Employment at Will

Employment-at-will “gives employers broad discretion to fire employees ‘for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all,’” (Halbert, J.D. & Ingulli, J.D., L.L.M., 2007, p. 31). Employees of the Loomis Armored Inc., found this out the hard way. This paper will discuss the Gardner v Loomis Armored Inc. case.
Do you think an employer goes against public policy when it terminates an at-will employee who violated a company rule in order to go to the assistance of a citizen who was in danger of serious physical injury or death?
      The employer in this case terminated an employee for assisting a person that was being held at knife point. The employee was required to stay with the armored car he was guarding at all times. When he saw the bank manager in danger, he exited the car, locked the door and left the armored car unattended. As discussed in the last chapter of this class a person, has a duty of care. Duty of care is “a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would.” (The Free Dictionary, n.d.). The question that comes to mind would be to question if the driver would violate this duty by adhering to the company rule. Could the employee do both? The employee could have called 911. He or she could have made a commotion that drew attention to the crime being committed. He also could have moved the truck to gain assistance for the woman in danger. Would these actions be enough to help the woman that was in immediate physical danger? It is this student’s opinion that these actions would not have been enough to help the woman and therefore, the company did go against public policy by firing the employee for going to the assistance of the bank manager.

What is “Public Policy”?
      “Public Policy is an attempt by the government to address a public issue. The government, whether it is city, state, or federal, develops public policy in terms of...