Employee and Labor Relations Flashcards
(152 cards)
common law doctrines
Case law. Most common is the concept of employment at will. Also include respondeat superior, constructive discharge, and defamation.
Payne v. The Western & Atlantic Railroad Company (1884)
Defined employment at-will as: “either party may terminate the service, for any cause, good or bad, or without cause, and the other cannot complain in the law.” Employers can change employment conditions, whether it is to hire, transfer, promote, or terminate an employee, at their sole discretion. It also allowed employees to leave a job at any time, with or without notice.
employment contract as an exception to employment at-will
Contract can be express or implied.
express employment contract
Express contracts can be verbal or written agreements in which both parties state exactly what they agree to do. Employers have been known to express their gratitude for a job well done with promises of continued employment, such as “keep doing the kind of work you’re doing and you’ll have a job for lief” or “you’ll have a job as long as we’re in business.” This can invalidate employment at will.
implied employment contract
Can be created by an employer’s conduct and need not be specifically stated. An employer’s constant application of a progressive discipline policy can create an implied contract that an employee won’t be terminated without first going through steps set forth by the policy. A disclaimer can offset the effects of an implied contract; however, there is little agreement in the courts as to what and how the disclaimer must be presented in order to maintain at-will status. It is generally agreed, however, that the goal of a disclaimer is to be fair and honest with the employee about their expectaions, and to remind employees that no statement may alter the at-will status of employment.
statutory exceptions to at-will employment doctrine
You can’t terminate an employee for any of the discriminatory reasons laid out in law (ADA, Title VII, FMLA, etc)
public policy exceptions to at-will employment doctrine
You can’t fire an employee for:
- refusing to break the law on behalf of the employer (Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters)
- reporting an illegal act of the employer (being a whistle-blower)
- participating in activities supported by public policy, such as cooperating in a government investigation of wrongdoing by the employer
- acting in accordance with a legal statute, such as filing worker’s comp or attending jury duty
Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Public policy exceptions to employment at will doctrine. “Employer can’t discharge an employee, whether the employment be for a designated or unspecified duration, on the ground that the employee declined to commit perjury, an act specifically enjoined by statute.” Has been carried over to mean that an employer can’t discharge an employee for refusing to break any law on behalf of the employer.
duty of good faith and fair dealing
tenet of common law - parties of a contract have an obligation to act in a fair and honest manner to ensure that benefits of a contract may be realized. Application varies from state to state in employment issues.
promissory estoppel
Occurs when an employer entices an employee or prospective employee to take an action by promising a reward. The employee takes the action, but the employer doesn’t’ follow through on the reward. For example, an employee promises a job to a candidate who resigns another position to accept the new one, and then the candidate finds the offered position has been withdrawn. IF a promise is clear, specific, and reasonable, and an employee acts on the promise, the employer may be required to follow through on the promised reward or pay equivalent damages.
fraudulent misrepresentation
Relates to promsies or claims made by employers to entice candidates to join the company. Ex - a company decides to close a location in 6 months, but needs to hire a general manager to run it in the mean time. If when asked about the future of the company during the recruitment process, the company tells candidates the plant will be expanded and withholds the intention to close the plant, the company fraudulently misrepresented the facts.
respondeat superior
Employer can be held liable for actions of its employees that occur within the scope and course of assigned duties or responsibilities in the course of their employment, regardless of whether the act is negligent or reckless (including sexual harassment, auto accidents on the job). Can also come into play if a manger promised additional vacation time to a candidate and the candidate accepted the position based on the promise. Even if the promise wasn’t in writing and was outside the employer’s normal vacation policy, and the manager made the promise without prior approval, the employer could be required to provide the benefit.
constructive discharge
Occurs when an employer makes the workplace so hostile and inhospitable that an employee resigns. Legal standard varies between states - some require the employee show the employer intended to force the resignation, other only require the employee show the conditions were sufficiently intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign or have knowingly permitted intolerable conditions (sexual harassment).
(dude from Office Space!)
defamation
Communication that damages an individual’s reputation in the community, preventing them from obtaining employment or other benefits. When an employer, out of spite or with a vengeful intent, sets out to deliberately damage a former employee, the result is malicious defamation.
qualified privilege
Protects employers against defamation claims in providing references if the info they provide is job-related, truthful, clear, and unequivocal.
sexual harassment
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employers provide a workplace free from sexual harassment. There are two types of harassment: quid pro quo and hostile work environment.
quid pro quo sexual harassment
Occurs when a supervisor or manager asks for sexual favors in return for some type of favorable employment action.
hostile work environment - sexual harassment
Defined by the EEOC as one in which an individual or individuals are subjected to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. EEOC looks at number of occurrences, type of action, who the action was directed towards. Courts have held employers liable for the harassing actions of their employees, whether or not the employer was aware of the harassment.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986)
The mere existence of a grievance procedure and a policy against discrimination is not enough to protect an employer from the acts of its supervisors. Policies should be designed to encourage victims of harassment to come forward.
Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993)
The appropriate standard for a hostile work environment is one that falls between what is merely offensive and that which results in tangible psychological injury. Although not precise, it allows courts to take into consideration factors about work environment, frequency and severity of conduct, level of threat or humiliation to which the victim is subjected, and whether the conduct interferes unreasonably with performance of the employee’s job.
Faragher v City of Boca Raton (1998)
Employers are responsible for actions of those they employ and have a responsibility to control them. Supervisors need not make an explicit threat of an adverse tangible employment action for harassment to be actionable. Subordinates know that the possibility of adverse supervisory actions exists whenever requests are made, even if the adverse actions aren’t stated.
tangible employment action (TEA)
significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits
Burlington Industries v. Ellerth (1998)
Established that employers have vicarious liability for employees victimized by supervisors with immediate or higher authority over them who create an actionable hostile work environment.
vicarious liability
an employer may be held accountable for the harmful actions of the employees, whether or not the employer is aware of them.