Health care law response to classmate week 2

I need to response to this classmate first I will post my answer and then you can see what the classmate post wish I need to reply .

me: No the CEO cannot fire Leikvold. This case can be determined based on the decision that was made in the Chaudri vs. Migrant services organization. In the United States in 1997, Chaudri also worked as a volunteer with migrant service company in the US (Leong, 2010). Moreover, she did not have a contract and was never told that the hospital would not discharge her without a cause. However, less than two years into the work, she claimed sexual discrimination and was later fired by the company (Leong, 2010). However, the matter was taken to a courts’ tribunal who determined that; though she did not formally sign a contract, but it existed. This decision was based on the fact that the company paid all her wages and expenses when she was present and absent from work. Therefore, regular payments of these expenses became wages. Hence, Chaudri had the right of being treated equally like other employees who were on permanent contracts.

Based on this decision, I believe that the wages paid to Leikvold when she was on and off duty were wages and a clear indication that she was one of the employees at this health care organization. Hence, the CEO has no right to fire her.

Reference

Leong, S. (2010). Volunteers and the law. Online at: https://www.dsc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/12.30-13.30-Volunteers-and-the-law.pdf

My classmate: Discussion post

Joan has been an employee of the Valley View community since 1972. She has been working as an operating manager. However, she was not given an employment contract with an expiration date nor assured that her employment contract would only be terminated with a valid reason. She only received a copy of the hospital’s policy document and was instructed to abide by it throughout her work with the facility. She is promoted to nursing director after several years. She, however, asks to be transferred. 

At-Will employment contract

An employment contract is an agreement between an employer and an employee. The rights, obligations, commitments, and employment terms constitute the legal relationship between an employer and an employee (Bowie, 2019). An employment contract may be oral or written. There are different types of employment contracts. 

Joan is in an at–will contract. When an employment contract specifies that a person’s employment is at will, it means that either the employer or employee may terminate the contract at any time. Employment agreements in the united states traditionally governed the common law idea of employment at will. According to this rule, participants in an employment contract could unilaterally end the contract without any reason, at any time, and without repercussion in the absence of a written contract (Bagenstos, 2020). In this case, Joan or the employer can terminate the contract without a valid reason. Over the years, however, many states have recognized exceptions under this rule to help regulate the conditions under which employees can be fired.

After Joan was promoted to the director of nursing position, she requested to be transferred back to her original position. The CEO, however, terminated her contract for the reason of insubordination. He claimed that it was improper for an employee to take up subordinate jobs at a higher position. Joan changed her mind about transferring to a subordinate position, but the CEO fired her.

Insubordination

Insubordination occurs when an employee refuses expressly or impliedly to follow a management or supervisor’s legal instructions after fully comprehending or acknowledging them(Bagenstos, 2020). In simple terms, insubordination refers to any situation in which management or the employer issues a directive, and the employee accepts the instructions but fails to carry it out. It is, therefore, evident that the reason stated by the CEO for termination needs to be corrected. The actions committed by Joan do not constitute insubordination. Requesting to be reverted to the previous position before promotion does not show a refusal to follow instructions given by an employer or supervisor. The motives of the CEO lack good faith and fair dealing, which is one of the exceptions to the doctrine of at-will employment. He gives a false reason which constitutes dishonesty. This amounts to discrimination which is also an exception in at-will contracts. The reason should not be discriminatory.

Conclusion

The CEO should refrain from firing Joan. The reason given by him for dismissal is false, and her actions do not amount to insubordination. The acts of the CEO are not in good faith. Joan can institute proceedings in a court of law for unfair termination of contract against the CEO. Employers are barred from unfairly terminating employees.