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.