***RESPOND TO EACH CLASSMATE POST SEPARATELY FOR EACH PART.
SPLIT WORD COUNT***
***RESPOND TO EACH CLASSMATE POST SEPARATELY FOR EACH PART. SPLIT WORD
COUNT***PART ONEGuided Response: Review your classmates’ responses. Respond to your
classmates’ postings by Day 7, and explain whether you agree or disagree with their
assessment of the employer’s actions.First Classmate Post:Hello class,Examine how the law
allows an employer to fire an employee without a good reason. Conduct research to provide
examples to support your position, and use your own personal employment experiences
when possible.The law allows an employer to fire an employee without a good reason if
there is an at-will contract in place with the employee. Rogers and Seaquist stated (2023),
“With an at-will contract, an employer can legally end the relationship with an employee at
any time for any reason without giving the employee warning or a reason for the
termination” (Chap. 12, Sec. 2). Many companies don’t have at-will employment in their
bylaws or employee handbook but may specifically state the employee can be terminated at
for any reason at any time. Seeing this language in the contract would lead be to assume this
is an at-will employment.Explain whether you have observed situations when an employee
was fired.Did the employer give a reason?Do you believe the employer’s actions were
legal?I have personally observed different situations when an employee was fired. For the
most part all of the terminations I have witnessed have been merited. The employer didn’t
give specific reasons out of respect and privacy of the terminated employee, but everyone
knew it was performance related or due to attendance. This would be legal because these
instances were outlined in our employee handbook and addressed multiple times before
termination. The employee had ample amount of time to correct the
mistakes.REFERENCESRogers, S., & Seaquist, G. (2023). Essentials of business law (2nd ed.).
The University of Arizona Global Campus.
https://content.uagc.edu/books/Rogers.6764.22.1/sections/ch12sec12.2Second Classmate
Post:Hello Class,Examine how the law allows an employer to fire an employee without a
good reasonAfter reading our text this week It would appear that most employment
contracts are considered “contracts at will” according to the text “at will ‘ employment
contracts do not indicate a length of time for employment. nor does it indicate when the
employment relationship will end. The ‘At will” employment contract goes until the
employee quits or gets fired. Because this type of employment contract has no set term the
employer can fire the employee at any time without a good reason as long as it is not a form

of discrimination. I am surprised to learn this. I thought employee had more protection and
could not get fired just because the employee doesn’t like you. I had an experience where a
coworker of mine did not like me because I had a fear that she did not agree with. She tried
so hard to get me in trouble and I defended myself by going to HR with my concerns. Now
she wasn’t my employer but if she was I could have been fired.Explain whether you have
observed situations when an employee was fired.I have seen a few people be fired in my
long employment history. One I can remember that stood out was a secretary that was
actually walked out of the building. She was not allowed to gather her things or speak to
anyone. This firing was I believe justified. She had been stealing from the building. One
other time I witnessed someone get fired I believe falls under the ‘at will’ type of firing of an
employee. We had just gotten a new manager. This manager sis not like one of the
receptionist. The manager had commented on how she would dress and tell her she need to
be more professional. Other employees dressed the same way but had not been approached
about it. This employee had a situation were she was having trouble getting to work she lost
her car. She would come in a little late but would inform the correct people. The manager
took this opportunity to let this employee go for this reason. Mean while another
receptionist would call in when the weather was bad just because she didn’t want to drive
in. That employee was never told anything and kept her job. I personal do not think it was
right but was it legal? After reading this weeks text it might have
been.https://content.uagc.edu/books/Rogers.6764.22.1/sections/ch12sec12.2Links to an
external site.PART TWOGuided Response: Review your peer’s responses. For at least two of
your classmates, determine if your analysis of the facts is the same. Do you agree with their
assessment, or do you see the issue differently? Explain your rationale.FIRST CLASSMATE
POST:Hello Everyone,Discuss whether Karen can successfully sue for false imprisonment or
defamation.Anyone can successfully sue but to get a verdict on their favor is a different
story. Karen may sue but Steve only asked her to return back to the store as to clear up a
question on the umbrella and no contact or being held was done she would be hard pressed
to win a verdict on that scenario only. She was never imprisonment only stopped for
questioning and released with an apologize and she was on her way. As far as the
defamation it sounds like Steve only told her and did not broadcast it to the world so there
would be no defamation on Steve behalf.From what you have learned about the relationship
between a principal and an agent, analyze whether Steve or Big Mart could be liable because
of Steve’s actions.As Steve was acting on the behalf of the company Big Mart if there were to
be liable it would fall on the company and not on Steve as he was protecting the company
interest. Steve was working under scope of authority be looking out for shoplifters he was
solely questioning her he did not arrest her which at that point may be out of his scope of
authority and Big Mart would be liable for any defamation lawsuit against them.Reference
retrieved from: Rogers, S., & Seaquist, G. (2023). Essentials of business law (2nd ed.). The
University of Arizona Global Campus chapter12SECOND CLASSMATE POST:Hello
Everyone,In this scenario with Karen shopping at Big Mart, Karen cannot successfully sue
for false imprisonment as she was not detained or held against her will; Steve asked Karen
to step back into the store; she was free to leave or ignore his request as she owed no
obligation to him or Big Mart. While Karen cannot sue for false imprisonment, on the other

hand, Karen may be able to sue for defamation; if there was a false statement of umbrella
theft made against her (here, Steve says he thinks Karen is shoplifting the umbrella; this is
not an outright allegation) and if the allegation of theft was made in the hearing of others
such as a third person, this fault could amount to negligence and cause damage to her
reputation.Based on my understanding of the relationship between a principal and an
agent, Steve or Big Mart could be liable because of Steve’s action should Karen bring a
lawsuit, as he was acting as an agent of his employer, Big Mart, who is the principal.
According to Rogers & Seaquist, 2023 an agent is an employee with added responsibility; in
this case, Steve is responsible for acting on behalf of Big Mart, and his actions bind his
employer (Big Mart) to whatever decisions he makes.ReferenceRogers, S., & Seaquist, G.
(2023). Essentials of business law (2nd ed.). The University of Arizona Global Campus.