labor experts: what constitutes wrongful termination?

[Anonymous]

I have a friend who was fired recently after a long tenure at a job. She had voiced some concerns about upper management decisions in private discussions with her immediate boss, but had always complied with whatever she was asked to do. Under what conditions is it ok for someone to fire her? Her performance reviews had always been good, although she had not had a review since the recent tensions emerged. Is it ok to fire someone for privately questioning a few actions? She always had a pleasant demeanor and never got into a heated discussion about anything, despite her reservations.

[Anonymous]

Unless she is protected by a union contract or employment agreement which requires "just cause" for termination, she can be fired for any reason as long as it was not discriminatory (depends on state/fed law). There may also be whistleblower protections if she works in government and voiced concerns and was fired in retaliation.

But, if all she did was say that management's business decision was bad and then she was fired? She likely has no recourse.

Unless she can prove that others have voiced similar concerns and were not fired and that those individuals were male or white and she was being targeted because she is a woman, minority or other protected class.

[Anonymous]

PP-- to be clear, whistleblower protections could apply in the private sector if she was voicing a concern that is protected by some current whistleblower law, eg. safety, securities fraud, Medicare fraud, etc. Someone else with more knowledge than i should chime in.

[Anonymous]

"Employment at will" is the standard in this country unless, as pp said, there was an issue of discrimination or protected activity such as whistleblowing. Critiquing your manager is not whistleblowing. Unless your friend had a contract or union protection there is no such thing as wrongful termination. She can be fired for any reason at all except illegal discrimination.

[Anonymous]

If she is an at will employee, they had the right to fire her.

[Anonymous]

Its funny, people want to work in a "right to work" state until the learn the hard way that what they really means is the right to be fired at the will of the employer.

[Anonymous]

PP here-- also, she could have protection under the NLRA if she and other co-workers complained about a similar problem and it related to their working conditions. However, she would have no private right of action; she can only file a charge with the NLRB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its funny, people want to work in a "right to work" state until the learn the hard way that what they really means is the right to be fired at the will of the employer.

Agree with this sentiment but to be clear, "right to work" refers only to state laws that prohibit unions from collecting fair-share fees from employees in a workplace who benefit from the union contract (e.g. raises, grievance processing, etc). "Right to work" laws have nothing to do, directly, with any protection from being fired.

[Anonymous]

Right to work laws have to do with opting out of unions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right to work laws have to do with opting out of unions.

And unions protect workers from being summarily dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right to work laws have to do with opting out of unions.

Actually, under the First Amendment, nobody is required to join the union, ever. This is a common misunderstanding perpetuated by the right-wing corporate establishment. In no state in the country are you required to join the union.

However, in many states, if you decide to remain a non-member, you are nonetheless required to pay a "fair-share" fee that covers the cost of union representation. That means, you cannot free ride on the union's work to bargain your contract (which contains your pay increases and job protection) and administer the contract (so if you have a workplace issue and the union defends you, your fair-share fee covers those costs).

In a so-called right-to-work state, non-members cannot be compelled to pay the fair-share fees. However, the union is still legally obligated to represent every person in the bargaining unit regardless of whether they pay any fair-share fees or not." RTW laws are simply a way to bankrupt the union by undermining it financially.

It's worth noting that, notwithstanding RTW laws (primarily in the South), unions still have success organizing and signing up majorities in their workplaces. In Michigan, which just passed a RTW law, I believe the UAW has signed up majorities in many auto factories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If she is an at will employee, they had the right to fire her.

+1

[Anonymous]

Yes, they can fire her for almost any reason but if they are smart, they would not be specific about why.

[Anonymous]

OP, your friend should pay for legal advice.

[Anonymous]

Thanks. OP here. This is unfortunate but sounds like she's out of luck. Yes, essentially all she did was tell her direct boss privately that top management's business decision was not the way she would do it, and then she was fired... It's too bad because she was there for many years but a new top manager decided to get rid of her even though she was a good employee.