So misunderstood!
NOTE FROM ROBIN: Earlier this year, I began a series of very basic explanations of the federal laws that govern the workplace. The first installment covered discrimination in general, and the second installment covered religious accommodation. Subsequent posts have covered retaliation and the Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wage and overtime). If there is a topic that you'd like to see covered, please send me an email or leave a comment here.
This week's topic, the employment-at-will doctrine, is not a federal law, but it might as well be. It's also almost universally misunderstood.
Karla Miller's workplace advice column of The Washington Post had an item yesterday about a man who obtained a medical exemption from his employer's no-beard requirement. Even though the man had a legitimate medical reason for not being clean-shaven, his boss said that she'd be darned if she'd ever promote him because of that nasty beard.
That's ridiculous and maybe illegal, and Karla and most of her commenters agreed. As Karla said, "I would question whether this policy is the hill your employer's integrity deserves to die on." But one commenter, "pajacobsen," begged to differ:
The hill is irrelevant compared to the mountain called the at-will-employment law. The general broad acceptance of this law by the population makes underlying random policies and random enforcement safe.
(Bold added by me.)
Whaaaaaat? "Random policies" and "random enforcement" are legally safe?...
MOCA admits its products were wrongly described as TGA-approved. More than 99 per cent of medicinal cannabis products are not TGA-approved. An online medicinal cannabis prescriber has admitted i...