Is the "At Will" clause covering employment incorporated in the laws in all states? Does that "status" allow employers to fire people "at will" without prior discussion of documentation relating to performance?

This is really a state by state issue with the answer being different in each state. This is because the statutes may say one thing but the courts have handled it differently.

In most states, the at-will doctrine does allow you to terminate an employee on any basis. However, the at-will doctrine does not protect you if you violate Title VII and other discrimination laws. I recommend that you always be prudent in documenting performance, and apply good progressive discipline practices before terminating an employee, even in an At-Will Doctrine state.

An employee working in an at-will state can be terminated without cause and without any documentation. The employee can go to the EEOC to get a right to sue letter, but the employee must be able bear the cost of a long drawn out lawsuit against the bank.

An employee working in an at-will state can be terminated without cause and without any documentation. The employee can go to the EEOC to get a right to sue letter, but the employee must be able bear the cost of a long drawn out lawsuit against the bank.

All states (except Montana) recognize at-will employment, that is, that an employee is hired at-will and that employment can be terminated at the will of either party. This applies to managers, supervisors, staff... all employees.

Although most non-union, non-contract private employees are subject to the traditional employment-at-will rule, many are protected, at least in part, from the rule's operation by express statutory restrictions on the employer's ability to fire. Federal and state laws have made inroads on the traditional rule in a variety of ways. For example, the various federal and state job discrimination statutes prohibit discharges based on such factors as race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, status as a veteran, and jury duty. Other federal and/or state laws protect employees from being fired in retaliation for asserting their rights under wage and hour laws, having their wages garnished, engaging in union activities, opposing unlawful discriminatory practices, entering military service, refusing to take lie detector tests, filing for workers' compensation, serving on a jury, and "Whistle blowing."

The key to at-will is documentation or, in some cases, the lack of documentation. If your employer has a documented policy, for example, that states that employees will be counseled, in writing, as part of the process leading up to termination and that counseling does not take place and you are terminated for no apparent reason, talk to an attorney - documentation is everything. From the employer side – if you don’t follow your own policy statement, look out for lawsuits.

I have to disagree with you. In my state you can be fired for outperforming your counterparts, your boss and even Regional VP. After the vice-chairman told 300 employees that "as a shareholder of the bank, everyone should be doing exactly what I was doing for the bank", I was fired for absolute bogus reasons without any previous documentation according to the banks own policy manual.

In some states (Alaska) at will employees do have some protection if they've been brought to the state for employment, even without a contract. The oil boom caused this to become an issue when they went bust in the mid 80's and left many employees without means when prices tanked and the pipeline was finished. These folks ended up on the states dough because they were moved here, and stranded in a place where there was no employment, and the costs to return "home" were far in excess of the employees ability to pay. (It cost $32M for me to move here).

When I arrived my employer sold out within five months. They claimed at will...but I learned of the state laws and pointed out the issues to management who immediately re-thought their position

I have a couple of customer's I'd like to send to Alaska and have them not be able to pay their way back!!

Well they were out to axe the entire division But they did offer us some inferior employment (LARGE drops in pay) at the bank they sold us to. Fortunately AK state law protected me.

The law would not have protected me if I'd chosen to move to AK myself and took a position with any employer. So there would be no need to wait until a prospective employee has lived in a state for any period of time. It's specifically focused on employees who are transfered within corporate entities or hired and relocated to the state. 99% of the time the issues have been oil and gas related. Many oil companies have moved here, then left employees stranded when a well came up dry or some other business reason forced them to leave the state. They just haven't always seen the need to move all employees back to where they came from when they bail out.

This is particularly difficult when it pertains to unskilled labor or the lowest paid oil workers who are moved up here for jobs, then left here with no possible chances of employment when the oil business goes into slumps. The law protects the state by forcing the oil companies to pay to move folks back where they came from so they have a better chance at finding employment.

Fortunately, it helped me too It forced the bank to find me an equilivant job, and cover the costs to move me back. As it happens, it was a mute point, because after they were forced to be there for me...I passed on the job and moved to another financial institution in Alaska. But...in my eyes, I made my point Sometimes that's all that matters!

Alaska has it right - it's kind of like outplacement services with a move back the primary feature. It's really sad when people that work on a special project or people that work for a company for a long time are simply dumped - and it's always the lowest paid that are subjected to that kind of treatment. I don't believe in a free ride, up a leg up to re-start, especially when the separation has nothing to do with performance is the human thing to do, but corporations (banks) are legal entities - but not human entities, so it's good for humans to step in and explain how some form of outplacement is good business and a natural cost of doing business with consideration.

Alaska is a unique case, though. There are only so many jobs in the state, and other states are thousands of miles away. Like Dawnie says - the employees are stuck up there because they can't afford the astronomical moving costs to get back to the lower 48. The state shouldn't have to foot the bill for those people. Sounds like a good law for all Alaskans - employed or not! I don't think it would go over in any other state (except Hawaii), though.

Lestie G:
I agree, but it would be real considerate of people if some form of outplacement was required at all levels, especially when the corporation continues to be a viable entity - just re-structuring. When a corporation goes down like Enron, you are lucky to make it to the street, versus out the window, but viable entities should have to pay for re-training and other expenses to provide a leg up at all levels. This is probably just wishful thinking.

I agree, but it probably is just wishful thinking!

CAUTION TO ALL EMPLOYEES WORKING IN AN "AT WILL" STATE

I outperformed my boss and his RVP. When the vice-chairman of the bank came to town and gave me kudos in front of 300 employees, the two people sitting in the front row were my boss and his RVP. During the next two weeks, I had many other employees of the bank coming up to me and congratulating me about the vice-chairman's comment. But my boss and his RVP never even acknowledged what the vice-chairman said.

Two weeks later I was called asked by my boss to sit in with the RVP to "discuss my commissions". When I sat down in the meeting, my boss proceeded to say "he got negative reports about me from a newspaper who had NO previous relationship with the bank. I stated that I thought this meeting was called to discuss my commission and that since I did not know what he was talking about that I needed to get back to work to finish a write up I was working on. as soon as I stood up, he stood up in front of the RVP and said "YOU ARE FIRED". The RVP and I looked at each other in amazement. The RVP stated the next day that "he did not mean what he said".

To all "at will" emplyees, if you are ever called into a meeting under false pretenses, and lied to prior to the meeting about the subject to be discussed, you can be fired for "BOGUS" reasons. The boss did not have to be accountable for his statements and actions. There was never any prior discussion or warning. There was never any write up given to me or in my file prior to this happening. I am sure they papered my file since.

The following week, the same boss made false statements to the bank and had me stopped by the FBI at an airport in another state from which I live. The FBI had to explain to the banks security person that what they were doing was illegal and that they could not detain me any longer since I did nothing wrong. I think you call this "harrasment".

I also, contacted the newspaper directly about my bosses comments, and they too would like to know "what they said". Current employees still can not believe
what happened to me. When they were asked internally, all stated good things about my performance and behavior.

"AT-WILL" EMPLOYEES NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL!

I found out the hard way about at will employment as well. I designed a marketing campaign to increase the bank's credit card outstandings and it went great and it cost the bank a fraction of what they had been spending on just advertising. Then 3 months later I am asked to resign or be fired. I resigned and then the bank tried to fight my unemployment claim!!! They lost since I put in my resignation letter that I resigned at their request.

This brings up another thought.... "What-if" your FI has been or is going through a Merger, and "what-if" your present employer is an "At-Will" however they also have a Severence policy. "What-if" when the new guys take over they do not honor the severance package and simply state your employment is "at-will" and bye-bye employee after the dotted line is signed. Can they do this?

Quote:

---

What-if" when the new guys take over they do not honor the severance package and simply state your employment is "at-will" and bye-bye employee after the dotted line is signed. Can they do this?

---

Unfortunately, They probably can. Read the Severance Policy very well you may have a shot depending on the wording. If you can get enough former employees together I have seen a class action suit work in one instance of similar circumstance.

Another favorite trick of some bank purchasers is to take the former employee retirement funds, purchase a cheap annuity and pocket the difference. In one case here in California I'm told it amounted to 40 million dollars.

Quote:

---

"What-if" when the new guys take over they do not honor the severance package and simply state your employment is "at-will" and bye-bye employee after the dotted line is signed. Can they do this?

---

It depends on the asset purchase agreement. The acquiring bank may elect not to honor any and all exisiting plans of the seller. This is their option. Typically, the acquirer does not want to assume any more liability than necessary to complete the purchase. In the case of severance pay plans, normally these get eliminated first, because the acquirer knows there will be some "forced" turnover and will want to minimize the expense of severance pay.

Bob is absolutely correct.

However, if the selling bank has entered into what may legally be considered a commitment to employees, and this is omitted in the sell agreement, there may be cause for action. Its a maybe, and it takes more than one employee and a good lawyer to get the purchasing bank in the mood to settle up.

In the case I am familiar with, the purchasing bank paid settlements to about 50 former employees (bank officers) who were party to a law suite brought against them for settlements committed to by the selling bank. Those not party to the suit received nothing.

Thank you both - here's another question. Not knowing what "written" agreement the Pres/Board(s) made, and going by the "oral" statement made by the incoming President (once you get your notification stating your final date of employment, if you do not work to the final date stated you will not get your severance".) Does this hold up in court should they renig on the severance pkg.?

If you file suit all these written agreements are available under the discovery process. Whether any claim for damages will stand up in court is really dependant on the circumstances.