Be the Judge

Elaine has sued Jerry because Jerry fired her. Elaine was on the job for two months. The job offer letter she had been given mentioned the great career opportunities at the company and stated that her annual salary would be $30,000. The employer is an employment at will employer. Elaine was given no reason for the termination. After the termination, Jerry hired a man named Kramer, who had less job experience and education than Elaine, for the position. Elaine has sued to get her job back. (100 points)

Answer below:

Did the defendant engage in sex discrimination in violation of Title VII? Was Elaine wrongfully terminated? Did Jerry act ethically in this case?

In the case Elaine (plaintiff) vs. Jerry (defendant), the plaintiff is suing on basis of breach of the employment-at-will doctrine, wrongful termination, and discrimination.

The plaintiff can argue that she was discriminated based on sex and seek protection due to a breach of the statuary exception under the employment-at-will doctrine (Cheeseman, Henry. The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc., 2007. Print. Pg. 416). The plaintiff can also argue that an implied-in-fact contract was established because the offer letter she received stated "career opportunity" and that her "annual salary would be $30,000", meaning that she was offer a great career and that she would earn the $30,000 in one year. The word "career" can be considered a long-term commitment as well as the words "annual salary". Also the plaintiff can claim that she was wrongfully terminated on basis of sex discrimination because the employee that replaced her had less job experience and education than her. The defendant also never received feedback or counseling regarding her performance.

The defendant can argue that employee an at-will employee and that under common law, the employee can be discharged at any time and for any reason. (Cheeseman, Henry. The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc, 2007. Print. Pg. 415).

Based on the given facts, the court holds that the defendant failed to comply with the law, to provide feedback to the plaintiff regarding her performance, and discriminated against the plaintiff violating Title VII by wrongful discrimination.

In my opinion Elaine is entitle to be reinstated and to be compensated for any loss wages. Jerry did not follow ethical practices and handled the termination very poorly. If Elaine was a poor performer or violated a zero-tolerance company policy, she should have been counseled prior to terminating her and provided her with at least a reason for termination. Also the fact that Jerry hired a less qualified male raises suspicion whether or not he discriminated