Quiz 29: Employment and Labor Law
This was a promise made during the hiring process but also contained in the contract: WW was not to be fired unless there was just cause and steps toward rehabilitation had been made. If WW can show that the "lack of application" claim is not considered just cause for discharge then a court will rule in his favor. However, if MH can show that the welfare of the company depended on WW"s discharge, then that falls within their rights of the contract and the court will favor MH.
A tort is a wrong that causes someone a physical, mental, or emotional damage or some kind of loss. Under tort theory, Agis's employer inflicted intentional emotional distress upon Agis. Firing employees without any evidence and based on their last names was the employer's strategy to scare one of the employees into coming forward and admit the stealing, this is clearly a form of intimidation, and could definitely be considered a reckless infliction of emotional distress upon Agis and her coworkers. Because of the mental and emotional damage suffered by Agis, she does have a valid claim against her employer for negligence and for causing emotional and mental anguish.
B went to work at an advertising agency. The employment handbook stated that he is employed at will and could be terminated at anytime. After 28 months the company fired B. Now, he cannot hold the company liable. a. The company should not give him an explanation before firing. He was employed at will and employment handbook did not contain any such provision. b. The employment handbook mentioned that he was employed at will. The contract implies the same. c. He could be fired for any reason other than bad reason. So, it is not mandatory that he can be fired only in case of good reason. d. He could be fired for any reason but it is not that the reason should be a bad reason. e. He could be fired for any reason except for bad reason. Hence, the option (e) is correct. He can be fired only for any reason except a bad reason.