The employment-at-will doctrine

1. There is a difference between an employee that reports a serious or violent crime to the police and an employee that reports someone stealing paper clips. The differentiation lies in the determination of the severity of the crime. Raping an individual would constitute a felony and stealing cars or car parts dependent upon the determined value would also constitute a felony. However, stealing paper clips is not serve or violent crime.
However, stealing paper clips usually is dealt with from the inside of the company by company officials. This notion was further demonstrated in this case as the court ruling found that ” public policy favored citizen crime fighters and the exposure of criminal activity” (Muhl, 2001, p. 2). Thus ruling that stealing a screwdriver and car parts are not in the same category and protection extends to Palmateer.
2. This crime occurring at International Harvester does call for more severity than stealing a two-dollar screwdriver. Stealing car parts and selling them is more complicated than stealing a screwdriver. Obtaining stole car parts and selling them is an illegal deed regardless of who or where the car parts are being stolen from. This operation may expose thefts to stores, or people. Due to the nature of this crime, the good faith clause is applicable to this situation.
3. Terminated works have some rights that extend past the termination. The termination should not be discussed with other workers in regard to the reason for termination. Further, the former work has the right to confidentiality. Thus if a new potential employer calls to verify the employee was employed at the facility they should not release details of the termination. This is confidential information and the company may be sued. In addition, the former employer may not say anything that may be detrimental to the former employee’s character. This release of information (whether it is true or factious information) may cause the employee not to receive the potential job. This situation presents the defamation of character.
To further instill the rights of public policy this case occurred in a state that a good faith clause.