Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
37. Not exactly ...
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 01:53 PM
Sep 2014

Since the 1980s, the Courts have expanded the protections.

As a result, a greater number of discharged workers brought suits alleging Wrongful Discharge from employment. By the 1980s, as concepts of job security expanded, employees became increasingly successful in such suits. In 1987, California juries ruled in favor of the employees in over two-thirds of such cases and granted an average award of $1.5 million. In some successful cases, the courts have created exceptions to the employment-at-will practice. Thus far, these exceptions have fallen into three broad categories: (1) breach of contract by the employer, (2) breach of an implied Covenant of Good Faith and fair dealing, and (3) violation of public policy by the employer. Employers and legislatures have responded in a variety of ways.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Employment+at+Will


I realize using a lay-person's online dictionary is lazy; so, here:

Smith v. Smithway Motor Xpress, 464 N.W.2d 682,685 (Iowa 1991) (retaliatory discharge for
pursuing Workers' Compensation claim); Collierv. Superior Court, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1117,1118,279 Cal.
Rptr. 453, 454 (Cal. App. 1991) (employee discharged for disclosing suspicions of criminal conduct to
management); Hopkins v. Tip Top Plumbing and Heating Co., 805 S.W.2d 280, 286 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)
(discriminatory discharge under Workers' Compensation law); Hartlein v. Ill. Power Co., 209 111. App. 3d
948, 953, 568 N.E.2d 520, 524 (111. App. Ct. 1991) (discharge for exercising Workers' Compensation
rights); Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, 49 Ohio St. 3d 228, 235, 551 N.E.2d 981, 987
(1990) (employee discharged as a result of court order which required employer to withhold child support
payments through wage assignments); Travis v. Gary Community Mental Health Center, 921 F.2d 108,112
(7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2803 (1991) (retaliatory discharge regarded as intentional tort);
Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 28 (Okla. Sup. Ct. 1989) ("An employer's termination of an at-will
employee in contravention of a clear mandate of public policy is a tortious breach of contractual
obligations.&quot

(WestLaw is a beautiful thing.)

BTW, here is a good Law Review Article on the subject:

https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/3e75bae0-d19b-4731-903a-f353dfb628c6.pdf

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

workers do not have protection for political activity or even opinions. unblock Sep 2014 #1
I'll say bondwooley Sep 2014 #2
also DONATE to Viviana here --> nashville_brook Sep 2014 #43
The "At-will" doctrine does not apply in this instance ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #5
Would a 1st amendment argument even make sense though as doesnt that apply to the government cstanleytech Sep 2014 #24
The AT-Will Doctrine ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #32
Correct- a non-government entity has no 'first amendment' obligations. X_Digger Sep 2014 #56
Only if she had a contract. Tommy_Carcetti Sep 2014 #34
Not exactly ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #37
It is a conflict is interest, good for them 951-Riverside Sep 2014 #3
Really? bondwooley Sep 2014 #7
I think the poster was referring to "campaigning" as actually RUNNING, not just supporting hughee99 Sep 2014 #21
by and large, what people do outside of work on their own time is not the company's concern. unblock Sep 2014 #9
By your logic, Ray Rice should not have been fired by the Ravens for hitting his fiancee totodeinhere Sep 2014 #18
i know politics ain't beanbag, but it ain't felony assault either! unblock Sep 2014 #19
Good point strawberries Sep 2014 #60
Who did what first? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #10
Exactly. nt scrubthedata Sep 2014 #13
Why not? ohnoyoudidnt Sep 2014 #48
you've neatly summarized your defense of fascism and corporate control over private lives whereisjustice Sep 2014 #66
This message was self-deleted by its author 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2014 #4
that poor person/corporation noiretextatique Sep 2014 #6
Putting yourself in a conflict of interest position will usually get you fired. badtoworse Sep 2014 #8
By that measure, any employee simply voting for a Democrat would also be a conflict of interest LanternWaste Sep 2014 #11
No, running for office and voting a secret ballot are two different things. totodeinhere Sep 2014 #16
Excellent point. nt bondwooley Sep 2014 #20
So you have a source for that info? thesquanderer Sep 2014 #23
What conflict does the act of voting cause? badtoworse Sep 2014 #17
+10000000 nashville_brook Sep 2014 #42
Voting and campaigning for office are totally different SoCalDem Sep 2014 #73
Time for 24/7 hour pay? Trillo Sep 2014 #26
You think gollygee Sep 2014 #49
It depends. In general, I would say yes. badtoworse Sep 2014 #52
A rational, well-thought-out response. X_Digger Sep 2014 #57
Yeah I agree with those situations gollygee Sep 2014 #59
Why not? The fact that her employer is supporting her opponent is a conflict in and of itself. badtoworse Sep 2014 #61
It's the first part I disagree with hemost gollygee Sep 2014 #62
An internal auditor could be in a position to have confidential information about her opponent... badtoworse Sep 2014 #65
You're reaching gollygee Sep 2014 #67
I guess you've never worked in financial services badtoworse Sep 2014 #69
You could say that about anyone gollygee Sep 2014 #70
My experience is different and we'll just have to disagree badtoworse Sep 2014 #72
I think a financial services firm or a bank would be more likely to gollygee Sep 2014 #74
Everything you said is spot on scrubthedata Sep 2014 #75
Internal auditing investigates financial irregularities and non-compliance with company policies. badtoworse Sep 2014 #77
This is a really dumb move by Mariott Gothmog Sep 2014 #12
Ah, if only... valerief Sep 2014 #22
As well they should. Hubert Flottz Sep 2014 #30
Mozilla AngryAmish Sep 2014 #14
The average county commissioner scrubthedata Sep 2014 #15
This is a very interesting "purity" tactic. Trillo Sep 2014 #25
Well considering that I have three upcoming reservations with Marriott in the next 3 months Horse with no Name Sep 2014 #27
Lawsuit Iliyah Sep 2014 #28
Ha ha everyone should send her five bucks! TheNutcracker Sep 2014 #29
DONATE right here :) nashville_brook Sep 2014 #44
There are companies out there that have policies SheilaT Sep 2014 #31
Sounds legit Capt. Obvious Sep 2014 #33
So the time-share company prefers late term abortions? TexasTowelie Sep 2014 #40
I hope this helps Capt. Obvious Sep 2014 #41
Marriott just fired an employee because she's a Democrat The CCC Sep 2014 #35
K&R! Boycott Marriott. nt TeamPooka Sep 2014 #36
also DONATE a couple of bucks to Viviana if possible nashville_brook Sep 2014 #45
So Freedom Of Speech Is Now A "Conflict Of Interest" DallasNE Sep 2014 #38
Wow! Typical stupid move by Julie Meyers. Wellstone ruled Sep 2014 #39
marriott just fired an employee because she is a Democrat lydialmr Sep 2014 #46
Agreed fayhunter Sep 2014 #53
The "Mozilla" issue deserves more attention Jim Lane Sep 2014 #47
Brendan Eich resigned, he wasn't fired. LAGC Sep 2014 #76
It's not that clear-cut. Jim Lane Sep 2014 #78
This is why fayhunter Sep 2014 #50
Do you know which particular Marriott this is? tabbycat31 Sep 2014 #51
it's the Orlando Branch of the conglomerate, from what I can gather. nt fayhunter Sep 2014 #54
Screw Marriott scrubthedata Sep 2014 #55
Republicans have zero sense of ethics. Enthusiast Sep 2014 #58
This wouldn't be an issue scrubthedata Sep 2014 #63
Why is MVW so invested in a County Commission race that they would fire someone over it? stevenleser Sep 2014 #64
And we all know who's on Marriott's board, don't we? KamaAina Sep 2014 #68
Every employer I have ever worked for required ethics disclosures Ruby the Liberal Sep 2014 #71
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Marriott just fired an em...»Reply #37