In case example A Elaine, who had been an employee for two months, has sued her employer because Jerry had fired her without any reasoning. The job offer that Elaine had been sent stated that she would have great career opportunities and that her annual salary would be $30,000 although the company the hired Elaine was an at-will-employment business. After two months Elaine was terminated from her position and a man named Kramer was hired for that same position, which had less job experience and education than Elaine. Elaine has a strong case for sexual discrimination and unlawful business ethics by her employer, because after Elaine’s termination Kramer was hired for the same position. The expectations will help Elaine in the lawsuit against jerry besides sexual discrimination would be tort exceptions, implied in fact contracts, statutory exceptions and the public policy exception. Certain issues that need to be reviewed first before we can determine if this is going to be a valid case would be if there is a valid contact between Elaine and Jerry that she must receive an explanation or reason for termination is that related to company policy? Was there any type of salary contract that had to be signed when employed? Was there money or compensation for getting terminated? What reasons does Jerry have for hiring Kramer over Elaine? Is there sexual discrimination taking place by the employer?
The first topic that should be explored in this case should be whether or not sexual discrimination came into play. This could have been a major part in this case because shortly after Elaine was fired Jerry hired Kramer a man to do the same job with less job experience and education. When looking for an applicant for a job both qualities are looked at extensively for a position because it would make them a better attribute to the company. This termination could be looked at as unethical or wrong because she was the right person for the job but was replaced by a man right after. At will employers are usually business oriented and in most cases the law is usually on their side. Based on the information that had been provided there is no evidence that a salary contract had been signed however with Jerry hiring Kramer right after Elaine’s departure can highly display acts of sexual discrimination. Another point that could be used for the plaintiff would be a tort exception. A tort exception is considered wrongful discharge actions that can be based on several theories called tort theories. If an employee is successful in a tort exception they are entitled to damages which are also a way to make sure that this does not happen to another employee that is under Jerry. Although this alone would not be a strong enough to determine the outcome of the case. Another exception that could be considered in this lawsuit is implied in fact expectation which is a contract between certain parties has been inferred or misrepresented in some way or form. In this case it would be between the employer and the employee whether or not something was violated. In Elaine’s case it would represent that she was presented with documentation that stated that she would be able to earn a $30,000 dollar salary so the intent would be to have a long staying relation with the company to earn that salary and it was the job that she was looking for. With being abruptly terminated Elaine could argue that she had been mislead in the agreement that was initially presented to her. The next argument that could be present on Elaine’s behalf would be the public policy exception. This is an exception to the employment at will doctrine that states an employee may not be terminated if such discharge violates the public policy of the jurisdiction. When terminating an employee it strictly states that an employee may not be fired or discharges for strictly performing their job. With the current information that is provided there is no reason to believe that she would have been fired...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document