You are the Judge Case A
YOU ARE THE JUDGE: CASE A 6
Youare the Judge: Case A
Youare the Judge: Case A
Thefirst legal issue regarding the case to be reviewed is At-willemployment. This is a term used in the labor laws to describe a typeof employer-employee agreement that is not permanently bidding inlaw. Under the relationship, the employer hires the employee with therights to fire him or her at will with no concrete reason (Ford,Notestine & Hill,2000).If the employment contract indicates a relationship of At-willemployment, the employee cannot claim for loss or damages in a casesine the employer is deemed not to be liable. Regarded as the mostcontroversial type of relationship, At-will employment presentscritical issues in regard to the contractual rights of the employee.
Thelegal rules of express versus implied contract under the contract lawalso relate to the case because the relationship between theplaintiff and the defendant was an employment contractualrelationship. The main concern is whether the employer is justifiedto terminate the contract of an employee at will in an At-willemployment? Also, it is questionable as to whether the employee isdeemed to have accepted to be fired at will when he or she acceptsthe job contract under the At-will employment relationship order?Moreover, it is worth questioning, what are the reasons that can betermed as strong enough to justify the actions of the employerterminating the employment contract at will. Finally, the mostimportant part of the relationship is whether the employment contractwas an express contract or an implied employment contract.
Itis on the basis of at-will employment that Jery hired Elaine, asdescribed in the case. This leaves Elaine with limited legalarguments against Jerry. Although she presents a valid reason forlosing her job with no warning, Elaine does not hold a lot of weightin arguing against Jerry. However, Elaine holds a legal argument onthe basis of the replacement of her job with a person who is lessqualified and has less experience than her. The facts in the caseindicate that she is rightfully aggrieved by Jerry and deserves legalredress. However, the legal rules in regard to the case do notsupport her argument against Jerry. Even though there are no legalrules that supports her argument, the rule of natural justice appliesin consideration of the motive Jerry had in terminating theemployment contract and employing a lowly qualified person. Theargument is backed by the provisions of the contract law thatrequires a person to disclose all the terms of a particular contractbefore it is signed.
Sincethe contract signed between Elaine and Jerry was based on at-willemployment terms, the facts of the case are in favor of Jerry. Basedon the legal rules of the at-will employment contract relationship,Jerry is not liable to Elaine for any of his actions. In hisargument, Jerry was allowed by the contract to terminate hisemployment contract with Elaine even without prior warning. Inaddition, Jerry had no contractual term requiring him to give reasonsfor the termination of the employment contract. Moreover, the factsof the case do not give evidence by Ellaine that she disputed theemployment contract before starting her job for Jerry. However, thearguments of the rules of natural justice present a case againstJerry’s unjustified action of terminating Ellaine’s employmentcontract without warning and solid reason. This argument againstJerry is evidenced by the fact that he instead hired a lowlyqualified person to replace Elaine. Despite this, the facts and legalrules of the case all indicate the provisions of the at-willemployment contractual relationship.
My Decision as the Judge
Accordingto the facts presented in this court of law and the arguments fromeach side, it is clear that the type of contractual relationshipbetween the plaintiff and the defendant was an at-will employmentcontract. According to the Vermont courts in the case of Taylor vNational Life Insurance, a contract is an at-will contract becausethe term of service by the plaintiff seems to be indefinite (Ford,Notestine & Hill,2000).This at-will employment relationship was adopted as per the practicesof the common law, which later became the law under the internationalpublic labor law practices. This means that the law can be applied inthe case as part of the united states law as well as part of theinternational law practice. In the case, the defendant did not allowthe plaintiff to resume her job back, even after crying foul play bythe termination of the case. Despite not being held liable by theat-will employment, contractual agreement, the defendant was expectedto provide reasons for the unwarranted cancellation of contract.
Inthe case, the plaintiff did accept the contract in the beginning ofher job at the defendant’s premises. This is deemed to be theacceptance of the provisions of the contract and the terms of therelationship that the contract provided. However, the letter that thedefendant gave the plaintiff did not mention at any one point, any ofthe provisions of the at-will employment terms. According to thecontract law, a contract ought to disclose all the pertinent issuesand the provisions of the relationship that the document provides for(Ford, Notestine & Hill,2000).In addition, it was the right of the plaintiff to know in expressterms that the contract bidding by the employment letter was anat-will employment contract. This way, the plaintiff would have knownthat the relationship being created by the employment letter wasat-will employment which did not guarantee the provisions she is nowseeking at this court of law. Despite the defendant not being liablefor contractual payments under the at-will employment law, he oughtto have indicated it in writing, and not by implication. Therefore,it is the decision of this court that the defendant is liable to givethe job back to the plaintiff with effect from the day of thetermination of employment.
My Own Opinion
Thelegal rules that are applied in this case are fair at theconsideration of the circumstance of the employment relationshipbetween the plaintiff and the defendant. The provisions of theat-will employment law are fair to the employer and the employee, butthe employer must indicate the terms of engagement as at-willemployment relationship and should do it in express terms (Ford,Notestine & Hill,2000).In regard to being reasonable, the legal rules applicable in thiscase are reasonable enough to give provision that the employer mustindicate the terms of engagement with an employee in express terms.However, the legal rules should be changed to allow for at least aone-month warning to the employee by the employer on the terminationof the employment contract.
Ford,E. K., Notestine, K. E., & Hill,R. N. (2000). Fundamentalsof Employment Law.Chicago: