1. Employment at will is a law that stipulates that a contract of employment of undetermined duration could be ended at any time, without incurring any liabilities, by party, the employer or the employee at any time chosen for any chosen reason except an illegal one. It is only maintained in the U.S except the state of Montana. Other industrial powers like France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Japan, Sweden and Great Britain have statutory provisions that state that employers are required to show good cause before firing their employees.
There are three exceptions to this rule, the first is breach of contract by the employer, the second is breach of an implied agreement of good faith and lastly is breach of public policy by an employer.
The exception worth discussing is: breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This relevant in a case where an employer or an employee has shown in various ways, for instance by favourably evaluating a long-serving worker, that the worker has job security. This exception protects employee from losing their job unfairly; that is without good cause. A good example is where the court ruled in favour of a salesman who had been fired by an employer before being paid his commission. He just sold a high value item for which he was owed a large commission. On the other hand, an it could be unfair to an employer because it restricts them from hiring a better worker at will unless the current one makes a mistake. This exception to the employment at will rule came about during the 1980 s when more U.S. Citizens stopped depending on farming and worked for other people. It was an appropriate means of providing some degree of job security to workers where the law was silent or presumptively protected the employer more than the employee.
2.Question 1A diagnosis of emotional distress from a doctor or recognized mental institution that dates after the commencement of Falmouth's employment at the firm would suffice. They could also have recordings of Falmouth's foul language at the ABC offices, including evidence of the fact that the employee used the “f_ _ _” word in order to intentionally bring emotional distress on those working under him.
Question 2 Considering that they had already won the first case, the appeal would not be too hard for them to win. They would have to dig deeper into the past of Falmouth in order to find out if he had any previous misconduct of similar nature at the place(s) where he had worked previously to further support their case.
For one Ted had not accepted that he had discussed the financial details of that specific contract with Williamson Hospital or any other party as claimed. Then the hospital would have to provide concrete evidence to prove that Ted had actually spoken about them. Next, it is clear that Ted had no knowledge of that specific contract let alone its financial details. Therefore Ted has a good legal argument. Again, Ted has already got Pete saying that he did not investigate the matter therefore he terminated Ted’s Contract without good cause. Pete was merely protecting himself when he was supposed to protect the interests of his employee as well. For all we know, and he could have been knowingly framing Ted for something Ted did not do.
4.Question 1The covenant is not reasonable.
Question 2 No. A court would not enforce them, at least not entirely.
Question 3Regarding part (a)
The plaintiff is a professional and his profession makes him obligated to serve his community anywhere regardless of his previous employment at Lifespan. It is correct and in the interests of lifespan for the plaintiff not to report or take any patient chart from Lifespan because there would be new professionals to handle them. This part is reasonable and would be enforced by any court if it were to be presented independently.
However, restricting him from soliciting referrals is not fair. Not fair to the Plaintiff and not fair to the patient because patients are only referred if they don’t like their current medical service provider or if their current health care provider is not capable of handling them. Plus, they should be free to choose any other healthcare provider regardless of their history with Lifespan.
Lastly, Lifespan does not legally own the properties in the 10 mile radii from which they wish to restrict the plaintiff from operating, in the event of termination. If they feel that they are fine enough to handle their patients, they should be reasonable enough to be capable of handling competition because competition is always good for the consumer, who in this case is the patient, therefore the court would rule if favour of the plaintiff.