HUMAN RESOURCES

HELP WITH PROBLEM

Wo wrap up the analysis of the employee/employer relationship by looking at Wrongful Discharge. We have glanced at hiring issues, ongoing employment issues, and we end with a glance at termination issues. Wrongful discharge is a difficult and sometimes arbitrary thing to happen to an employee. Even thoug we there is employment-at-will, there are many exceptions to the rule that gve rise to a wrongful discharge clarm. It's hard when youare fired for something you think is outside the bounds of employment-at-will. One of the most often used exceptions to the rule, for example, is the 'public policy exception' Go to page 650 in Chapter 16 and read about the Public Policy exceptions to employment-at-wil. Here is the basic definition at the start of that page, "Public Policy Exception to Employment at Will". Employees are also "citizens with rights and responsibilities to the iarger society Sometimes; the roles of employee and citizen conflict. Employers occasionally want their employees to act in ways that are contrary to the public goed ynder the public policy. exception to employment at wall, employers are liable in tort for wrongful discharge when they terminate employees for taking actions that public policy. requires or highly commends. Allowing the terminations to stand would offend and undermine important publie policiest Next, review the "four varieties" of exceptions on page 651 Be sure to read about each variety. Then read the "Just the Facts" scenario on page 652 answer the following: 1. List which of the four varieties of exceptions on page 651 apples in this case in order to proceed with a public policy exception case and why? 2. Do you think the employee has a solid wrongful discharge claim under the public pollcy exception? 3. Do you agree or disagree with the use of public policy exceptions to employment-at-will cases? A pharmacist worked at a drug store in Michigan. He experienced an armed robbery at the store. Not surprisingly, this incident made him more concerned about security at work. He asked the drug store (which was part of a large national chain) to take a number of steps to improve security (e.g., adding a panic-button device), but it declined to do so. The pharmacist then decided to complete the training and certification program needed to obtain a permit to lawfully carry a concealed weapon. After doing so, he was issued a concealed pistol license and purchased a handgun. He began bringing the gun to work, concealed in his pocket. One evening two masked individuals with guns entered the drug store. The pharmacist tried to dial 911, but one of the men jumped over the counter and pointed a. gun at him. The pharmacist said that he saw the man's "finger jerking on the gun's trigger." The pharmacist backed away, pulled his gun out, and fired it multiple times. Amazingly, no one was shot or injured during this incident and the intruders fled. The pharmacist subsequently met with company officials, who told him that he had violated the store's "non-escalation" policy and would have to either resign or be terminated. The pharmacist refused to resign and was fired. He sued. Does he have a valid claim under the public policy exception to employment at will? Why or why not