The Employment Agreement. "Peter Barnes and Pentrix" Case Study
What claims might Barnes bring against Pentrix, Inc.?
b. If you were investigating whether Barnes could successfully sue Pentrix, what information would you want to know?
c. What damages might Barnes be entitled to recover?
Introduction
In order to resolve the case above, it is necessary to examine the relevant law in this connection.At-will employment law is not uniform for all the states. Exceptions to it are recognized by a limited number of states as of date. Chicago state where the case scenario has occurred does not appear to recognize exceptions to at-will employment. Advocates of at-will rule point to freedom of contract and the rule reflects understanding by the parties of their relationship. They also question common law courts’ authority to substitute the long-established rule of at-will which is a default rule. The rule is argued to be an efficient one as it allows parties’ exit in the face of uncertain changes in technology and business when they are likely to profit more from exiting than from continuing in employment.
The advocates justify that such “at-will” employees receive higher wages and in fact the workers seek such more profitable employment agreements. Moreover, the at-will rule that enables termination without cause disciplines employees not to shirk from their responsibilities or misbehave. Courts do not hesitate to apply at-will rule to mid-term employees especially when employee shirking is the order of the day. Employees’ leaving in their midcareer as an opportunism puts employers in vulnerable positions. Courts understand this life cycle and tend to scrutinize terminations at the end or beginning of the employment tenure. Courts do not take cognizance of midcareer terminations unless it is a case of opportunism on the part of employers when they are confronted with vesting of pension or sales commission becoming due to employees (Hillman, 2015). Critics of the at-will rule argue that the principle results in adverse consequences due to factors such as employee’s financial dependence and lack of mobility. Besides, emotional investment in their work explains workers’ vulnerability to such abusive at-will employment terms and the threat of discharge.
Just-cause literature points out inherent unfairness and potential abuse on the part of the employers. Opposed to the view of at-will employment proponents, employees fear “for-cause” termination and are concerned at the employers’ ulterior motives and morally reprehensible behavior for their termination. The at-will rule only facilitates arbitrary, malicious actions by the employer that are socially harmful (Hillman, 2015). It is for more than a century courts keep “at-will employment” rule close to their hearts for the sake of sacredness of freedom of contract though significant number of courts have since recognized the shortcomings of this rule and developed exceptions such as public policy, implied contract and good faith and fair dealing grounds over the years. Employees who are not subject to this rule are government …
