Scenario for Post 1

At-will termination implies that an employer can fire, dismiss, or terminate a job contract with an employee for no apparent reason, without warning, or without the need to establish “just cause” (Gertz, 2017). However, an at-will policy is not applicable for reasons that relate to age, health, sexual orientation, gender, race, age, physical ability, health, or whistleblower status. To justify the hospital’s at-will position, the first reason the hospital attorney can give is that Mr. Fused’s termination is not an exception to the employee at-will doctrine. In other words, the attorney can argue that Mr. Fused was not terminated because of his gender, sex, race, health, or physical inability, but rather because of his inability to follow instructions. This reason is valid because at-will policy safeguards against termination based on gender, race, or other related factors. 

The hospital attorney can also argue that Mr. Fused’s termination does not violate the public policy exception (PPE), implied contract exception (ICE), or implied covenant of fair dealing and good faith (Gertz, 2017). The PPE bars employers from firing, dismissing or terminating workers in violation of the state’s well-established public policy. For example, employers are not allowed to fire employees for filing cases against the company. The ICE implies that employees may have expectations of indefinite employment or fixed-term employment based on things done by their employers or supervisors. The ICE takes the form of an employer’s practice, employer’s statements, or even assertions found in an employee handbook. The exception of the “implied covenant of fair dealing and good faith” states that employers cannot terminate employees for reasons motivated by malice or in bad faith. 

Scenario for Post 2

Hello, you have done a wonderful job in pinpointing the flaws in the hospital’s position on why Mr. Fused was terminated. Although Mr. Fused was not terminated because of his religion, sex, color, health, or other related factors, the hospital’s position is not valid because it contravenes the exception of “implied covenant of fair dealing and good faith,” which states that employers cannot terminate employees for reasons motivated by malice or in bad faith. If indeed, Mr. Fused was unable to follow instructions, the hospital should have shown an element of good faith or fair dealing. The hospital needs to understand that the “at-will” policy is wrong for the medical industry because it might demoralize qualified healthcare professionals, thus affecting their overall performance (White, 2017). Great job!

Scenario for Post 3

Hello, you have done an incredible job in justifying why the at-will policy is not good for the medical industry. Indeed, the at-will policy can erode employees’ right to job security. Given that employers can hire and fire at will, there will be little job security. This can trigger employees’ stressful feelings and impulses that affect their overall performance. Furthermore, the at-will policy can cause less comradery or teamwork (White, 2017). As a result, it inhibits communication, collaboration, and coordination, thus resulting in low innovation and low productivity. Moreover, the policy causes a high employee turnover because employees can leave an organization at will without having to justify their cause. Finally, at-will can cause less transparency, low employee satisfaction, and high attrition and burnout.