USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
MBA 650, McAllister, Class #7: Employment-at-WillAssignment Instruc ons: This document includes summaries of real cases or hypothe cals
based on real cases. In every case below, the plain sues their employer for “wrongful
termina on,” alleging they were red unlawfully. For all cases, assume that when the
employee was hired, the employee was told they would be an “employee-at-will.”
For each case in this handout, please indicate whether the employee’s termina on is (a)
lawful or (b) unlawful. If the termina on is unlawful, please indicate the reason the court
would nd the termina on unlawful (e.g., unlawful, due to breach of the public policy
excep on; e.g., unlawful, as breach of an implied contract of employment). Record your
answers in the chart below.
Case #
Termina on
Basis for Being Unlawful
Lawful or Unlawful
(if applicable)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Case #1: My former student, Adam, e-mailed me recently and stated that he was just red from
Gruene Ou i ers in Gruene, Texas, “for no reason,” adding that in ve years of employment, he “had
never been wri en up” and “had never been told he was not doing a good job.” Adam was not told
why he was red, but he suspects it is because of his dreadlock hairstyle, the grungy clothes he wears
outside of work, and the rumor around work that he is a pot smoker. Adam also knows the owner of
Gruene Ou i ers dislikes having pot smokers for employees because, in his experience, it is bad for
business. Adam later admi ed that he does smoke pot on the weekends, but says he never smokes
pot at work and is always sober and clear-minded when he is working.
ti
fi
ti
fi
ff
ti
ti
fi
tt
ti
ti
tt
tt
tt
fi
tf
tf
ti
ti
fi
ti
1
Case #3: Joanne Vida was an at-will employee of a credit union for eight years. During that me, the
credit union adopted a wri en employee manual that included an internal grievance procedure
allowing employees to lodge complaints about things like discrimina on and harassment. This
por on of the employee manual promised that “[n]o employee shall be penalized for using the
[company’s internal] grievance procedure.” Near the end of her employment, Vida used her
company’s internal grievance procedure to le an internal grievance alleging that the credit union
promoted an unquali ed individual over her, and that Vida had been passed over for the promo on
solely because of her race and older age. Vida was then promptly terminated for “undermining
management authority,” promp ng her to sue for wrongful termina on. The employer’s employee
manual did not contain any at-will disclaimer.
Case #4: My former student at Texas State University, Bryce, works for McCraig Lumber in New
Braunfels, Texas. Bryce’s best friend and co-worker is a Texas State University senior named Keri, who
was a nalist for Miss Texas. Bryce and Keri’s boss, a 45-year old married man named Carl, has a
reputa on around the o ce for being overly- irty with his young female employees, including Keri,
who has become increasingly uncomfortable at work due to Carl’s irta ous behavior. On the most
recent occasion of harassment, Carl inappropriately placed his hands on Keri’s hips as she was bent
over in the employee common area, where several other employees were present. Fed up, Bryce
then approached his boss and told him his ac ons were inappropriate and could lead to a sexual
harassment lawsuit if he doesn’t cut it out. Rather than doing that, Carl res Bryce, telling him that he
is an at-will employee so he doesn’t have any right to con nued employment.
Case #5: Johnny is a new accountant at a large company. Johnny’s boss, Bob, is “a good boss,” but he
some mes makes stupid decisions, including falsifying the company’s nancial data to boost the
company’s stock prices. When federal agents begin to inves gate Bob for his shady accoun ng
prac ces, Bob instructs Johnny to present false tes mony about the ma er in court. Johnny refuses.
Instead, he tells agents the truth about Bob’s accoun ng prac ces. A er nding out about Johnny’s
truthful, but damaging, statements three days later, Bob res him.
Case #6: Ann Hopkins, a female senior manager in a major accoun ng rm, was denied partnership
in the rm because she was considered “too macho.” Hopkins was told she could improve her
chances of partnership in the rm if she were to “take a course at charm school,” “walk more
femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear
jewelry.” Yet, earlier in her career, she had been told that to be successful, she “needed to be more
aggressive,” like certain successful men at the rm behaved. Being denied partnership is e ec vely a
termina on, as it ends a person’s career at the rm and requires them to nd another job.
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
ti
tt
fi
fi
fi
ft
ti
ti
fl
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
fi
fl
ti
fi
ft
ti
fi
tt
ffi
fi
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
2
ti
fi
Case #2: Fourteen employees of the Elizabeth R. Wellborn law rm in Deer eld Beach, Florida, were
red for wearing orange shirts to work on a Friday. Later, some of the red employees told a reporter
that they had established a custom of wearing orange shirts on pay-day Fridays to promote a feeling
of togetherness when they would go out a er work for drinks. A few others stated that management
took their shirts to mean that they were staging some kind of protest, while others denied that this
was ever said. Nonetheless, all will now be looking for new jobs. “We had no warning,” a paralegal
told the reporter. “I feel so violated.”
Case #7: A former student of mine, Lauren, worked at a car dealership doing internet sales. Lauren
was paid by the hour, and also earned a $300 commission for every appointment she set that
ul mately ended in a vehicle sale. The commissions would accumulate throughout the month and
were included in the rst check of the following month. A er Lauren gets into an argument with her
boss, who has “consistently disrespected and ignored” her, she is red on September 30th. The
company then refuses to pay Lauren’s commission for ten appointments, that led to sales, that she
had scheduled in September. Lauren suspects the true reason she was red at the end of the month
was to avoid paying Lauren those commissions.
Case #8: AT&T’s “Privacy in the Workplace” policy broadly forbids AT&T employees from recording
conversa ons with their co-workers, managers, and others without advance approval from the
employer’s legal department. In its en rety, AT&T’s no recording policy states: “Employees may not
record telephone or other conversa ons they have with their co-workers, managers or third par es
unless such recordings are approved in advance by the Legal Department, required by the needs of
the business, and fully comply with the law and any applicable company policy.”
AT&T employee, Marcus Davis, served as a union steward for the Communica ons Workers of
America, Local 2336, at ve of AT&T’s Washington D.C. area stores. An employee of one of those
stores, Timothy, sought Davis’s assistance to le a union grievance alleging that AT&T had illegally
targeted him for termina on due to his pro-union ac vi es. Davis accompanied Timothy to a
disciplinary mee ng between Timothy and AT&T management. To preserve evidence of what was
said at the mee ng, Davis secretly recorded the mee ng. Upon suspicion that Davis had recorded the
mee ng in viola on of AT&T’s no-recording rule, Area Sales Manager Andrew Collings met with Davis
and reminded him that recording conversa ons violated AT&T’s policy. In response, Davis admi ed
that he had indeed secretly recorded the disciplinary mee ng, but clari ed that he did so in order to
“police the par es’ collec ve-bargaining agreement and preserve evidence for use in a possible
grievance” against the company. The next day, Davis was red for viola ng AT&T’s “Privacy in the
Workplace” policy.
ti
tt
ti
fi
fi
ti
fi
ft
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
3
