So misunderstood!
NOTE FROM ROBIN: Earlier this year, I began a series of very basic explanations of the federal laws that govern the workplace. The first installment covered discrimination in general, and the second installment covered religious accommodation. Subsequent posts have covered retaliation and the Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wage and overtime). If there is a topic that you'd like to see covered, please send me an email or leave a comment here.
This week's topic, the employment-at-will doctrine, is not a federal law, but it might as well be. It's also almost universally misunderstood.
Karla Miller's workplace advice column of The Washington Post had an item yesterday about a man who obtained a medical exemption from his employer's no-beard requirement. Even though the man had a legitimate medical reason for not being clean-shaven, his boss said that she'd be darned if she'd ever promote him because of that nasty beard.
That's ridiculous and maybe illegal, and Karla and most of her commenters agreed. As Karla said, "I would question whether this policy is the hill your employer's integrity deserves to die on." But one commenter, "pajacobsen," begged to differ:
The hill is irrelevant compared to the mountain called the at-will-employment law. The general broad acceptance of this law by the population makes underlying random policies and random enforcement safe.
(Bold added by me.)
Whaaaaaat? "Random policies" and "random enforcement" are legally safe? "Pajacobsen" needs to learn a thing or two about the employment-at-will doctrine. As do the readers who gave him "likes." I hope they'll all read this post.
The employment-at-will doctrine says that, absent a contract of employment for a definite term, either the employer or the employee can terminate the relationship at any time and for any reason (good or bad, fair or unfair) or for no reason at all.
This is the general rule in 49 states, the only exception being Montana.
Robin, you just proved pajacobsen's point!
Let me finish.
I'm teasing! Don't take me seriously. But seriously . . .
Let's say your CEO wants to fire an employee for the sole reason that she is 60 years old. And you're not in Montana. Do you tell the CEO to have at it?
Of course you don't.
Because the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act says it's illegal to discriminate based on age if the employee is 40 or older. You may also have a state law that prohibits age discrimination. Even if you're in an at-will state, you still have to comply with the anti-discrimination laws, right? Right.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Yes, employment-at-will is a real thing. It is a common-law doctrine that caught on in the United States in the late 19th century. But it doesn't override other laws that protect employees from discriminatory or other unlawful terminations. And there are an awful lot of "other laws that protect employees from discriminatory or other unlawful terminations," of which the ADEA is only one. For example,
- Title VII, which in addition to prohibiting race discrimination, also prohibits discrimination based on sex (including pregnancy and related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity), national origin, color, and religion.
- The Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities and requires reasonable accommodations that allow the employee with a disability to perform the job.
- The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination against employees based on their genetic information (which includes family medical history).
- The Family and Medical Leave Act, which requires employers to provide job-protected leave to qualifying employees for an ever-growing list of reasons for up to 12 or 26 weeks in a 12-month period.
- The National Labor Relations Act, which says that discriminating against an employee because of protected concerted activity, or to encourage or discourage membership in a labor organization, is unlawful.
- State or local anti-discrimination laws.
- Laws that prohibit retaliation (all of the above, plus a lot more).
- State laws that prohibit employers from taking action against employees based on their lawful use of lawful products during non-working hours.
And there's more. The modern employment-at-will doctrine has its own set of exceptions. The exceptions vary from state to state, but generally -- and at a minimum -- employment at will does not apply if an employer terminates an employee for a reason that violates "public policy," or that is discriminatory or retaliatory under state law.
You may be thinking, sure, but how about an employer who really does fire an employee for no reason? Surely that employer would be in the clear, thanks to employment at will?
Not necessarily. If an employer terminates an employee for no reason at all, the employee is not likely to think, "Darn it! I was terminated for no reason at all. Guess it won't do me any good to talk to a lawyer."
That isn't the way our minds work. Instead, the employee will be racking his or her brain trying to figure out the "real reason" for the discharge. And here's what will come to mind:
- (if the employee is 40 or older) "It must have been my age."
- (if the employee is a certain race, national origin, (etc.)) "It must have been that."
- (if the employee has a medical condition) "It must have been my disability."
- (if the employee engaged in any legally protected activity) "It must have been that."
Regardless of employment at will, when an employer terminates an employee, it should have a legitimate reason for doing so. Supported by some documentation and -- in the case of poor performance, attendance, or an accumulation of non-serious rule violations -- progressive warnings. If the employer has no reason, the employee and the employee's attorney will be free to argue that the true reason was an illegal one, and judges and juries are likely to believe it.
Employers who think they can rely on "employment at will" as the sole reason for terminating an employee are asking for trouble.
Now let's go back to the man in Karla Miller's column. The employer had a no-beard policy. This man had a medical condition and got permission from the appropriate people in the company to keep his beard. But his boss told a co-worker that she would never promote him. The column doesn't say, but I'm going to assume the man's medical condition was pseudofolliculitis barbae. Men with this condition get ingrown hairs that cause painful skin lesions when they shave. Black men are most susceptible to this condition. The simplest cure is to grow a beard, or at least not to shave closely.
There are court decisions saying that no-beard policies without exceptions for men with pseudofolliculitis barbae can have a disparate impact on Black men and can therefore be discriminatory. I suspect that the condition is also a "disability" within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act -- at least, since the ADA was amended in 2009 to have a much broader definition of "disability." We don't know this man's race. But if he's Black, and if his boss prevents him from getting a promotion because he can't shave because of an ADA-protected medical condition that primarily affects Black men . . .
Ugh.
Employment at will is going to be no help to this employer at all.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010