Sounds More Like an Interrogation

Have you ever had to go through the pain of a job interview?   Me?  I've done lots of them.

Among other things, what I got out of the interviewing experience was a long list of illegal questions potential employers ought not ask in an interview.

 Why?

Most illegal questions focus around one thing - they don't relate to how a job is to be performed.

Samples of illegal questions include:

• How old are you?  Why illegal: Age discrimination is prohibited under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) if the applicant is 40 or older. Age should not factor into hiring decisions.
• Are you married?  Why illegal: Marital status is not relevant to job performance and may lead to discrimination based on marital or family status.
• Is English your first language?  Why illegal: Related to national origin discrimination.
• Do you have any disabilities? Why illegal: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits asking about disabilities before a job offer is made.
• Have you ever filed a Workers' Compensation claim?  Why illegal: This could lead to discrimination against individuals who have been injured and violates ADA protections.
• Have you ever been arrested?  Why illegal: While convictions may be relevant, arrests without convictions should not be used in hiring decisions, as it can lead to racial discrimination claims.
• Who do you live with?  Why illegal: Could reveal marital status, family structure, or sexual orientation, which may lead to discrimination.
• Do you drink or use drugs?  Why illegal: Employers cannot ask about past substance abuse; they may only ask if you can perform job duties safely.

Recently, I had an interview for the position of library director of a public library.  Yeah, I know - not legal.  But over time, you realize that all library's have the same issues.  

One question they asked (and it was couched in a way so try to make it less obtrusive saying "We ask everyone this question - like that makes it all better): 

If we were to look at your social media content, would we find anything objectionable?

First, what does "objectionable" mean?  What might be objectionable to one person might not be to another.  

To the point of whether it is a legal question, or not, the question itself is not explicitly illegal under federal law.  However, it is risky and can lead to illegal discrimination if used improperly.

So, how might this question about social media be be problematic?

While reviewing publicly available information is legal, asking about it during an interview could:

• Pressure candidates to disclose personal information (which it did and, by their reactions, is what they were hoping for),
• Create a chilling effect on lawful off-duty conduct (some states, like California and New York, protect lawful off-duty activities).

In addition, questions about social media usage could suggest implied off-duty conduct discrimination. In many states, it is illegal to discriminate against lawful off-duty conduct, such as political activity, social associations, or lifestyle choices that are not job-related.

Another reason questions about social media usage are problematic is because this type of question leads to potential for discrimination based on protected categories such as:

• Age (ADEA) 
• National origin (Title VII)
• Race or ethnicity (Title VII)
• Religion (Title VII)
• Sexual orientation or gender identity (Title VII, EEOC interpretations)
• Disability (ADA) 
• Pregnancy (Pregnancy Discrimination Act)

Finally, if an employer later rejects the candidate, the candidate could argue the rejection was based on information discovered through social media about protected characteristics.

A better question they could have asked me might have been: 

This role requires maintaining a professional image consistent with our code of conduct, including public-facing behavior and communication. Can you comply with this expectation?”

OR

We expect employees to adhere to our social media policy regarding confidentiality and professionalism. Are you comfortable with this policy?

Other questions which are not in-and-of-themselves illegal but suggest an illegal motive thereby making them illegal questions include:

• Can you work nights or weekends?  Not illegal in itself if the job requires it.  Becomes illegal if used to screen out candidates based on religious practices or caregiving responsibilities (religion, gender, family status).  Example: Denying a candidate who observes a religious Sabbath without exploring whether accommodation violates Title VII.
• Do you have reliable  transportation? Not illegal in itself.  Becomes illegal if used to screen out individuals based on disability (can’t drive due to medical reasons) or economic status. 
• What club or organizations to you belong to?  Not illegal in itself.  Becomes illegal if it seeks to uncover religious, political, or protected affiliations or if the information is used for discrimination. 
• Can you lift 50 pounds?  Not illegal if it is a bona fide job requirement.  Becomes illegal if asked without stating it is a job requirement and is used to screen out individuals with disabilities, violating the ADA. 
• What year did you graduate?  Not illegal in itself.  Becomes illegal if it is used to determine age, violating ADEA protections. 
• Have you ever been arrested?  Not illegal to discuss convictions related to job duties.  Becomes illegal because arrest records alone should not be used in employment decisions, leading to disparate impact on certain racial groups. 
• Are you planning on starting a family soon?  Not illegal to ask about availability.  Becomes illegal because it suggests gender/pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. 

So, why are these questions illegal?  Essentially, the motive behind the question and how the information is used determines legality.  Questions that can elicit information about protected categories (age, disability, gender, religion, national origin, etc.) and influence hiring decisions violate:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (race, color, religion, sex, national origin)
• ADA (disability)
• ADEA (age 40+)
• Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Immigration Reform and Control Act (work authorization vs. citizenship)

Bottom line, if you aren't sure whether you should ask a question and are concerned that it might expose you to liability, your best bet would be to either run it past legal first or just not ask that question.

I'm just sayin. 

On the Down-Low

A few months back, I did a blog on insider trading at the Congressional level and I uncovered something suspicious.

The whole idea behind stopping Congressional "leaders" from conducting stock trades while in office is because they have access to non-public information on which they make their trades/money.  

Case in point would be how Pelosi made her millions.  With an annual salary of $174,000, Pelosi was still able to score a 54% increase in net worth in 2024 out performing the S&P 500's 25% gain during the same period!

I think, though, that Rep. Ilhan Oman might have Pelosi beat.  In 2019, Ms. Oman's net worth was a NEGATIVE $45,000. 

In a recent financial disclosure report for Rep. Ilhan Omar and her husband, Tim Mynett, it was shown that their joint net worth was valued between approximately $6 million and $30 million. This represents a significant increase, with some estimates citing a 3,500% surge from the previous year's filing for the relevant assets.

So, yeah, politicians are filthy liars if they say they are not engaging in insider trading or are otherwise dealing in some under the table shenanigans.

But this is not the point of this blog.

In 2012, Congress passed the Stock Act (i.e. the "Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012"). The Stock Act was passed to prevent insider trading by members of Congress and federal employees.

It required:

• Lawmakers and many high-level executive officials to publicly post their financial disclosure reports online (in a searchable, downloadable database).

• Post regular updates about stock trades and financial transactions.

• Deliver greater transparency to help the public monitor potential conflicts of interest.

This would have been great but for the fact that in 2013 (little over a year after the Stock Act was signed into law), Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced Senate Bill ("SB") 716 during the 113th Congress (2013–2014).  What SB 716 did was:

1. Eliminated the requirement that the financial disclosure forms of about 28,000 senior federal officials be posted online in a publicly searchable database.

2. Delayed, then repealed, the implementation of that online disclosure requirement.

3. Limited online disclosure to only the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and candidates — not to staff or most executive branch employees.

Text summary from Congress.gov:

“S.716 modifies the STOCK Act by eliminating the requirement for the online posting of financial disclosure forms for executive branch employees and judicial officers, and for making those forms available to the public through an online searchable database.”

I mean, they say all this with such finesse like it's no big deal.  Well, it's no big deal if you're a politician looking at having to be transparent with the people who elected you.  For we the people who go to jail if we so much as not declare 50 cents to the IRS, it's a HUGE deal!

Essentially, SB 716 de-fanged the Stock Act's key provisions.

What is missing from this scenario is that Congress did all this backdoor legislation using a sneaky procedural rule called UNANIMOUS CONSENT ("UC").  

UC refers to a procedural agreement that allows the House of Representatives or the Senate to expedite action by bypassing formal rules—as long as no member objects.

 

So, why might Congress use UC for seemingly insignificant measures.  There are a few political and structural reasons:

• Avoiding accountability:
  UC avoids roll call votes. No one has to go on record, which shields members from criticism later.

• Preserving Senate “efficiency”:
  Leadership prefers UC to avoid days of floor debate — especially when the bill appears harmless.

• Optics management:
  Some controversial bills are rushed through UC when leadership wants to minimize media coverage or public awareness (as with S. 716).

• Collegial courtesy:
  Senators often grant UC as a favor to colleagues, even when the underlying issue might deserve deeper scrutiny.

So, on April 11, 2013, BOTH the House and Senate agreed to push this amendment to the Stock Act and get signed by POTUS Obama on the same day.  

Do you realize how impossible it is to get a bill passed by both houses AND be signed by the POTUS on the SAME DAY?!?!?

I queried Chatgpt on the topic and it said:

I could not find a reliable source that gives a complete count of how many times in the last 50 years a bill was introduced, passed by both houses, and signed into law (by the POTUS (who, at the time, was obama) on the very same day. Such cases are very rare, and I found at least one example (S. 716 in 2013) but no comprehensive record. 

I mean, Congress really, REALLY wanted this bill to pass without a hitch in the worst way - and I really wonder why?

While any Congressperson will tell you that SB 716 was a small and insignificant amendment, it had HUGE implications all because they were able to ram it through using the unanimous consent procedure.

The problem with the usage of UC is that it presents a number of problems.  If nothing else, what’s “small” to Congress may be huge to citizens.  Other issues to note when Congress employs UC include:

• Your right to see what your representatives are doing (transparency laws),

• How your taxes are spent (appropriations and relief bills),

• Your rights and privacy (surveillance, judicial, or defense acts),

• Or how government power is distributed (administrative and procedural changes).

After going through this, I got to wondering if there were other small/insignificant bills that were ramrodded through Congress like SB 716.

Turns out, there are/were, like:

So, why does any of this matter?  

Well, by allowing technical details to pass by unopposed, democratic accountability is weakened when decisions are made without public record or discussion.  

When UC is employed, public trust erodes when Congress passes self-serving or complex measures quietly.

Finally, transparency advocates (like OpenSecrets, Sunlight Foundation, and CRS analysts) have warned for years that UC is both a procedural convenience and a cloak of invisibility.

Of course, when looking at transparency and Congresses lack of any transparency, I hear the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi when describing the boondoggle of what was to become the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare):  

"We have to pass the bill," she said, "so that you can find out  what is in it."

If that isn't the gist of all things NON-transparent, nothing is.

Bottom line: as long as Congress is able (and willing) to ramrod any legislation with procedures like Unanimous Consent, there is no way we the people can trust that what they are doing is in anyone's best interest - except their own.

How Not to Give the Police a Reason to Arrest You While You're Out Driving Your Car

It's the holiday season, again, and you know what that means?  That's right - another round of police trying to search your car whilst driving to grandma's house.

Seems every time I hop on the the Internet there's a slew more articles/videos of police doing everything they can to get in someone's car.

I gotta wonder why police do everything they can to get people to consent to a search and why people think consenting to a search at a traffic stop is a good thing?

So, picture it - you're driving along (to grandmothers house) and you get pulled over by highway patrol.  Police approach and right off they ask if they can search your car.  Without giving any legal advice here, what might you do to avoid giving consent to a search?

1. Clearly and Politely Say No to a Search

According to Egzon Hasi of White Law PLLC, many people believe police can search cars during traffic stops, but that’s only semi-true. Cops can only search vehicles during traffic stops when they establish probable cause.

However, if you don't want police to search your car, you must actually say you do not consent — silence can sometimes be taken as consent.

Example phrases you can calmly use:

• “I do not consent to any searches.”

• “No, officer, I do not agree to a search.”

• “I do not give you permission to search my car.”

Keep your tone calm, non-aggressive, and respectful.

2. Do Not Physically Interfere

If the cop does get you out of our car or just reaches in through the open window to open the door themselves, don't (as in never) touch the officer, block them, or resist physically — that can escalate to arrest.  Just state your refusal verbally and stay still with your hands visible.

3. Avoid Volunteering Information

According to Brendan Fernsten, managing partner at Barns & Fernsten, volunteering more information than what is legally required can inadvertently lead to self-incrimination. This could include providing information about your whereabouts, actions, or intentions–even if it seems innocuous, it can lead to further investigation and potential legal complications.

Example:  

Officer says, "do you know how fast you were going?"  

Officer says, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

Officer says, "Where are you coming from?" 

So,do not give extra details about where you’ve been or what’s in your car — keep answers short, provide only what is legally required: license, registration, proof of insurance, and know that small talk or nervous chatter can accidentally give officers a “reason” to escalate.

4. Clarify if You Are Free to Go

The Thiessen Law Firm notes that: once the purpose of the stop is complete — whether you’ve received a citation or just a warning — you are legally free to leave unless the officer has developed legitimate, reasonable suspicion of another crime.

You can politely ask: am I being detained, or am I free to go?”  If they say you’re free to go, calmly leave.  If they say you’re detained, you still have the right to refuse a search unless they have probable cause or a warrant.

5. Do Not Open the Door or Trunk Unless Required

Legal Zoom notes that the Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court has looked at several cases involving Fourth Amendment rights and warrantless searches. In most instances, the officer can conduct a search if they have probable cause to do so.

It is important to note that cars are generally excepted from the advance warrant requirement because of their mobile nature. This gives police license to conduct warrantless searches of cars - provided they can find probable cause (which is actually easy to do). 

In Chimel v. California, 295 U.S. 752 (1969) the court held that police might search the person and all areas under a person's control or reach.  This reasoning may be applied in the case of a trunk. It would be in control of the car's driver, and barring some unusual circumstance, within his or her reach. A trunk generally conceals its contents. So, an officer may look there if there is a belief that what he is searching for might be in the trunk.

Regrdless, while officers may casually say, “Pop the trunk” or “Open the glove box, ” if you do not want to consent:  Politely say, “I do not consent to searches.”  Only open compartments if required for documents (e.g., registration) — and do so slowly and carefully.

6. Remain Calm & Professional

• Keep hands on the wheel where they can see them.

• Avoid sudden movements.

• Do not argue or insult the officer — anger can escalate the situation.  This means don't start swearing at the police officer.  Even IF they don't have probably cause to search your vehicle, they'll figure something out or make up a crime just to delay you from getting to grandmas house.  I mean, have you never seen any YouTube videos where police make up stuff?  Happens a lot and because people do stupid things to piss off a cop.

• If pressured (“If you’ve got nothing to hide…”), just repeat:  “I understand, but I do not consent to searches.”

7. Record the Encounter (If Legal in Your State)

Many states allow you to film police during traffic stops as long as you don’t interfere.  In fact, the 10th circuit noted in Irizarry v. Yehia, No. 21-1247 (10th Cir. 2022) that “filming the police and other public officials as they perform their official duties acts as ‘a watchdog of government activity’” and is a constitutional right. So, go ahead and:

• Use your phone dash-mount or voice recorder.

• Calmly state: “For my safety and yours, I’m recording this interaction.”

8. Know Exceptions

Even if you refuse, police can sometimes still search if they have:

• Probable cause (e.g., they smell marijuana, see contraband in plain view).

• Exigent circumstances (they believe evidence will be destroyed or someone is in danger).

• An arrest (they can search the car for weapons or evidence).

Now, I'm not an (or your) attorney but after careful research and examination of the laws of the land, it would behoove you, if you're ever pulled over, to:

1. Be polite.  
2. Give short answers.  
3. Clearly state you do not consent to a search of your vehicle. 

and soon enough you'll be back on the road on your merry way to grandma's house (and not jail). 

Word of the Month for December 2025: Constitutional Republic v. Democracy

Ever since the election in November 2024, I've been hearing the terms "Constitutional Republic" and "Democracy" getting batted around like beach balls at a Beach Boys concert.  

What is bothersome is that because so many people of importance (self, or otherwise) have been mixing these terms, there is a risk that both or either of the terms will be as generalized and common as "statutes" and "code" (which are NOT the same thing).

Wait, generalized?  What do you mean by that?

Well, certain formerly trademarked terms have, over the years, become so overused that they've become part of the public domain and are no longer protected under Trademark laws.

You've heard these terms but you may not know that what you are saying was once trademarked or otherwise important terms that have become more common over time.  Some better known examples include:

See what I'm talking about?  If nothing is done to ensure that terms like "Constitutional Republic" and "Democracy" maintain their distinctive meanings, then we the people will become no more unique than Jolly Old England (from which we split back in the 1700 's).

So, before we get too far into this, let's define each of these terms.  

A Constitutional Republic is a form of government in which citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, and the government's power is limited and defined by a written constitution. 

This constitution establishes the fundamental principles and laws, protects individual rights, and outlines the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to prevent any one branch from gaining too much control.

Key features of a Constitutional Republic include:

• Elected leaders (including the head of state, often a president) rather than hereditary rulers

• A system of checks and balances to balance power and prevent tyranny, especially protecting minority rights from majority rule

• Government authority derived from and limited by the constitution, ensuring rule of law applies equally to all citizens

• Citizens participate indirectly by voting for representatives rather than directly on all laws, distinguishing it from a direct democracy

A Democracy is defined as: a system of government in which supreme power resides with the people, who exercise that power either directly or through elected representatives under a free and fair electoral system. The term literally means "rule by the people" (from Greek demos "people" and kratos "power").  Essentially, the majority rules.  A person's individual rights are secondary to the majority rule.

Key characteristics of democracy include

• Popular sovereignty: The people hold ultimate authority and govern themselves.

• Political equality: Every citizen’s vote or voice has equal weight in decisions.

• Participation: Citizens participate either by voting directly on laws (direct democracy) or by electing officials to represent them (representative democracy).

• Rule of law and protection of individual rights: Democracies typically uphold laws that protect freedoms, equality before the law, and minority rights, preventing unchecked majority rule.

• Mechanisms for accountability: Fair elections, freedom of speech, and peaceful transfer of power allow citizens to hold officials responsible.

The primary difference between the two is that a Constitutional Republic is governed by a foundational document (a Constitution) that limits government power to protect individual and minority rights.  A pure democracy operates on the principle of majority rule with fewer inherent protections for the minority. 

A key problem with mixing up or watering down the terms "Constitutional Republic" and "Democracy" can be problematic is because it obscures critical distinctions that affect how people understand government structure, individual rights, and the protection against majority tyranny.

A pure democracy centers on majority rule which can risk the tyranny of the majority where the majority may impose laws or policies detrimental to historical minorities or to people who don't want to do what the majority wants them to do.

"So what," you might say?  

Even though we are a Constitutional Republic, there are a number of times when Majority Rule (i.e. Democracy) took over, over the years.  For example: if you're old enough to remember, in the 1950's-60's, blacks and Mexicans were regarded as less than due to Majority Rule.  

Railroad companies imported thousands of Chinese workers to build railroads networks that crisscrossed America and then exiled them to slums when the work was done or prohibited Chinese from immigrating to the U.S. due to Majority Rule.  

While those of Japanese descent were carted off to internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor, I can't remember any internment camps for those of German descent when Hitler declared war on America - all thanks to Majority Rule.

So, "so, what"?!  The "so what" is that if there is no distinction between "Constitutional Republic" and "Democracy," the vocal minority will overtake the will of the silent majority in no time, flat!

What is particularly annoying is that notwithstanding the important distinction between the two concepts, there are a number of modern politicians who seemingly disregard the importance of the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy, such as:

Joe Biden (former POTUS)

“We have to defend democracy. That’s who we are as Americans.”
— Biden, Speech in Philadelphia, September 2022

“Democracy is on the ballot.”
— Biden, November 2, 2022, speech on threats to democracy

“Democracy is more than a form of government; it’s who we are.”
— Biden, Inaugural Address, January 20, 2021

Analysis: Biden consistently frames the United States as a democracy in identity and governance, emphasizing threats to “democracy” but not distinguishing it from the U.S. being a constitutional republic.

Kamala Harris (Former Vice President)

“We must defend our democracy, protect our democracy, and strengthen our democracy.”
— Harris, Speech in Selma, Alabama, March 5, 2023

“We are a democracy, and our democracy is strongest when everyone participates.”
— Harris, July 2022, National Urban League Conference

Analysis: Harris regularly equates America’s system with “democracy” in public speeches, using it to describe the system itself rather than acknowledging its republican constitutional structure.

Barack Obama (Former POTUS)

“Democracy does not work if people do not vote.”
— Obama, Speech at University of Illinois, September 7, 2018

“We are the only advanced democracy that deliberately discourages people from voting.”
— Obama, August 28, 2020, eulogy for John Lewis

“Our democracy is at stake.”
— Obama, various campaign speeches 2020–2022

Analysis: Obama frequently uses “democracy” as shorthand for the American system and for electoral participation, with no distinction from the structural identity as a constitutional republic.

Nancy Pelosi (Former Speaker of the House)

“We have to fight for our democracy.”
— Pelosi, January 6, 2022, Capitol Remembrance

“The sanctity of the vote is the foundation of our democracy.”
— Pelosi, July 2021, on voting rights legislation

Analysis: Pelosi consistently frames the U.S. system as “our democracy,” emphasizing voting as its foundation, without reference to constitutional republican principles.

Hillary Clinton (Former Secretary of State)

“Our democracy is under assault.”
— Clinton, October 2020 interview with The Atlantic

“We need to protect our democracy.”
— Clinton, various campaign appearances 2016–2020

Analysis: Clinton, like other modern Democrats, uses “democracy” to describe the American system, focusing on electoral participation without acknowledging the U.S. as a Constitutional Republic.

OK, OK, enough with the political rhetoric, what I want to know is how distinguishing between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy actually helps the modern attorney and/or legal system under which we now operate.

As it happens, there are a number of reasons why it is important to distinguish between a Constitutional Republic and Democracy for the modern lawyer.  

Lawyers Operate Under a Constitutional Framework, Not Pure Majority Rule

In a constitutional republic, laws, policies, and government actions must comply with the Constitution.  So, even if a majority of voters or legislators support a law, if it violates constitutional rights (e.g., First Amendment, due process), lawyers can challenge it in court.  This means lawyers can protect minority rights and individual liberties against majority preferences.  

 

For example, even if 80% of voters passed a state law banning certain speech, lawyers can still challenge it as unconstitutional.  In a pure democracy, that law would stand because it reflects the majority’s will.

 

Judicial Review Exists Because We Are a Constitutional Republic

Presently, lawyers have the ability and opportunity to argue constitutional challenges in federal and state courts (e.g., using the Supremacy Clause, the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment).  Under a Constitutional Republic, courts have the authority to strike down laws that violate constitutional principles, regardless of how popular the law is. 

 

If we were purely a democracy without constitutional limits, lawyers would have no basis to overturn laws simply because they violate individual rights.

 

Protection of Clients' Rights Against Government Overreach

Lawyers rely on constitutional protections to defend clients against unlawful government action.  For example, in criminal cases, defense lawyers often use the 4th, 5th, 6th Amendments to challenge unlawful searches, coerced confessions, or unfair trials.  

 

Civil rights lawyers use 1st and 14th Amendments to challenge discriminatory laws.  These protections only exist because the Constitution is a higher law than that of the will of the majority.

 

Constitutional Limits Guide Legislative and Executive Actions

Lawyers advising government agencies, legislators, or executives must ensure policies conform to constitutional standards, not just public opinion.  

 

For example, election laws must comply with Voting Rights Act and other constitutional protections.  Also, criminal statutes must meet due process and equal protection standards.

Finally, in a constitutional republic, powers are divided between the federal and state governments as specified in the United States Constitution.  

 

Lawyers use these principles to challenge federal overreach under the 10th Amendment, assert state sovereignty, and determine jurisdictional questions in litigation.  In a pure democracy, there is no guaranteed distribution of powers between federal and state levels.

 

Bottom line is that lawyers function as our last line of defense defending the Constitutional order and our individual rights (like free speech, gun rights, voting rights) - which ONLY exist because we live in a Constitutional Republic.

 

That's the "so what"! 

 

Two (2) Weeks

Have you ever been fired?

So, picture it - you're cruising through your job, doing your thing aaaaaand you get called in to the bosses office (or HR)

where they tell you you are being terminated.  

 

Consequently,  you are ushered out the door without so much as a how do you do.

Which all seems odd.  Why, you might ask?  Well, why is it employers can terminate you and kick you to the curb THAT DAY (or even within seconds) but you the employee has to give 2 weeks notice before you leave?

I mean, it doesn't seem equitable that employers can do whatever they want but employees have to wait it out for 2 weeks at a place they hate.

Not equitable, at all.

I suspect it comes down to the fact that most states follow an at-will employment relationship.  For our purposes, at-will employment relationship is on where employers can fire you at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all as long as it’s not illegal (e.g., not because of race, religion, retaliation, etc.).

Conversely, employees can quit at any time for any reason, or with no reason given without legal penalty (unless they have a contract that says otherwise).

Even under an at-will employment relationship, employers cannot terminate you for reasons that violate:

• Federal or state discrimination laws (race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, pregnancy, etc.)

• Retaliation laws (for reporting harassment, OSHA violations, whistleblowing, filing workers’ comp claims, taking protected medical/military leave, etc.)

• Public policy (firing you for serving jury duty, voting, refusing to break the law).

• Contracts (union agreements, executive contracts, or even implied promises in handbooks).

While at-will employment relationships exist in most states, there are exceptions to the rule:

Montana (the only true "not-at-will" state):
After a probationary period (usually 12 months unless a contract is in play), employees can only be terminated for "good cause" under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA).

California
Is an at-will state (under Cal. Labor Code § 2922).  Recognizes implied contracts (i.e. handbooks and policies) that limit firing to "for cause."   Courts are willing to enforce these implied agreements.  Strong public-policy and whistleblower protections are also in play. 

Arizona
At-will by statute (A.R.S. § 23-1501) but recognizes implied-in-fact contracts and public policy exceptions broadly.

Nevada
Similar to California - strong recognition of implied contracts and public policy exceptions.  Even though at-will is the default, these Nevada laws carve out exceptions:

• NRS 613.330 – Prohibits termination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, or national origin (discrimination).
• NRS 613.340 – Prohibits retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices or filing a complaint.
• NRS 618.445 – Protects employees from retaliation for reporting workplace safety issues (OSHA).
• NRS 281.370 – Protects public employees from political activity discrimination.

Massachusetts
Recognizes implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which can require payment of earned commissions/benefits even if employment ends.  While there’s no single Massachusetts statute declaring “all employment is at-will,” several statutes limit at-will firing:

• Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 151B → Prohibits discrimination (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, etc.).

• Whistleblower Protection Act (Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 149, § 185) → Protects public employees from retaliation for reporting wrongdoing.

• Wage Act (Mass. Gen. Laws Ch.  149, §§ 148–150) wages, and can’t terminate to avoid payment.

• Public Policy Exception (Case Law) → Employees can’t be fired for exercising a legally guaranteed right (jury duty, filing workers’ comp, refusing to commit a crime).

New Jersey
Recognizes a broad "public policy" exception (Pierce v. Ortho Phamaceutical, 84 N.J. 58, 417 A.2d 505 (1980)). Terminations that violate public interest may be wrongful.

Delaware
Good faith/fair dealing exceptions recognizes, particularly when employer terminates to avoid paying benefits. Delaware’s at-will presumption is limited by various statutes, including:

• 19 Del. C. § 711 (Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act)  Prohibits termination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, genetic information, or national origin.

• 19 Del. C. § 1703 (Whistleblower Protection Act) Protects employees from retaliation for reporting violations of law.

• 19 Del. C. § 2365 (Workers’ Compensation Law) Prohibits retaliation for filing workers’ comp claims.

• Public Employee Protections  Certain public employees (teachers, police, firefighters) have statutory “for cause” protections, not at-will.

So, essentially, an at-will employment relationship says I can quit at any time and employers can terminate me at any time.  So where does the 2 weeks thing come in?

The 2 weeks thing comes into play because, as unwritten rules go, giving 2 weeks notice gives the employer time to find a replacement or transition work, which avoids burning bridges.  Also, employers are more likely to give good references if the employee leaves on good terms.  Finally, some companies have formal policies requiring notice to receive certain benefits (like a PTO payout).

OK, great, but why is there no stigma against employers just drop kicking an employee?  I'd say, it's because usually employers have more capital (i.e. money) and they know they have the upper hand.

I knew one friend of mine who got the boot and was tossed to the curb within mere minutes.  They didn't even let him clear out his desk.  

Why?

When an employer decides to terminate someone, they may want to act quickly (e.g., to protect trade secrets, avoid sabotage, or stop performance issues).  Employers might kick someone out poste haste because paying someone for an extra two weeks when they aren’t needed could be expensive.  An at-will employment relationship gives employers this discretion.

It all sounds so antiseptic but it doesn't take into account that pain-in-the bumpkis that is a result of being terminated without notice.

So, let's get down to brass tax.  MUST an employee give notice before they quit?

 

Short answer, no.  

There's no law saying you have to give notice before leaving.  Of course, unless you have copious amounts of cash just laying around, there is a whole lot of articles on why leaving without notice is not such a good idea like:

• Future References – If you want to use that job as a reference, leaving professionally may keep that door open.

• Networking Reputation – Industries can be smaller than they look. Your old boss might know your future boss.

• Transitioning Benefits – Some companies only pay out unused vacation/PTO if you give proper notice.

• Avoiding Burning Bridges – If you ever need to come back (or work with them indirectly), a professional exit keeps it from being awkward.

The thing about networking and maintaining future references, I had an instance where a former employer had to ask permission if she could give a reference.  I told her if she has to ask for "permission," don't bother - I'll find someone else.

As to burning brides, so what?  Walking on eggshells all the time is no way to live.  Besides, no employer is big enough to be able to interfere with a former employee's future employment without some consequences.

While at-will employment is prevalent in the majority of the United States, former employees have legal avenues to challenge unlawful interference with their future employment opportunities, such as:

1. Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal.4th 1140, 94 P.3d 1082, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 289 (2004) 

• Summary: The California Supreme Court held that a former employer could be liable for tortious interference with an at-will employment relationship if the interference involved unlawful or unethical conduct, such as misappropriating confidential information or improperly soliciting clients. The court emphasized that while at-will employment is generally terminable by either party, interference with such relationships through wrongful means is actionable.

2. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 117 S.Ct. 843, 137 L.Ed.2d 124 (1997) 

• Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's anti-retaliation provisions apply to former employees. In this case, the former employer allegedly provided a negative reference to a prospective employer in retaliation for the employee's prior discrimination complaint. The Court held that such post-employment retaliation is prohibited under Title VII.

3. Pantchenko v. C.B. Dolge Co., 581 F.2d 1052 (2d Cir. 1978)

• Summary: In this case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer's refusal to provide a reference and making disparaging statements about a former employee to prospective employers could constitute tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The court emphasized that such actions could harm the employee's ability to secure future employment.

4. Rutherford v. American Bank of Commerce, 565 F.2d 1162 (10th Cir. 1977)

• Summary: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a former employer's actions, including advising prospective employers that the employee had filed a Title VII sex discrimination suit, could constitute tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The court held that such actions could harm the employee's future employment prospects.

So, let's say you want to quit.  What can you do to convey the message, ensuring that there is no room for doubt for what you are doing, AND you do it in a classy enough way so that everyone leaves with a warm a fuzzy feeling?)?  Well, you can do what this guy did and everyone goes home feeling less funky.

So, whether you're a CEO with a huge golden parachute or a little guy (or gal) with no cash but a whole lot of moxie, know that you don't have to put up with an uppity employer and can just quit and leave whenever you want.