Premium
STATE COURT DISPARITY ON EMPLOYMENT AT‐WILL
Author(s) -
KOYS DANIEL J.,
BRIGGS STEVEN,
GRENIG JAY
Publication year - 1987
Publication title -
personnel psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.076
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1744-6570
pISSN - 0031-5826
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00615.x
Subject(s) - covenant , doctrine , consistency (knowledge bases) , state (computer science) , emotional distress , fair dealing , tort , law , labor disputes , good faith , psychology , public policy , law and economics , liability , political science , economics , labor relations , anxiety , geometry , mathematics , algorithm , psychiatry , computer science
State courts have produced three major exceptions to the employment at‐will doctrine: (1) violation of public policy, (2) breach of an implied contract (including written policies, oral promises, and implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing), and (3) commitment of a tort of emotional distress, defamation, or third‐party interference with a contractual relationship. We analyzed state appellate court decisions to identify judicial philosophies and to determine which states have accepted or rejected the various exceptions to employment at‐will. Our results show that the states vary considerably. The most commonly accepted arguments against employment at‐will are violations of public policy, breaches of implied contracts in employee handbooks, and torts of outrageous emotional distress. Overall, this research highlights the need for statewide consistency with regard to the at‐will issue.