International Municipal Lawyers Association - Local Government Blog

Will The Presidential Election Results Bring a Change to “At-Will” Employment Status? | November 6, 2008

Posted By: Dan Crean, Crean Law Office, Pembroke, New Hampshire
Elections often bring about change – some major, some minor. The 2008 election is no exception and raises the prospect that 2009 might see enactment of federal and state legislation seeking to abolish “at-will” employment status among public sector employees, if not across both public and private sector employment. Most studies conclude that today the vast majority of states provide only limited exceptions to at-will employment. Exceptions may be based on generally applicable concepts such as state anti-discrimination laws that limit employer discretion which is tied to prohibited criteria. Other laws may require “cause” for imposition of discipline or discharge against selected occupations or positions. Most states also ban retaliation in the form of discharge or discipline for at least some employees who engage in whistleblowing.

Given the traditional labor and union backing for Democratic candidates, it is conceivable that legislative proposals barring or limiting at-will status will find greater support in upcoming legislative sessions in both Congress and State Legislatures.

In what is now generally described as a “global economy,” one might posit the notion that legislative bodies in this country will seek to join countries such as Canada, France, Germany, England, Italy, Japan, and Sweden in requiring that employers demonstrate “good cause” before terminating an employee.

Indeed, in 1991, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws crafted the “Model Employment Termination Act” which requires, inter alia, that any qualified employee may not have his or here employment terminated without “good cause.” The model law contains certain exceptions based on number of employees and employees must have been employed for a minimum period to come under its protections. The model act allows states to determine applicability to local governments. To this author’s knowledge, it has not been adopted by any state as of this date. For more information, go to

Even if legislatures resist pressure to enact modifications of at-will status, secondary approaches may include actions, such as that which occurred in New Hampshire to facilitate public employee unions and collective bargaining. Though the New Hampshire General Court (its Legislature) retained the minimum required number of employees necessary to certify a bargaining unit at ten, it amended the law to allow a governing board to recognize, voluntarily, units consisting of fewer than ten employees. Given past legislative failures to reduce that threshold and the reluctance of the State Legislature to “mandate” collective bargaining, this new law seeks a back door to promoting unionization of the public workforce by raising the potential for electing governing board members based on their support for collective bargaining (and its virtually inevitable result of substituting “for cause” employment for “at-will” status).

Municipal lawyers should consider how to respond to the possibility of changing from “at-will” to “for-cause” status.

Posted in Employment

1 Comment »

  1. The model act sounds very much like what the Montana legislature enacted in 1987. See 39-2-901, MCA. It was spurred by some state supreme court cases finding that there was an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that had been violated with some at-will terminations that led to seven figure jury verdicts. The idea was to more narrowly define what a wrongful termination was – to narrow rather than expand the scope of liability. I know the author got a lot of inquiries regarding the act and good old Big Sky Country may have provided the foundation for the model act.

    As far as what way the unions would push this, I’m not so sure. One thing they can offer their members now is the right to grieve a termination. Acts like Montana’s give the same rights to non-union employees, making union membership less of a benefit. I heard union lobbyists making that comment in the halls, but they came to the hearing and supported the bill because it was a question of fundamental fairness.

    Comment by Kelly Addy — November 6, 2008 @ 9:37 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

About author

This blog is made possible by the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA), but may include guest bloggers (who are attorneys with experience in local government matters) who might or might not work for IMLA. Their views (and those expressed on this site) do not necessarily express the views of IMLA.







%d bloggers like this: