At-Will Employment, Termination, Public Policy

The Michigan Supreme Court Expands Public Policy Causes of Action for Retaliatory Discharge

Dickinson Wright on 8/27/2024

Under Michigan’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (“MiOSHA”), employers may not “discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint” regarding the employer’s...more

Perhaps Silicon Valley’s Pied Piper Could Use Good Employment Counsel

FordHarrison on 2/5/2020

I am currently bingeing my way through HBO’s Silicon Valley after not having watched the show for several years (I’ve always found it entertaining enough, but life, you know?). The series chronicles the experiences of a small...more

Does it Violate Public Policy to Terminate a Drunk Employee? “Absolut”-ly Not

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on 11/7/2019

Seyfarth Synopsis: Does Pennsylvania’s public policy preclude a nuclear power plant from terminating an employee for being drunk on the job? “No,” the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania...more

Contracts May Not Be All They're Cracked Up To Be: The Extension Of Legal Protections In Employee Contractual Settings

Fisher Phillips on 11/5/2015

For many years, employers have generally embraced a policy of utilizing at-will employment as often as possible, where employers and employees can end their relationship with each other at any time and for any (legal) reason....more

Another Exception to Employment At-Will

Sands Anderson PC on 3/4/2015

Virginia is known as a stalwart adherent to the doctrine of employment at-will. The courts in Virginia have long recognized that the employment relationship is for an indefinite term and may be terminated for any reason or...more

Minnesota Supreme Court Refuses to Expand Exception to Employment-at-Will Doctrine

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on 1/10/2014

The Minnesota Supreme Court rang in 2014 with an employer-friendly decision on the at-will employment rule. On January 2, in Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services (No. A11-1481), the state’s highest court held that the...more