminate an at-will employee, in cases where the employer violated a clearly expressed public policy. The process of developing the public-policy exception to at-will employment accelerated during the 1980s and 1990s, not only with judicial recognition of public policy, but also legislatures passing statutes providing whistleblowers with protection from retaliatory discharge (Mauk, 1985).

At St. Thomas the Apostle school, we have a part - time Day Care provider, who works for our after school program and might be fired at the end of this school year. She has displayed unethical behavior towards co-workers, unprofessional attitude toward parents and students, and illegal actions by displaying negligence to safeguard students under her care. Therefore, a panel of several administrators has met to discuss the different legal issues that might arise before termination is announced to her this June.

Some employees have come forward with written evidence about unprofessional behavior done by this person. Because of legal statues that protect whistleblowers, they are willing to disclose vital information that will assist with this case. However, after blowing the whistle on one employer, the whistleblower is a pariah, who other employers will summarily refuse to employ, since employers value loyalty to their organization more than either ethics or Truth. Thus, the act of whistleblowing makes the conscientious employee an expendable commodity who is thereafter unemployable.

The fact that this Day Care provider is a part- time, hourly paid employee, diminishes the possibilities of this person suing for wrongful termination. But the at-will employment stipulations might apply in this case because we have specific reasoning for firing this individual and there is no contract behind her employment situation. However, there is an implied contract and handbook or policy which limits the ability of my employer to terminate her because of special conditions (Legal Database, 2005).

All U.S. States recognize retaliatory discharge as an exception to the at-will rule. Under the retaliatory discharge exception, an employer may not fire an employee if it would violate the State's public policy or a State or Federal statute. Most states also recognize an implied contract as an exception to at-will employment. Implied employment contracts are most often found when an employer's