Gary Dyas and Brian H. Kleiner
The purpose of this paper is to inform managers about the recent increase in wrongful termination suits and the high price employers can be forced to pay if their company is found…
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to inform managers about the recent increase in wrongful termination suits and the high price employers can be forced to pay if their company is found guilty of wrongful termination. Although the focus is on common termination errors made in the 1980s and 1990s, some steps are suggested to help prevent and defend against wrongful termination suits. Finally, a new method being considered to deal with wrongful termination is presented, The Model Employment Termination Act. Businesses are now more likely than ever to be sued for wrongful discharge. The increase in wrongful discharge cases is a result of recent changes in employment law, court interpretations of employment law, and the highly litigious climate which now exists. Today, the deck seems to be stacked in favor of the terminated employee. In fact, a recent survey in California revealed that plaintiffs who get jury trials win about 75% of the time, the average award being approximately $300,000. In addition, legal expenses to defend wrongful discharge cases averaged $80,000. If that is not bad enough, the situation is expected to get worse before the pendulum begins to swing back towards the employers. The purpose of this paper is not to go over all the employment laws nor is it to analyze all possible situations. The objective is to highlight common errors committed by managers, recent developments in wrongful termination, and point out steps to reduce the chance of losing a wrongful discharge suit. Most wrongful termination cases involve one or more of the following categories: breach of contract, breach of common law duty by the employer, discrimination, fraud, infliction of emotional distress, defamation, violation of public policy, or violation of personnel policy. They all carry unlimited compensatory and punitive damages. Moreover, because charges can be brought against both company and individuals, managers have their own assets at stake. According to Phillip Perry, employers commonly commit seven errors. (1) Use of implied promises in employee handbooks. (2) Making oral promises. (3) Terminating an employee just before the employee is to be vested. (4) Discharging an employee for failing to take a polygraph test. (5) Creating intolerable working conditions to force an employee to resign. (6) Discharging an employee for refusing to violate public policy. (7) Failure to evaluate employees honestly and put the evaluations in writing.
Ashok Gupta, Manjulika Koshal and Rajindar K. Koshal
Focuses on the opportunities and challenges facing women managers in corporate India, against the backdrop of a worldwide (albeit theoretical) trend aimed at reducing the gender…
Abstract
Focuses on the opportunities and challenges facing women managers in corporate India, against the backdrop of a worldwide (albeit theoretical) trend aimed at reducing the gender gap. Bases findings on responses to 162 questionnaires designed to establish the respective attitudes of male and female managers (within manufacturing and service industries) to key gender issues. Examines issues including ‐inter alia ‐ perceptions regarding company hiring practices and remuneration equity; the perceived competencies of women in management; the attitudes of men towards women managers and company initiatives to reduce the gender gap. Establishes that the majority of managers believe that employment in their organizations is based on merit and not gender, however, the results also identify a whole host of less encouraging attitudes which together indicate that there is still a long way to go before sex discrimination is eradicated. Makes a series of recommendations aimed at redressing the balance.
Details
Keywords
Mary L. Gatta and Patricia A. Roos
This paper presents qualitative data from a gender equity study at a Carnegie I research institution. In this paper we draw on interview data to explore the ways that our sample…
Abstract
This paper presents qualitative data from a gender equity study at a Carnegie I research institution. In this paper we draw on interview data to explore the ways that our sample of senior women and men dealt with family‐work conflicts at different points in their careers. We offer stories of women (and a few men), who struggled with family‐work conflicts, and we provide these in their own voices. After first presenting our findings we demonstrate how they can be used to develop strategies to address family‐work conflicts and evaluate current programs. We first explore how women and men defined the problem of family‐work integration. We then review some of the main coping strategies they used at different points in their careers, and then explore the consequences that women experienced as a result of the university’s lack of support. We conclude by pointing to areas where in stitutionally supported programs and policies may be effective in addressing the balance between family and work.