Abstract
While extensive, the existing literature on the employment-at-will doctrine and its various exceptions has been remarkably uniform. By relying on a discussion of selected court opinions on specific aspects of the doctrine, scholars have focused primarily on normative issues such as what the courts should do when deciding job security disputes, or what plaintiffs/employees and defendants/employers should argue when litigating employment disputes. Our approach and focus are different. Instead of relying on a discussion of selected cases, we rely on a more comprehensive sample of cases. Instead of focusing on normative issues, our goal is to provide a more complete picture of the state of the at-will doctrine as reflected in those cases. Our data should be of interest to legal scholars interested in understanding the characteristics and outcomes of litigated employment-at-will cases. Our data should also be relevant to the current debate among management scholars regarding conflicts that might arise due to aggressive recruitment practices which highlight long term employment opportunities and the realities associated with at-will employment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Sixty-three percent of the court cases (84 cases) were decided by federal court, with the reminder 37% decided in state courts. Over two-thirds of the cases (about 68%) were trial court decisions.
References
Author, D. H., Donohoue, J. J., & Schwab, S. J. (2006). The costs of wrongful-discharge laws. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 211–231.
Befort, S. (2001). Labor and employment law at the millenium: a historical review and critical assessment. Boston College Law Review, 43, 351–400.
Clermont, K. M., & Schwab, S. J. (2009). Employment discrimination plaintiffs in federal court: from bad to worse. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 3, 103–132.
Coley, T. (2009). Getting noticed: direct and indirect power-allocation in the contemporary American labor market. Catholic University Law Review, 59, 965–999.
Edelman, L., Abraham, S., & Erlanger, H. (1992). Professional construction of law: the inflated threat of wrongful discharge. Law & Society Review, 26, 47–83.
Kim, P. (1997). Bargaining with imperfect information: a study of worker perceptions of legal protections in an at-will world. Cornell Law Review, 83, 105–160.
Levy, R. (2005). Judicial interpretation of employee handbooks: the creation of common law information-eliciting penalty default rule. University of Chicago Law Review, 72, 695–727.
Muhl, C. (2001). The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions. Monthly Labor Review, January, 2011, 3–11.
Pedersen, N. (2008). A subjective approach to contracts? How courts interpret employee handbook disclaimers, Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal, 101–161
Roehling, M. V., & Boswell, W. R. (2004). “Good cause beliefs” in an “at-will world?” a focused investigation of psychological versus legal contracts. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 16, 211–231.
Roehling, M. V., & Winters, D. (2000). Job security rights: the effects of specific policies and practices on the evaluation of employers. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 12, 25–38.
Schwab, S. J. (1993). Life-cycle justice: accommodating just cause and employment at will. Michigan Law Review, 95, 8–58.
Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of employment-at-will policies and compensation policies on corporate image and job pursuit intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 653–656.
Tomlinson, E. C., & Bockanic, W. N. (2009). Avoiding liability for wrongful termination: “ready, aim, … fire!”. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21, 77–87.
Yoder, B. (2008). How reasonable is “reasonable”? The search for a satisfactory approach to employment handbooks, Duke Law Journal, 57, 1517–1555.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by either of the authors. There were no individual participants in this study and, thus, informed consent does not apply to this study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gely, R., Cheramie, R.A. & Chandler, T.D. An Empirical Assessment of the Contract Based Exception to the Employment-At-Will Rule. Employ Respons Rights J 28, 63–78 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-015-9273-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-015-9273-6