False Promises: When 'Job Security' Clashes with At-Will Employment

A regional retail chain, eager to retain its high-performing employees, faced increasing competition and challenges. The company’s district managers noticed high turnover and wanted to create a more stable environment for their team. To reassure valued employees, some managers began to make casual promises during evaluations. One manager, attempting to keep a reliable assistant manager from leaving, mentioned that the employee had “great job security” and was seen as a “long-term asset” to the company.


The assistant manager felt assured, taking this as an unofficial guarantee of continued employment. When the company went through a reorganization a few months later, they decided to lay off several positions, including this assistant manager. The assistant manager was shocked and disappointed, felt blindsided, and believed the earlier statements implied that her role was secure. Although the company operated under at-will employment, the assistant manager took legal action, claiming that the manager’s verbal assurances created an implied contract for job security. In their view, the promise of “job security” had induced them to stay with the company rather than seeking other opportunities, meaning the termination felt misleading and unfair.


In court, the employee’s lawyer argued that the verbal promises violated the spirit of at-will employment and misled the worker into a false sense of stability. The case put the company under scrutiny, costing it time, legal fees, and resources. While at-will employment theoretically allows for termination without cause, implied contracts can override this, particularly if a judge believes that assurances or promises were made that might suggest guaranteed employment.


The company ultimately settled with the employee, fearing an even more expensive judgment against them. Following the settlement, the company implemented training for managers to avoid making any statements that could be interpreted as promises or guarantees of job security. The case served as a reminder that while at-will employment is a powerful doctrine, employers must be cautious about the words and assurances they provide to employees. Even offhand comments can carry significant weight, creating potential legal obligations that override the at-will relationship.


By being mindful of language, avoiding unintentional promises, and having good documentation companies can maintain the flexibility of at-will employment while fostering transparency and trust within their workforce.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn