Chapter 17 Employment and Labor Law An employee at will could be fired for a good reason a bad reason or no reason at all Note that in the absence of a specific legal exception the rule in the US is still that an employee at will can be fired for any reason Employment Security o Family and Medical Leave Act FMLA guarantees both men and women up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year for childbirth adoption or a serious health condition of their own or in their immediate family An immediate family members as a spouse child or parent but NOT a sibling grandchild or in law An employee who takes a leave must be allowed to return to the same or an equivalent job with the same pay and benefits The FMLA applies only to companies with at least 50 workers and to employees who have been with the company full time for at least a year Some examples of what counts as a serious health condition Any health issue that requires hospitalization A condition that requires more than one visit to a health care provider The visits may be spread out as long as a year A condition that requires only one visit to a health care provider but which also requires a course of treatment such as physical therapy or prescription medication Peterson v Exide Technologies Exide Technologies issued repeated warnings to Robert Peterson for driving forklifts too fast and violating other safety rules After he was injured in a forklift crash Exide granted him FMLA leave for 10 days while he recovered Then his manager fired him during the leave period for flagrant violations of safety rules Peterson sued claiming that he was terminated in retaliation for exercising his right to take FMLA leave The lower court granted summary judgment to Exide and Peterson appealed Was Peterson fired in retaliation for claiming FMLA leave The plaintiff makes out a prima facie retaliation case the burden shifts to defendant to demonstrate a legitimate nonretaliatory reason If defendant meets his burden the burden shifts back to plaintiff to show that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant s explanations are pretextual The plan manager asserts it dismissed plaintiff for the legitimate reason that he violated company safety policies and he also based his decision on the history of careless and unsafe conduct reflected in plaintiff s personnel file Defendant has adequately demonstrated a nonretaliatory reason for plaintiff s termination his repeated safety violations Thus the burden shifts back to plaintiff to show pretext Plaintiff then argues that the forklift accident was a minor incident Whether the accident was minor is questionable But even if it was we see nothing that prevents defendant from firing employees for minor safety violations Particularly where as here the employee has a record of unsafe work performance even a minor infraction could be the last straw And no evidence suggests a causal connection b w plaintiff s firing and his exercise of FMLA rights Therefore the district court properly granted summary judgment o Health Insurance Under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act COBRA former employees must be allowed to continue their health insurance for 18 months after being terminated from their job This applies to any company with 20 or more workers o Common law Protections Wrongful discharge an employer may not fire a worker for a reason that violates basic social rights duties or responsibilities Wrongful Discharge Violating Public Policy Refusing to Violate the Law as a general rule employees may not be discharged for refusing to break the law Performing a Legal Duty courts have consistently held that an employee may not be fired for serving on a jury Exercising a Legal Right as a general rule an employer may not discharge a worker for exercising a legal right if that right supports public policy Supporting Societal Values o Kozlosk v American Tissue Services Foundation o ATSF was in the buz of supplying human tissue from cadavers for transplantation into live patients Mike Slack an employee revealed to his boss that he had falsified a donor medical record and changed the donor s blood type on the form Slack was fired and the infractions were reported to the FDA as required by law It turned out however that Slack was the foster child of the company s chairman and the chairman not only hired Slack back at another company as a quality assurance specialist but he fired Slack s boss and the two men who had reported the problem to the FDA The men filed suit against ATSF for wrongful discharge but the company filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the public policy doctrine in Minnesota applied only to employees who had refused to violate the law o Does the public policy doctrine in Minnesota apply only if the employee has been fired for refusing to violate the law o Plaintiffs claim their terminations occurred as a direct result of and in retaliation for their reporting to their employer and the FDA concerns about public safety violations of federal regulations and federal law and related concerns regarding quality control safety The court rejects defendant s contention that the only common law wrongful discharge in Minnesota is one based on allegations that termination was in retaliation for refusing to violate the law Instead the court concludes the Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized a common law wrong discharge claim a discharge is for a reason that clearly violates public policy Therefore the court concludes plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged common law claims for wrongful discharge Contract Law Truth in Hiring oral promises made during the hiring process can be enforceable even if not approved by the company s top executives Employee Handbooks an employee handbook creates a contract Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in almost all states courts will imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an at will employment relationship A covenant of good faith and fair dealing prohibits one party to a contract from interfering with the other s right to benefit under the contract Defamation employers may be liable for defamation when they give false and unfavorable reference about a former employee More than half of the states however recognize a qualified privilege for employers who give references about former employees Tort Law o Qualified privilege employers who give references are liable only for false statements that they know to be false or that are primarily