EMPLOYMENT LAW

Employment Law

Employment Law

1) The ethical justification for Hessv. Gebhard & Co. 2002 regime lies principally in appeals to the autonomy of the parties and to justice as due process, both substantively, in terms of the bases for entering, modifying, or terminating an employment relationship, and procedurally, in terms of the recourse that the parties have for appeal and possible revision or reversal of the decision. Under a for-cause regime, only “good reasons” suffice for making significant employment decisions, because the emphasis is on the cogency of the determinations as they implicate the parties' autonomy rather than on the mere license to make them(Myers, 2007).

2) Out of esteem for this autonomy, such a policy does not permit “bad symtoms” as bases for such decisions, nor does it allow facially random or awkward decisions. The constitutional, statutory, common-law, and contractual exceptions to the employment-at-will rule above effect a similar result, by disqualifying large classes of bad reasons. However, these exceptions do not exclude merely “unreasonable” bases for employment actions. Defenders of the practice of employment at will would argue that the law should permit parties the discretion to act arbitrarily—even foolishly—provided that they do not act coercively or fraudulently, and that it is preferable to leave the regulation of arbitrary and foolish behavior to the forces of markets for labor, capital, and reputation.

3) The two usual kinds of affirmation in the common-law custom are articulate affirmation and inferred contract. An express contract is one in which the parties enumerate the terms of their agreement in ways that allow it not only to be clear for practical purposes but also to be legally sufficient and enforceable. For example, an express contract should specify the identities of the parties, their respective performance commitments, their respective consideration, the timing and means for payment, the ...