Sue Robbin’s case may be considered an act of retaliation of the company towards its employee, which is prohibited by federal laws. This process may occur not only to the victim of the harassment but also to any employee reporting, as stated in the example. The case may be taken to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or any civil court. The conditions for bonuses and raises are usually set in the employment contract. If the employer does not have a justifiable reason for the pay reduction, then some penalties may be applied. It also helps that Sue Robbins’s payment may be compared to the other employees, which may prove the fact of retaliation.
Sam Jones may win a suit in a court against the company. According to DeNicco (2015), there are several exceptions in which the courts have the power to use common law and forbid companies to discharge workers. This case may be considered an implied contract exception, as there is no written agreement between the company and Sam. The abrupt termination without a proper reason will not be tolerated, even in an at-will-employee case. Moreover, the court may use the provisions of the employee handbook. The employer is prohibited from firing the employee without a just cause, and the language of the handbook will be examined to determine the terms of the contract.
There are three main causes of exception to the at-will doctrine of employment. First, there is the Public Policy Exception which prohibits an employer from firing an employee when it violates the State’s established policy. For example, an employee cannot be fired for filing a complaint after a job injury. Second, there is the Implied Contract Exception, which may be applied when there is no written agreement of the work contract. Employer’s implied policies or handbooks may be considered a valuable source when examining the breach of contract. Finally, there is the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing exception when both parties are expected to be subject to “just cause.” It means that an employer cannot fire an employee out of malice or any other reason that may seem unjustifiable.
The employees have a legal right to refuse to take the test and may file a complaint to the court referring to the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. As claimed by Draganov and Biolcheva (2017), it forbids employers to force employees to use polygraphs during employment, although this Act does not concern some governmental companies or security services. In this particular case, the actions of the employer violate the Act for the reason of lost benefits, and it can be easily proven in court. The employees may also undertake the test if they want. In this case, a written notice is provided explaining the reasons for suspicion and investigation.
Yellow Bus Company have the legal right to institute drug test among its bus drivers. As stated by Glenn et al. (2020), the Omnibus Transportation Employee Act of 1991 requires transportation agencies to implement drug and alcohol testing of employees. This Act is justifiable due to safety reasons, and it serves to prevent any possible emergencies caused by vehicle operators. The testing may be conducted several times both before and after the employment. As stated in the example, random checks are also common for this particular branch and prevent an employee from preparing for the test.
References
DeNicco, J. P. (2015). Employment-at-will exceptions and jobless recovery. Journal of Macroeconomics, 45, 245-257.
Draganov, J., & Biolcheva, P. (2017). Use of psychological methods in the workplace and their legal aspects. Globalization, the State and the Individual, 14(2), 95-102.
Glenn, T. L., Camden, M. C., & Hickman, J. S. (2020). Alcohol and Drug Testing: Informational Guidelines for Occupational Drivers. Web.