Wrongful Discharge Law in the Land of Employment-at-will: A US Perspective on Unjust Dismissal

C. Estlund
{"title":"Wrongful Discharge Law in the Land of Employment-at-will: A US Perspective on Unjust Dismissal","authors":"C. Estlund","doi":"10.1080/09615768.2022.2092938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fifty years after the United Kingdom adopted the principle of fairness in dismissals, the United States remains a global outlier in its continuing adherence to the presumption of ‘employment-at-will’ (EAW). In 49 out of 50 states, absent an agreement ensuring job security, employees can be fired without notice at any time and without any reason. The original version of EAW was stark indeed: Employers could terminate employment ‘for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally wrong, without thereby being guilty of a legal wrong’. For several decades in the early twentieth century, that principle was elevated to constitutional status as a near-sacrosanct dimension of the ‘liberty of contract’. In that benighted era, the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional—that is, ‘not within the functions of government’—for either Congress or the state legislatures to constrain employers’ right to hire and fire at will. In striking down a statute prohibiting the discharge of an employee based on union membership, the Court could not have been more clear: Absent a contract","PeriodicalId":88025,"journal":{"name":"King's law journal : KLJ","volume":"32 1","pages":"298 - 317"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"King's law journal : KLJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2022.2092938","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Fifty years after the United Kingdom adopted the principle of fairness in dismissals, the United States remains a global outlier in its continuing adherence to the presumption of ‘employment-at-will’ (EAW). In 49 out of 50 states, absent an agreement ensuring job security, employees can be fired without notice at any time and without any reason. The original version of EAW was stark indeed: Employers could terminate employment ‘for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally wrong, without thereby being guilty of a legal wrong’. For several decades in the early twentieth century, that principle was elevated to constitutional status as a near-sacrosanct dimension of the ‘liberty of contract’. In that benighted era, the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional—that is, ‘not within the functions of government’—for either Congress or the state legislatures to constrain employers’ right to hire and fire at will. In striking down a statute prohibiting the discharge of an employee based on union membership, the Court could not have been more clear: Absent a contract
自由就业国度中的不当解雇法:一个美国视角下的不当解雇
在英国采用公平解雇原则五十年后,美国在继续坚持“随意就业”(EAW)的假设方面仍然是全球的异类。在50个州中的49个州,如果没有保障工作安全的协议,员工可以在没有任何通知的情况下随时无故被解雇。EAW的最初版本确实很明确:雇主可以“有正当理由、没有理由、甚至是道德上错误的原因而终止雇佣,而不会因此犯法律上的错误”。在20世纪早期的几十年里,这一原则被提升为宪法地位,成为“契约自由”近乎神圣不可侵犯的维度。在那个愚昧的时代,最高法院认为国会或州立法机构限制雇主随意雇佣和解雇员工的权利是违宪的,即“不在政府职能范围内”。在推翻一项禁止因工会成员资格而解雇雇员的法令时,最高法院的意思再清楚不过了:没有合同
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信