The doctrine of employment at-will stipulates that an employer can terminate the services of an employee at any point without any liability. Similarly, an employee can strike or leave work without facing any sanctions from the employer. This doctrine operates in the absence of union contracts regulating the hiring and firing of employees. Legal encounter 1 prima facie, suggests that NewCorp had the right to fire Pat without any reference to him.
The fact that his relocation to NewCorp necessitated enormous personal sacrifice did not imply that there was an implied contract regarding the duration of his employment (Toussaint v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 1980).
Further, Pat’s opinion that the management changed their attitude towards him following a private matter may not strengthen his case considering the difficulty of proving the veracity of his claims. However, NewCorp’s legal position is complicated by the implied contract contained in the personnel manual under the section dealing with ‘Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance/Corrective Action Plan’.
The clause stipulates a course of action to be followed in the event that a employee‘s performance is unsatisfactory. Pat was not informed of his poor performance nor did the management undertake to institute corrective measures. Consequently, Pat can sue the company for wrongful dismissal under the implied contract exception of Employment at- will agreements (Rood v. General Dynamics Corp. , 1993). He stands a great chance of succeeding in his suit.