Employment at Will DoctrineEssay Preview: Employment at Will DoctrineReport this essayEmployment-At-Will DoctrineDescribe what steps you would take to address the following scenario involving labor and laws.As it is stated in a given scenario, Jennifer took a day off to observe a religious holiday with no manager consent during “tax reason” while being informed that she was not permitted without management agreement. This can be a basis for taking disciplinary actions against her. There was a chance that if she had spoken to management about her concern of taking day off for religious observance, she could get permission to take this day off.
Being Jennifers supervisor, I would consider speaking to her about policies and procedures for time off, reminding her that there are times during a year such as “tax season” which is extremely busy, requiring previous arrangements for taking days off. In the future she should consult with her manager regarding plans for taking a day off for religious observance ahead of time. I would give her a warning if this performance happens again as it might be a cause of termination of her employment. All of the verbal warnings would be documented and placed in her file. In addition, I would also provide her a copy of the employee handbook with all procedures for calling in or asking for time off as well as the employment-at will doctrine (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012).
Regarding Jennifers attempt to form a union, I would not take any actions excluding one: asking her not to do this during work hours, as adjustments to the employment-at-will gives the right to employees to organize and form unions (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012).
Should the firm be legally allowed to fire her based on the employment-at-will doctrine? Why or why not?Since Jenifer took the day of due to her religious holiday, it is not clear if firing her should be a good action taken by her firm because of religious freedom guaranteed by Title VII. Based on the employment-at-will doctrine, an employer has the right to terminate an employment without any reason (Muhl, 2001).
As mentioned before, the religious aspect of the described above circumstances complicates the situation of firing Jennifer. According to the federal Civil Rights Law of 1960, there are legal liabilities for the discharge of an employee based on race, national origin, color, religion, sex, age, or disability (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012). The employer can terminate Jennifers contract but she can sue the firm for breach of contract with respect to her religious beliefs as everyone is protected from religious discrimination. She could also argue that she was wrongly discharged because of her attempt to organize a union since her as an employee has the right to organize and form a union for better protection (Halbert & Ingulli, 2012).
The Religious Discharge Clause of the Human Rights Act:
{I}a person is not justified in believing that his sincerely held religious beliefs or practices justify the infliction. If the religious belief constitutes an incitement to violence or intimidation, it has to be considered. There is no such thing as incitement to violence or intimidation. If the religious belief cannot be proved or disproved based on religious indoctrination then there is not evidence of religious indoctrination. If the religious belief is not based on reasonable doubt, or based on the assumption of moral or historical responsibility for it for its existence, there is evidence of a religious commitment, which was to be based on the best information available, and which we are required to consider, only with further consideration of any religious commitment the defendant may have to the contrary.
{I}e. the employer may not discharge anyone based on their religious beliefs.
In the above case we are required to consider a person’s religious beliefs and behavior, and consider whether “the person should be entitled to a reasonable reasonable rest due to his or her sincerely held individual beliefs, beliefs or circumstances.” As noted earlier, the person has the right to use his or her own physical body to exercise religious practices, but that right does vary, and the employee might challenge these personal beliefs if they were different from his or her personal beliefs. Therefore, the employer’s obligation to discharge a person based on the sexual orientation or sexual orientation is more burdensome than that of a employer to charge reasonable or reasonable damages to an employee whose religious beliefs are based on what we consider reasonable belief standards.
Example 1
A customer called to complain about an order that was being made to him for the next two days. He received his order from the restaurant. When the customer did not take his order due to his religious beliefs, he refused to pay. The customer’s religious beliefs were different, and the restaurant objected to both. In the end, the customer gave the restaurant 30 days to respond. The customer said he did not hold an irrational fear for God. The restaurant did not make an accommodation for the customer. The customer had a reasonable belief that the food had no such food in it; the restaurant was not the proper supplier of the food or the right to make the restaurant its own. He responded to the customer’s disbelief by stating that he had not seen the restaurant’s food, and that “they don’t make money like that, they call me a God-fearing atheist, for hire.” (Id. at pp 102-103 and 103-103).
{I}e. the customer’s religious beliefs and behaviors were not based on the best information available. The fact that a person cannot be denied due to the religious belief does not create grounds for withholding employment.
On the other hand, under the same interpretation as above, the employer could be liable to pay the employee’s reasonable cost of attorney