Forums
employment at will
Legal Forum
employment at will
Discuss employment-law issues such as family leave, overtime, disabilities law, harassment, immigration and termination.
In terminating an employee using Employment at will is the following approach okay or flawed?
"You are being terminated under the Employment at will doctrine, we see no reason to find fault at this t
0
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId54
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId54Discussion:DiscussionId17355
Forums » Topic Forums » Legal Forum » employment at will
|
employment at will
posted at 6/28/1999 1:18 AM EDT
|
Posts: 9
First: 6/9/1999 Last: 5/2/2001 |
In terminating an employee using Employment at will is the following approach okay or flawed?
"You are being terminated under the Employment at will doctrine, we see no reason to find fault at this time, we have deceided that it is best that your employment with us terminate immediately." |
|
|
employment at will
posted at 6/28/1999 2:20 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 833
First: 6/11/1999 Last: 8/23/2001 |
If someone was terminating me with that statement, I'd ask:
- who's "we"? - on what basis was the decision made? - why "immediately"? I must have done something since you said it's "best" that I go. - who else is going? ..and then I'll want a copy of my complete personnel file. |
|
|
employment at will
posted at 6/28/1999 7:46 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 90
First: 6/23/1999 Last: 9/26/2001 |
If you have a standard of conduct or code of ethics that is well written, you generally will have an area that applies to maintaining standards of performance or professionalism, etc.
A standard that we use for our employment at will termination is to quote our policy on it. Example: "Employees of XYZ Inc. are considered to be at will employees and serve at the pleasure of their employer. As an employee at will you may resign or be terminated at any time with or without cause. Therefore, XYZ Inc. is exercising its management right under the employment at will doctrine and is hereby terminating your employment effective _____. " Then if they have any questions, refer them to the Human Resources department and they explain the employment at will if need be. We do not give a reason if we invoke this policy. |
|
|
employment at will
posted at 6/28/1999 10:23 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 99
First: 6/22/1999 Last: 12/11/2001 |
I agree with BetHutch, this statement is similar to what I told an employee earlier this year. I feel that when terminating an employee under "at will", I never want to open the door to any reasons. I also repeat the policy and tell them we no longer require their services effective that day. If they tend to push to ask questions, ie, what did I do wrong, what about my performance, etc. I keep to the policy statement and don't offer any additional information other than when benefit information will be forwarded to them.
On your statement, "we see no reason to find fault at this time", I would feel as an employee that if you didn't find fault with my employment, then why am I being terminated, especially if any performance appraisals have been positive. I wold leave this out. |
|
|
employment at will
posted at 6/29/1999 7:17 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2217
First: 6/16/1999 Last: 12/13/2001 |
My primary goal would be to conduct the termination in a manner that would reduce the likelihood of the terminated employee commencing litigation. Every terminated employee is a potential plaintiff. Simply telling an employee he or she is being terminated, with no explanation other than a recitation of the employment at will doctrine, may create the perception with the terminated employee of unfairness (even though the employer may have very good reasons for terminating the employee). This, in turn, may increase the likelihood of the potential plaintiff becoming an actual one.
Of course, any explanation you provide should be truthful. One concern with simply invoking the employee at will doctrine in a situation where the termination was, essentially, "for cause," is that the employee (as a plaintiff) may try to hold you in litigation to the implicit position that there was no "cause" for the termination. Let me address a few assumptions implicit in your posting. The employment at will doctrine may be modified by agreement of the parties (is there an employment agreement, collective bargaining agreement, or other such agreement here?), and does not allow employers to terminate for illegal reasons (for example, a discriminatory reasons). The list of such reasons is long and growing. As discussed above, I assume the termination you have in mind is because the employee has done something the employer finds unacceptable-- indeed, so unacceptable that the employer feels that termination is the only appropriate response. Before reaching that conclusion in a particular case, some consideration should be given to whether it makes sense to conduct an investigation, including but not limited to providing the terminated employee with an opportunity to be heard, and to have considered decision-making by the employer. Even if an employer declines to conduct an investigation, employees are likely to find that some explanation for the termination is probative of considered decision-making by the employer (even if they disagree with the decision reached). Care must be taken not to say anything to the employee which is defamatory. In this regard, thought should be given to involving human resources/legal counsel in the termination meeting. As a general matter, telling the employee they are being terminated for violating the company's policy regarding _________ (whatever the applicable policy is), without going beyond that into specific allegations of misconduct, will be appropriate. |
|
|
employment at will
posted at 6/30/1999 1:36 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 9
First: 6/9/1999 Last: 5/2/2001 |
Thank you for your response. MY concern is that once I say " you have violated the company's policy regarding ______." Then am I not in a position of defending that statement and proving we have a policy on that issue?
The real question is how do I word the termination so as to minimize probalbility of litigation but win if there is litigation? |
|
|
employment at will
posted at 6/30/1999 3:29 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 323
First: 6/15/1999 Last: 9/9/2011 |
What about staff that have performed poorly for YEARS under previous management, but gotten good or better evaluations. Our feeling is that we have to go through the process of documenting the poor performance over a period of time (when it is obvious there is not going to be any improvement) just to avoid LITIGATION. This is where Employment At Will confuses me (and seems useless) because we are afraid to say "you're fired for poor performance, bye" (yes, with more compassion than that) yet EAW implies we don't even have to HAVE a reason...so what's the point? |
|
|
employment at will
posted at 7/2/1999 1:11 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 20
First: 6/9/1999 Last: 3/7/2002 |
How about . . . "It's been fun, don't come back."
Yes, I'm being facetious. The idea is to minimize chances of being sued, because you can't eliminate it entirely. I work with organizations who routinely tell their terminated at-will employees that they "don't have to tell you why." Or they may say something vague like "It's been determined to be in the best interst of the organization." Imagine for a moment one of your employees telling one of your customers that they "don't have to tell them why" you have a particular rule or procedure (say a return policy in a retail store). Or that your return policy "is in the best interest of the organization." Having at-will employees should not relieve us of using good management and personnel practices in dealing with our employees. We're obligated to tell employees why we don't need them anymore and we've got to be prepared to defend our decisions in court (just in case). It's what we get paid to do. Sorry to get on a soap box. But I do get frustrated when we hold our employees to higher standards and expectations than we hold ourselves and our managers. |
|
|
employment at will
posted at 7/2/1999 2:59 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 9
First: 6/9/1999 Last: 5/2/2001 |
I have yet to get a good suggestion as to handle this. Of course the termination is executed for a reason and one that we feel is justifiable. We3 would prefer not to have to justify it in court. I thought Employment at will was used to avoid a "for cause" termination that invites litigation. The comments so far suggest use the for cause explanation. If so what is the value of At Will????? |
Forums » Topic Forums » Legal Forum » employment at will
