CASE EXAMPLE A: Elaine has sued Jerry because Jerry fired her.

Elaine was on the job for two months. he job offer letter she had been !i"en mentioned the !reat career o##ortunities at the com#any and stated that her annual salary would be $%&'&&&. he em#loyer is an em#loyment at will em#loyer. Elaine was !i"en no reason for the termination. After the termination' Jerry hired a man named (ramer' who had less job e)#erience and education than Elaine' for the #osition. Elaine has sued to !et her job bac*. +,&& #oints-

.n case e)am#le A' Elaine is suin! her com#any because she was fired and was !i"en no reason for the termination and her em#loyer' Jerry' had hired a man that had less job e)#erience and education. he com#any had stated that she would ha"e /!reat career o##ortunities/ and that /her annual salary would be $%&'&&&/. E"en thou!h these thin!s were mentioned in the jobs offer' Elaine was fired after two months and re#laced. Jerry also did not !i"e Elaine any reasons for her termination.

0n the #laintiff1s side' Elaine has the #ossibility of accusin! her em#loyer for two thin!s: dis#arate treatment or a "iolation of the im#lied2in2fact contract.

Since Jerry did not #ro"ide Elaine any s#ecific reasons why he had fired her after two months' Elaine may accuse him of dis#arate treatment. Accordin! to cha#ter 3& of The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce' dis#arate treatment is when 4an indi"idual is treated ad"ersely because of the #erson5s race' se)' national ori!in' color' or reli!ion6. .t can be ar!ued that two months was not an efficient enou!h time for Jerry to jud!e Elaine1s #erformance or wor* ethic' considerin! that this is ty#ically just enou!h time to train an em#loyee. his can

lead to the assum#tion that Jerry had made his decision to fire Elaine for an unethical reason. A ty#e of dis#arate treatment that Jerry mi!ht ha"e committed is treatin! Elaine ad"ersely because of her se). 7#on firin! Elaine' Jerry had immediately hired a man' (ramer' for her #osition e"en thou!h (ramer had less job e)#erience and education. herefore' Jerry did not ha"e sufficient enou!h reason to thin* that (ramer somehow had an ad"anta!e o"er Elaine for the #osition. he only factor about (ramer that could sway Jerry1s decision to hire him o"er Elaine is (ramer1s !ender. .f Jerry did in fact hire (ramer #urely for the circumstance of his !ender' then he is !uilty of dis#arate treatment and Elaine can successfully !et her job bac*.

Elaine can also accuse her em#loyer for "iolatin! the im#lied2in2fact contract. Accordin! to cha#ter 3& of the te)tboo*' an im#lied2in2fact contract e)ce#tion is an e)ce#tion of the em#loyment2at2will doctrine. .t is when 4some courts held that title im#lied the em#loyee had a contract for #ermanent em#loyment and the termination was a breach of contract6. 0n the job descri#tion that her em#loyer had !i"en Elaine' it was mentioned that the job had 4!reat career o##ortunities6 and that 4her annual salary would be $%&'&&&6. he 4!reat career o##ortunities6 im#lied that Elaine would ha"e the chance to #romote within the com#any or at least ha"e a substantial enou!h time within the com#any to !ain e)#erience for other o#tions. his su!!ests a lon!2term relationshi# with her job which was clearly not the case' !i"en that she was terminated after two wee*s. he fact that the job descri#tion also mentions that 4her annual salary would be $%&'&&&6 is su!!estin! that Elaine was to be #aid annually. his im#lies that Elaine was su##osed to wor* for at least a year before she could be fired. hese facts ma*e it #ossible for Elaine to !et her job bac* but it is also de#endent on the leniency of the state that she was em#loyed.

0n the defendant1s side' Jerry can either claim that Elaine was still in a #robationary #eriod or declare #rotection under the em#loyment2at2will doctrine.

Since only two months ha"e #assed since Jerry had fired Elaine' there is a #ossibility that Elaine was still in #robationary #eriod. Accordin! to 8ut!er1s 7ni"ersity 98 definitions' a #robationary #eriod is 4the #eriod of time after initial hirin! durin! which an em#loyee5s wor* #erformance is e"aluated to determine the a##ro#riateness of selection6. his !i"es Jerry the freedom to fire Elaine anytime within this #eriod if Jerry is !i"en any reason to belie"e that Elaine was not a##ro#riate for the job. his fact can also !i"e Jerry #rotection from Elaine1s accusation for him "iolatin! the im#lied2in2fact contract. he im#lied2in2fact contract only a##lies to em#loyee5s who ha"e com#leted the #robationary #eriod. .f Elaine was fired within this #eriod' the em#loyer would not ha"e an obli!ation to !i"e Elaine her job bac*.

:or the reason that the em#loyer is an 4at will em#loyer6' the defendant can recei"e #rotection from the em#loyment2at2will doctrine. Accordin! to cha#ter 3& of The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce, the em#loyment2at2will doctrine is 4absent a contract or a law to the contrary' the em#loyment relationshi# is #resumed to be one of 4at will.6 his means that the em#loyer and the em#loyee can end the em#loyment relationshi# at any time for a !ood reason' a bad reason or no reason at all6. his !i"es the Jerry the freedom to fire Elaine under any circumstance. he only ar!ument Elaine can use a!ainst this doctrine is the im#lied2in2fact e)ce#tion but since Jerry did not #romise Elaine a lon!2term #osition' the em#loyment2at2will doctrine may be sufficient enou!h to win the case in his fa"or.

.n my o#inion' . do no thin* that Elaine has enou!h e"idence to be successful in suin! her em#loyer. Jerry could ha"e fired Elaine for multi#le reasons other than the fact that she was a woman. Elaine was also ne"er #romised a #ermanent #osition in the com#any so there is no obli!ation for Jerry to rehire Elaine. .t is also #ossible that Elaine was still in #robationary #eriod and e"en thou!h she was not aware of it' this !i"es the com#any the ri!ht to terminate her. Jerry is also #rotected by the em#loyment2at2will doctrine which allows him to fire her for any reason or no reason at all.