Advertisement

The Employer Bill of Rights

  • Jonathan T. Hyman

Abstract

Since I majored in history in college, I thought it makes sense to start with a history lesson.

Keywords

National Labor Relation English Court Personnel Decision Lone Wolf Legal Citation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 710 P. 2d 1025, 1030 (Ariz. 1985), superseded by statute as stated in Fallar v. Compuware Corp., 202 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (D. Ariz. 2002) (citing Murg & scharman), Employment at Will: Do the Exceptions Overwhelm the Rule?, 23 B.C.L.Rev. 329, 332 (1982).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Id. (quoting 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Id. (citing Murg & scharman, supra, at 332).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Id. (citing Murg & scharman, supra, at 334).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Id. (quoting H.G). Wood, Law of Master and Servant § 134 at 273 (1877).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    See, e.g., Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 292 N.W.2d 880, 886–87 & nn. 13-14 (mich. 1980).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wagenseller, 710 p. 2d at 1030.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Id. at 1031. (quoting Blades), Employment at Will v. Individual Freedom: On Limiting the Abusive Exercise of Employer Power, 67 Colum.L.Rev. 1404, 1405 (1967).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montana is the lone wolf. in 1987, the Montana legislature passed the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA). Under the WDEA, a discharge is wrongful only if “it was in retaliation for the employee’s refusal to violate public policy or for reporting a violation of public policy; the discharge was not for good cause and the employee had completed the employer’s probationary period of employment; or the employer violated the express provisions of its own written personnel policy.” Mont. Code. Ann. § 39-2-904 (2008). Thus, in Montana, an employer needs “good cause” to support a termination decision.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    42U.S.C.§2000e(k).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    29 U.S.C. §§621-634.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    29U.S.C.§206(d).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pub.L.110-233..Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    29 U.S.C. §§201-217,255.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    29 U.S.C. §§301-1441.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    29 U.S.C. §§651-678.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    15 U.S.C.§§ 1681-1681x.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    29U.S.C.§§2001-2009.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    29U.S.C. §§ 2101-2109.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    An implied contract is one created out of the conduct of the parties and from a written agreement. Courts enforce these implied contracts in circumstances in which it is reasonable to assume that a contract existed as the result of a tacit understanding between the parties. The 13 states that do not recognize this implied contract exception are Delaware, Florida, Georgia, indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The seven states that do not recognize this public policy exception are Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New York, and Rhode Island.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Jonathan T. Hyman 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan T. Hyman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations