CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
Heard at the Staff Meeting
U.S. Employment Law is a Fragmented “Work in Progress”
Sources of Employment Law
Substantive Rights under Employment Law
Turner v. Memorial Medical Center
Determining Which Employment Laws Apply
Historical Development of U.S. Employment Law
Procedures for Enforcing Employment Laws
Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes
, The Changing Workplace: Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures
Enforceability of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements
Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange
Remedies for Violations of Employment Laws
The Role of Managers in Legal Compliance
, CASE QUESTIONS
TURNER v. MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER
911 N.E.2d 369 (Ill. 2009)
A hospital respiratory therapist was terminated for comments that he made to surveyors
from a hospital accreditation organization. Representatives of the organization were in the
hospital to determine whether the hospital should continue to be accredited (and thus
eligible for Medicaid and Medicare funding). The representatives asked to speak with the
therapist, who truthfully informed them that his department’s policy of allowing entries to
be made at any time during an employee’s shift conflicted with the accrediting
organization’s standard that entries in patients’ charts be made immediately after treatment
is provided. The therapist also opined that this jeopardized patient safety. The employee
was terminated shortly after the meeting, which had also been attended by a hospital V.P.
The lower courts had dismissed the therapist wrongful termination claim.
1. What was the legal issue? What did the court decide?
The issue was whether the termination was wrongful under the “tort of retaliatory discharge”
(public policy exception to employment at will). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed dismissal
of the employee’s claim.
2. The plaintiff, a long-time employee with “excellent” work performance, was apparently
terminated for being truthful about hospital record-keeping practices. Why, then, is the
termination not illegal?
Under employment at will, it does not matter that this was a good employee who was apparently
terminated for speaking truthfully. The hospital’s actions did not have to be fair, reasonable, or
not unduly harsh. The only relevant issue is whether the employee could bear the burden of
proving that his termination was wrongful under one of the established exceptions to employment
at will. In order to do so in this case, he needed to show that he acted in support of a clear,
dominant public policy, that he was terminated for those actions, and that allowing employees to
be terminated under such circumstances would undermine public policy. He failed to satisfy the
court that his actions were taken pursuant to a clear public policy.
, 3. Do you think that decisions like this make it less likely that healthcare workers will come
forward with their concerns about practices that jeopardize patient safety or the quality of their
care?
While this case does not stand for the proposition that there is no legal protection for
healthcare employees who report employer actions that threaten patient safety, it does
serve as a cautionary tale illustrating the general reluctance of courts to interfere with
employers’ decisions to terminate at will employees. This case did not involve dramatic
allegations, but it is conceivable that patients could be harmed by record keeping lapses, as
staff either forget to eventually record treatments and patients receive multiple
administrations of the same treatments or assumptions are made that treatments were
provided but not yet recorded when the treatments had not been provided at all.
4. Do you agree with the court’s decision? Why or why not? How far should courts go in
protecting employees from wrongful termination?
This case provides a first opportunity for students to consider and debate the merits of
employment at will.
WAL-MART STORES v. DUKES
2011 U.S. LEXIS 4567
Wal-Mart was sued by female employees who alleged that they were discriminated against in
promotions and pay. The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action lawsuit and an appeals
court certified a class of plaintiffs that encompassed perhaps 1.5 million female current and
former employees nationwide.
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Supreme Court decide?
OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
Heard at the Staff Meeting
U.S. Employment Law is a Fragmented “Work in Progress”
Sources of Employment Law
Substantive Rights under Employment Law
Turner v. Memorial Medical Center
Determining Which Employment Laws Apply
Historical Development of U.S. Employment Law
Procedures for Enforcing Employment Laws
Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes
, The Changing Workplace: Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures
Enforceability of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements
Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange
Remedies for Violations of Employment Laws
The Role of Managers in Legal Compliance
, CASE QUESTIONS
TURNER v. MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER
911 N.E.2d 369 (Ill. 2009)
A hospital respiratory therapist was terminated for comments that he made to surveyors
from a hospital accreditation organization. Representatives of the organization were in the
hospital to determine whether the hospital should continue to be accredited (and thus
eligible for Medicaid and Medicare funding). The representatives asked to speak with the
therapist, who truthfully informed them that his department’s policy of allowing entries to
be made at any time during an employee’s shift conflicted with the accrediting
organization’s standard that entries in patients’ charts be made immediately after treatment
is provided. The therapist also opined that this jeopardized patient safety. The employee
was terminated shortly after the meeting, which had also been attended by a hospital V.P.
The lower courts had dismissed the therapist wrongful termination claim.
1. What was the legal issue? What did the court decide?
The issue was whether the termination was wrongful under the “tort of retaliatory discharge”
(public policy exception to employment at will). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed dismissal
of the employee’s claim.
2. The plaintiff, a long-time employee with “excellent” work performance, was apparently
terminated for being truthful about hospital record-keeping practices. Why, then, is the
termination not illegal?
Under employment at will, it does not matter that this was a good employee who was apparently
terminated for speaking truthfully. The hospital’s actions did not have to be fair, reasonable, or
not unduly harsh. The only relevant issue is whether the employee could bear the burden of
proving that his termination was wrongful under one of the established exceptions to employment
at will. In order to do so in this case, he needed to show that he acted in support of a clear,
dominant public policy, that he was terminated for those actions, and that allowing employees to
be terminated under such circumstances would undermine public policy. He failed to satisfy the
court that his actions were taken pursuant to a clear public policy.
, 3. Do you think that decisions like this make it less likely that healthcare workers will come
forward with their concerns about practices that jeopardize patient safety or the quality of their
care?
While this case does not stand for the proposition that there is no legal protection for
healthcare employees who report employer actions that threaten patient safety, it does
serve as a cautionary tale illustrating the general reluctance of courts to interfere with
employers’ decisions to terminate at will employees. This case did not involve dramatic
allegations, but it is conceivable that patients could be harmed by record keeping lapses, as
staff either forget to eventually record treatments and patients receive multiple
administrations of the same treatments or assumptions are made that treatments were
provided but not yet recorded when the treatments had not been provided at all.
4. Do you agree with the court’s decision? Why or why not? How far should courts go in
protecting employees from wrongful termination?
This case provides a first opportunity for students to consider and debate the merits of
employment at will.
WAL-MART STORES v. DUKES
2011 U.S. LEXIS 4567
Wal-Mart was sued by female employees who alleged that they were discriminated against in
promotions and pay. The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action lawsuit and an appeals
court certified a class of plaintiffs that encompassed perhaps 1.5 million female current and
former employees nationwide.
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Supreme Court decide?
