North Carolina Employment Attorney

This digital document is an article from Business North Carolina, published by Business North Carolina on January 1, 2004. The length of the article is 686 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Employment.(women advocates)(Biography)
Author: Irwin Speizer
Publication: Business North Carolina (Magazine/Journal)
Date: January 1, 2004
Publisher: Business North Carolina
Volume: 24 Issue: 1 Page: 63(1)

Article Type: Biography

Distributed by Thomson Gale

Employment.(women advocates)(Biography): An article from: Business North Carolina

The term “At-Will” which is also called “Employment At Will” is defined as a contract of employment that can be terminated either by the employer or the employee at any time and for any reason. This means either party can break the employment relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract defining the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group ? such as a union.
Each individual state varies in whether they fully accept Employment At Will or accept it with modification.

The concept or rule of “at will” began in 1877 under Horace Gray Wood’s treatise on master-servant relations. Then, the burden of proof was on the servant to prove that an indefinite employment term for one year. From this came the US at-will employment rule, which allowed  termination for no reason. The rule was adopted by all of the states within the US. It wasn’t until 1959 that the first judicial exception to the At-Will rule was created by the California Court of Appeals.

Another landmark case that challenged the At-Will employment rule came in 1980 involving ARCO through the Supreme Court of California. The decision and actions by employees is now known in California as Tameny actions for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Other states were also challenged for their ‘At-Will’ status and numerous statutory exceptions were created.

All states within the U.S. have modified the “At-Will” rule to some degree with the exception of Montana. Montana adopted its own employment law in 1987 called the Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act or (WDEA). The act preserves the at-will concept but also expresses legal basis for a wrongful discharge actions. For example, a discharge is wrongful if it was in retaliation by the employer against the employee who refuses to violate public police or who might report a violation of public policy.

Other states adopted a public policy exception in addition to the At-Will policy. Under policy exceptions, an employer may not fire an employee if it would violate the state’s public policy doctrine or a state or federal statute. According to  Charles J. Muhl in The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions – in 2000, 43 states and the District of Columbia formally recognize public policy as an exception to the at-will rule. The seven states that do not abide by this exception are: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island and Florida.

In addition, 37 of the states within the US also recognize an implied contract as an exception to At-Will employment.  Under the implied contract exception, an employer may not fire an employee “when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, even though no express, written instrument regarding the employment relationship exists. With such loose terminology, the fired employee may have difficulty proving the terms of the ‘unsaid’ and implied contract ? yet the burden of proof is on that employee.

If the employer fires the employee in violation of an implied employment contract, the employer may be found liable for breach of contract. The 13 states that do not honor the implied-contract exception are: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas and Virginia.

Last is the exception for a covenant of good faith and fair dealing which instead of narrowly prohibiting terminations based on public policy or an implied contract, broadly read that a covenant of good faith and fair dealing should be within every employment relationship. This has been interpreted, by some courts, to mean either that employer personnel decisions are subject to a “just-cause” standard or that terminations made in bad faith or motivated by malice are prohibited.  Eleven states recognize this breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Only eleven U.S. states have recognized a breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as an exception to at-will employment. These 11 states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Idaho, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming.

Originally published here.

‘The answer to the Kennedy assassination is with the Federal Reserve Bank. Don’t underestimate that. It’s wrong to blame it on (CIA official James) Angleton and the CIA per se only. This is only one finger of the same hand. The people who supply the money are above the CIA.’ – wife of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, told to author AJ Weberman I am one of those who do not believe the national debt is a national blessing… it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country . Andrew Jackson, Letter to LH Coleman of Warrenton, NC, 29 April 1824 Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913), Doubleday “The Rothschilds introduced the rule of money into European politics. The Rothschilds were the servants of money who undertook the reconstruction of the world as an image of money and its functions. Money and the employment of wealth have become the law of European life; we no longer have nations, but economic provinces.” (New York Times, Professor Wilheim, a German historian, July 8, 1937). “If you …