State Court Disparity on Employment At‐will

Abstract

State courts have produced three major exceptions to the employment at‐will doctrine: (1) violation of public policy, (2) breach of an implied contract (including written policies, oral promises, and implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing), and (3) commitment of a tort of emotional distress, defamation, or third‐party interference with a contractual relationship. We analyzed state appellate court decisions to identify judicial philosophies and to determine which states have accepted or rejected the various exceptions to employment at‐will. Our results show that the states vary considerably. The most commonly accepted arguments against employment at‐will are violations of public policy, breaches of implied contracts in employee handbooks, and torts of outrageous emotional distress. Overall, this research highlights the need for statewide consistency with regard to the at‐will issue.

New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts

“…The decline in unionization in the United States reduces the number of employees affected by formal, written contracts of employment. Increasingly, however, nonwritten or implied contracts arising out of the employment relationship have been the subject of litigation (Heshizer, 1984;Koys, Briggs and Grenig, 1987) and practitioner concern (Dunahee & Wangler, 1974). The purpose of this study is to investigate the emergence of employee-employer obligations by exploring an initial phase in the creation of psychological contracts.…”

Individual and Situational Correlates of Whistle‐blowing

“…Although retaliation does not always follow whistle-blowing (Near & Miceli, 1987), whistle-blowers may fear that it can occur. Moreover, laws that protect whistle-blowers from unjust discharge generally apply only when the alleged organizational wrongdoing violates the law (Koys, Briggs, & Grenig, 1987). Further, these laws may not proscribe more subtle forms of retaliation, such as negative comments, exclusion from meetings, or poor performance appraisals.…”

Effects of employment-at-will policies and compensation policies on corporate image and job pursuit intentions.

“…Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Catherine Schwoerer, who is now at University of Kansas, School of Business, Summerfield Hall, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-20003. Although state court rulings on exceptions to employment at will vary considerably, recent court rulings have increasingly prohibited termination of employees under employment at will when public policy, good faith and fair dealing, or implied contracts have been at issue (Koys, Briggs, & Grenig, 1987). In a recent case (Toussaint v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, 1980), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the organization's personnel manual or handbook represented an implied contract with employees.…”