discussion 1:Should the law allow an employer to fire an employee without a good reason? In my opinion, I do not think the law should allow employers to fire employees without a good reason. There are

discussion 1:

Should the law allow an employer to fire an employee without a good reason? In my opinion, I do not think the law should allow employers to fire employees without a good reason. There are some employers that would fire an employee for no good reasons at all, thanks to the at-will employment law. This would allow some employers to take advantage of this opportunity to terminate someone’s employment for something they shouldn’t get fire for. For example: You just heard that your employer just fired someone just because that person was a New Orleans Saints fan. “Employment at-will means that employers are able to terminate one’s employment at any time, for any cause, and with or without notice” (Rogers, S. 2012). I think it’s harsh to terminate someone’s employment “just cause”, but that’s what the law says.
Have you observed situations where an employee was fired? Yes, I’ve observed a situation where one of my classmates was fired.
Did the employer give a reason? No, the employer nor the company did not offer any explanations about the employment termination. The only thing that was said was that the company was cutting down and they just randomly chose to let him go.
Do you believe the employer’s actions were legal? I would say no. I don’t believe the employer’s actions were legal. Employees are the heart and soul of a business. They are the mechanism that makes a business run. They are the breath of life that enables a business to be something more than an idea. A business cannot run unless someone (in this case, the employees) is doing the work. Any business owner should want good employees to work at their company.

References

Rogers, S. (2012). Essentials of Business Law. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from: https://content.ashford.edu (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

DISCUSSION 2

Should the law allow an employer to fire an employee without a good reason?

I live in the state of Alabama and we are an "At Will" state, which means that your employer can terminate your job on a moment's notice for any reason. This means that unless the termination violates the federal or state law, company policies, or an implied contract, there is very little that an at will employee can do to protest the termination without a reason.(FreeAdviceStaff) However, I feel that the law shouldn't allow an employer to fire someone without a good reason. For one it's just more professional to me if you give a reason. Second it can help with lawsuits if you also give a reason that way an employee can not say you fire them for illegal reasons.

Conduct research to provide examples to support your position and use your own personal employment experiences when possible.

I did conduct research at my current place of employment. My manager did state that here at my job they always give a reason when someone is let go. It's just a very professional look.

Have you observed situations where an employee was fired?

At my last place of employment I did have a friend that was fired for sleeping on the job. She honestly would never admit she was fired for sleeping. I don't think Human Resources ever told her it was for sleeping either. I do believe the employer's reason was legal. They looked for her and called her name for a very long time. They even thought she went home while still clocked in all to find her sleep at her desk.

References

Rogers, S. (2012). Essentials of Business Law. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from: https://content.ashford.eduLinks to an external site.

(Free Advice Staff) https://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/firing/fired-for-no-reason.htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

DICUSSION 3:

Karen is shopping at Big Mart. She has with her an umbrella which is the same brand Big Mart carries. When a Big Mart employee, Steve, sees her leave with the umbrella without going through the checkout lane, he asks her to come back into the store. Steve says that he thinks Karen is shoplifting the umbrella. Karen tells him that she has had the umbrella for years and shows him marks of wear and tear. Steve apologizes and tells Karen she is free to go. Can Karen successfully sue for false imprisonment or defamation? From what you have learned about the relationship between a principal and an agent, analyze whether Steve or Big Mart could be liable because of Steve’s actions.

In this example, I believe Steve did what he should have done by asking Karen to come back in the store. Karen did nothing wrong, therefore she went back in the store and was able to leave without any incident. I do not believe she could win a lawsuit against Big Mart for false imprisonment, because he did not take her to a room and hold her against her will. According to our text, “false imprisonment is committed when the defendant does an intentional act that confines the plaintiff against his or her will” (Rogers, 2012).

Defamation of character is different from false imprisonment. Defamation of character is when someone does harm to another person’s reputation, such giving false information about a person to the public. In this example, Steve did not slander her reputation and she would not have a case in this instance either.

Neither Steve nor Big Mart did anything wrong in this scenario. That being said, if Steve detained Karen against her will without calling the authorities and holding her there, she could win a lawsuit against Big Mart. The only way Steve would be liable for any damages is if he physically harmed Karen in the process of detaining her with or without cause.

Reference

Rogers, S. (2012). Essentials of business law. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

DICUSSION 4:

Steve had every right to stop Karen and ask her to return to the store. Karen knew right away why she was being asked to return and knew that the umbrella was hers. Karen would not have a case for false imprisonment or defamation. She was never held against her free will. “False imprisonment is committed when the defendant does an intentional act that confines the plaintiff against his or her will (in other words, takes away the plaintiff’s freedom of movement)” (Rogers, 2012). Defamation is when the person's reputation and name are dragged through the mud and are given a bad reputation.

There were no charges or authorities called on Karen. Steve apologized and realized that he was in the wrong once Karen explained that she has had the umbrella for some time. If for any reason she was falsely accused or held in the store against her free will then she would be able to sue and most likely win the case for false imprisonment. Without physical proof a person cannot be detained against their free will.

Rogers, S. (2012). Essentials of Business Law [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/