The Evolving Employee-Employer Relationship Until the nineteenth century, the employer-employee relationship had been one-sided, with employees having little voice in the establishment of wages or working conditions. “Employment-at-will” was the standard, meaning the employer could fire or hire employees at will. Eventually, starting in the mid-1800s, courts began granting labor unions the right to organize and bargain for better pay and terms of employment. Through a series of court decisions, a “common law” developed, which began to redefine the employment relationship. Federal and state legislation began to follow the courts in the early 1900s. The Railway Labor Act (1926), Social Security Act (1935), National Labor Relations Act (1935), and Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) are examples of a shift to a more balanced relationship between workers and employers. Pay, conditions, termination, discrimination, retaliation, and many other aspects of the employer-employee relationship have continued to evolve over the years. The employment-at-will doctrine has evolved from its traditional definition (an employee can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all) to a doctrine replete with exceptions. The most notable exception is discrimination, which will be addressed in detail in Week 2. Employment contracts, both express and implied, have emerged as a major exception to the at-will doctrine. An express employment contract is an agreement between employee and employer, usually in writing, which spells out the terms of the relationship. Implied contracts are those which can be found by the courts to be agreements between the parties even though no formal agreement exists. The best example of an implied employment contract is an employee handbook or a policy manual. Elements found in a handbook will usually be considered an agreement between employer and employee. This is particularly true with regard to terminations if the handbook specifies a procedure for firing of employees. Labor Movement—Facts and History According to Cihon, P. J., & Castabnera, J. O. (2017), Review each button to learn more. 1760 to 1840 The industrial revolution creates a large class of employee workers—all power lies in the hands of employers. Early- to Mid-1800s Employees begin to band together into labor unions and receive negative treatment from the courts—unionization treated as an illegal act. 1842 The first US case is filed to decriminalize union organizing—Commonwealth v. Hunt, 44 Mass. (4 Met.) 111 (1842). In Commonwealth, the court determined that unionizing and applying pressure on employers through organized effort was not an illegal act. 1908 Employers Liability Act is enacted to protect and compensate railroad workers injured on the job. 1926 Railway Labor Act creates a system of negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. 1933 President Roosevelt initiates .

1. The Evolving Employee-Employer Relationship
Until the nineteenth century, the employer-employee
relationship had been one-sided, with employees having little
voice in the establishment of wages or working conditions.
“Employment-at-will” was the standard, meaning the employer
could fire or hire employees at will.
Eventually, starting in the mid-1800s, courts began granting
labor unions the right to organize and bargain for better pay and
terms of employment. Through a series of court decisions, a
“common law” developed, which began to redefine the
employment relationship.
Federal and state legislation began to follow the courts in the
early 1900s. The Railway Labor Act (1926), Social Security Act
(1935), National Labor Relations Act (1935), and Fair Labor
Standards Act (1938) are examples of a shift to a more balanced
relationship between workers and employers. Pay, conditions,
termination, discrimination, retaliation, and many other aspects
of the employer-employee relationship have continued to evolve
over the years.
The employment-at-will doctrine has evolved from its
traditional definition (an employee can be fired at any time, for
any reason, or for no reason at all) to a doctrine replete with
exceptions. The most notable exception is discrimination, which
will be addressed in detail in Week 2.
Employment contracts, both express and implied, have emerged
as a major exception to the at-will doctrine. An express
employment contract is an agreement between employee and
employer, usually in writing, which spells out the terms of the
relationship. Implied contracts are those which can be found by
the courts to be agreements between the parties even though no
formal agreement exists.
The best example of an implied employment contract is an
employee handbook or a policy manual. Elements found in a
handbook will usually be considered an agreement between
employer and employee. This is particularly true with regard to

2. terminations if the handbook specifies a procedure for firing of
employees.
Labor Movement—Facts and History
According to Cihon, P. J., & Castabnera, J. O. (2017),
Review each button to learn more.
1760 to 1840
The industrial revolution creates a large class of employee
workers—all power lies in the hands of employers.

3. Early- to Mid-1800s
Employees begin to band together into labor unions and receive
negative treatment from the courts—unionization treated as an
illegal act.
1842
The first US case is filed to decriminalize union organizing—
Commonwealth v. Hunt, 44 Mass. (4 Met.) 111 (1842). In
Commonwealth, the court determined that unionizing and
applying pressure on employers through organized effort was
not an illegal act.

4. 1908
Employers Liability Act is enacted to protect and compensate
railroad workers injured on the job.
1926
Railway Labor Act creates a system of negotiation, mediation,
and arbitration.

5. 1933
President Roosevelt initiates the New Deal, a series of federal
programs in response to the Great Depression.
1935
Social Security Act creates a provision for pensions to retired
workers.National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) creates rules for
union negotiation with employers.
Reference:
Cihon, P. J., & Castabnera, J. O. (2017). Employment and labor
law (9th ed.) [VitalSource digital version]. Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.
Additional Materials
From your course textbook, Employment and Labor Law, read
the following chapters:First the Forest, Then the Trees: An
Overview of Employment and Labor LawsEmployment

6. Contracts and Wrongful Discharge
From the South University Online Library, read the following
articles:An Empirical Assessment of the Contract Based
Exception to the Employment-At-Will Rule Ensure Handbook
Asserts At-Will Employment
Workplace Torts
A tort is an intentional civil wrong. A tort claim arises when a
tortfeasor (the wrongdoer) intentionally causes harm to another.
When a claim of tort is launched, the victim is known as the
plaintiff (the party bringing the suit) and the tortfeasor becomes
the defendant (the party defending the suit).
In employment law, the plaintiff may be the employee or the
employer. Commonly committed torts include defamation
(slander and libel), infliction of emotional distress, and theft of
trade secrets.
Defamation is the intentional publication of false information
about someone that harms his or her reputation. Slander is
spoken publication, libel is printed publication. For example,
posting false information on social media that leads to a
lowered opinion of the victim in the community is an act of
libel.
Not all harmful language is defamatory. Truth is a defense to
defamation. The defense of qualified privilege protects those
who speak in good faith to those who need to know the
information. For example, an employee who reports a suspected
act of theft to a supervisor or to law enforcement may raise the
defense of qualified privilege even if the report turns out to be
false (as long as the report was not done with evil intent or
malice).
Tortious infliction of emotional distress occurs when a person is
emotionally harmed after being intentionally subjected to
extreme and outrageous conduct by the tortfeasor. However,
recovery on such a claim requires extremely shocking conduct,

7. a standard that is hard to reach.
An employer may sue an employee for theft of trade secrets
when the employee gives or sells valuable proprietary
information to others outside the company, such as when an
employee leaves to take employment at a rival business and
shares company secrets with the new employer.
Conducting Research
Conduct an Internet search using the keywords "wins trade
secrets suit." Take a quick look at some of the results.Does it
appear that "theft of trade secrets" claims are on the rise?Which
industries seem to be most impacted by theft of trade secrets?
Case Study
Review the next button to learn more.
Social media has become a common publication outlet for the
workplace tort of defamation. Defamation is the publication of
false information, causing injury to the victim. Consider the

8. following example:
Robert, an employee at Weltron, Inc., works in the same office
as Gina. Both Gina and Robert apply for a supervisor position
that has opened at Weltron. Robert posts negative and false
information about Gina on his social media site and distributes
false information about Gina through e-mails and social media
channels. Robert claims that Gina slept with a manager in a
different department and has taken Weltron supplies home for
her personal use. None of these is factually true. Robert also
claims that Gina is a sloppy worker and is not friendly with
others. Gina did not get the supervisor job.
Social media has become a common publication outlet for the
workplace tort of defamation. Defamation is the publication of
false information, causing injury to the victim. Consider the
following example:
Robert, an employee at Weltron, Inc., works in the same office
as Gina. Both Gina and Robert apply for a supervisor position
that has opened at Weltron. Robert posts negative and false
information about Gina on his social media site and distributes
false information about Gina through e-mails and social media
channels. Robert claims that Gina slept with a manager in a
different department and has taken Weltron supplies home for
her personal use. None of these is factually true. Robert also
claims that Gina is a sloppy worker and is not friendly with
others. Gina did not get the supervisor job.
Gina can sue Robert for defamation. False information has been
published to others. Gina's reputation may have been damaged,
and she may have lost a promotion because of the defamation.
It is important to note that false facts are the basis for a
defamation claim. If Gina did not sleep with a manager from
another department and has not taken any work supplies home,
then these are false facts. Opinions are not the basis for a
defamation claim. "Sloppy worker" and "not friendly with
others" lean more toward opinion than fact, and so are less
likely to be actionable.

9. Additional Material
From your course textbook, Employment and Labor Law,
read the following chapter:Commonly Committed Workplace
Torts