"All may dismiss their employees at will, be they many or few, for good cause, for no cause[,] or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of legal wrong. Payne v. Western & Atlantic Railroad Co., 81 Tenn. 507, 519-520, 1884 WL 469 at *6 (Sep. term 1884)" (Standler, 2000, 4).

The At-will Doctrine originated back in 1877 as a statement by Horace C. Wood in a legal treatise, Master and Servant § 134, pages 272-273. It is the opinion of many legal scholars that the cases that Wood utilized to explain this treatise did not have any relevance to his statement and that it may have been a mistake. It also appears that "Wood simply invented the concept of at-will employment, but wrongly described it as already accepted by the courts." Interestingly, a number of U.S. courts started to cite the doctrine shortly after its inception, and it simply "became accepted law" (Standler, 2000, 2-5).

While Wood gave no logical basis for his statement, it is argued that the intent may have been to give a certain freedom to employees to disengage from their employment at any time to imply there is no "involuntary servitude, which is prohibited in the Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." Equally, it stands to reason that an employer must also be free to terminate a working relationship at any time. However, there are those who argue that the mere title of Wood's treatise offers the true opinion of Wood and his colleagues, which was intended to benefit the employer in such a relationship (Standler, 2000, 3).

African-American history in the United States also paints a very interesting picture. During a period known as the "Reconstruction," African-Americans were making great strides in society after the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution in December 1865. However, during the late 1870s (Wood's Master and Servant treatise originated in 1877), "the federal government became less inclined to interfere in the affairs of the southern states" and the northern states "support for such radical reconstruction of the old system began to wane." Essentially, "African-Americans had simply gained too much freedom too fast for the vast majority of white southerners to swallow" (Phillips, 13-14). Perhaps these men said it best:

The essence of all slavery consists in taking the product of another's labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live. – Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy (ThinkExist.com).

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "'Necessitous men are not free men.'" People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. – Franklin D. Roosevelt (Wikipedia, Second Bill of Rights).

Nevertheless, "In an era when Bismarck pushed through social legislation in Germany to protect workers (the Sickness Insurance Law in 1883, an Accident Insurance Law in 1884-5), and Gladstone, Lord Salisbury, and others in England had legislated protection for factory workers, women, and children, it is hard to understand why the United States should whole-heartedly adopt an idea that took away protection from the worker" (Mackey, 1986, 8-9).


** After reading this article entirely, please visit: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/abolish-employment-at-will


GOOD CAUSE, BAD CAUSE, AND NO CAUSE AT ALL

A good reason for terminating an employee is logical as employers should not have to endure employees who are truly counterproductive to the day-to-day operations of running a business. Further, employers may need to lay-off employees simply because they can not economically endure the cost of continued employment in certain positions. However, what about termination resulting from bad cause? Bad cause can be anything you can imagine including reasons that delve into the ridiculous and morally wrong. And what about firing an employee for no reason at all? Most likely, an employer would never truly fire an employee for no reason at all, and doing so actually sounds suspect. However, unless a former employee can prove otherwise, it is perfectly legal.

In an effort to show the implications that an unjust termination can have on a former employee, a brief analysis of McLaughlin vs. Gastrointestinal Specialists 561 Pa. 307, 750 A.2d 283 (2000), affirming 696 A.2d 173 (Pa. Super. 1997) follows:

Mary McLaughlin was an office manager at the physicians group, Gastrointestinal Specialists. McLaughlin became aware that highly toxic fumes from a substance called gluteraldehyde were contaminating the air within the office. McLaughlin brought the situation to the attention of the company on a number of occasions, but nothing was ever resolved. McLaughlin suffered from "migraine headaches, nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath and dizziness" as a result of the toxic fumes (Dannin, 9)

In an effort to help her situation, McLaughlin took an air sample to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA found that this "toxic" and "highly noxious" solution was present in the air sample at "two-and-a-half times OSHA's maximum exposure limit." Like a responsible manager, McLaughlin informed another manager about the OSHA findings in an effort to alleviate her suffering. Nevertheless, management told McLaughlin she should not discuss the findings with anyone and she was immediately fired (Dannin, 9).

McLaughlin filed an unlawful termination suit. However, although McLaughlin was fired for "complaining to her employer" about her "employer's violations of federal law," this "does not state a public policy claim" (High Swartz, 2001). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court "emphatically held that a violation of federal OSHA standards allegation was not enough." (Cohen & Grigsby, 2002).

What does this negative action do to the morale of an organization and the terminated employee's outlook related to future employment relationships? Clearly, McLaughlin has become an example of what not to do in the workplace. It is also clear that common sense and good judgment can indeed cross a line.

THE OTHER FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE IMPACT ON SOCIETY

Many Americans believe that pursuing higher education is a very appropriate action to take in one's life. President Barack Obama is also encouraging Americans to go back to school (Obama, 2009):

In a 21st century economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, education is the single best bet we can make - not just for our individual success, but for the success of the nation as a whole. The average college graduate earns 80 percent more than those who stopped after high school. So if we want to help people not only get back on their feet today but prosper tomorrow, we need to take a rigorous new approach to higher education and technical training. And that starts by changing senseless rules that discourage displaced workers from getting the education and training they need to find and fill the jobs of the future.

So today I'm announcing new steps we are taking to do exactly that - to give people across America who have lost their jobs the chance to go back to school today to get retrained for the jobs and industries of tomorrow.

Although the costs associated with higher education are astronomical and are continuing to rise, the largest problem is that if a person can be fired for reasons that go beyond the confines of their job performance, their professionalism, their education, and their ethics, how can a person be expected to pay back their student loans if they accumulate them?

There are 80 million workers in the private-sector, of which 60 million are employed at-will. Of those 60 million workers, 2 million workers are fired every year (Workplace Fairness, 3). It is estimated that a minimum of 200,000 workers are fired every year for unjust reasons (Lectric Law). Additionally, in 2004 it was estimated that it would take an unemployed person roughly 20 weeks to find a job, which was "up 50% since the 1970s" (Workplace Fairness, 1). Chances are that the weeks associated with finding another job in this horrible economic climate will have drastically increased.

And who benefits from those out of work? Mostly government. Many government employees are paid for assisting those in need. Many people who are unemployed wind up needing help. The irony here is that many of the government employees who assist those in need have job protection through unions. Most Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck and, therefore, a person who lost his/her job will likely be in touch with the Employment Department. And if a person's termination was unethical or unlawful, perhaps the Employment Department will believe them so benefits can be received. However, it is extremely important to note that not every terminated person has available funds for unemployment insurance benefits for a variety of reasons.

The unemployed may also be in contact with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and an attorney. Perhaps they may be so angry they will call their representatives. Maybe they will need assistance from the local welfare office for food stamps. What about housing expenses (rent or mortgage and utilities), car payments, insurance, and student loan payments? What about credit card debt? Most American's have some form of credit card debt and it is likely they will no longer be able to satisfy their credit card payments. Adding insult to injury, people with poor credit ratings have a hard time finding employment. So it seems that a terminated employee can be quite busy running around keeping other people employed.

The possibilities here are hideous when they are a result of a nonsensical or illegal action. Furthermore, the situation takes away a person's potential for future employment as a result of having been fired.

ARE UNIONS THE ANSWER?

In 2006, a Business Week article expressed that "[f]ully half of all nonunion U.S. workers say they would vote yes if a union election were held at their company today, up from about 40% throughout the 1990s." If this is the case, it would appear that the NLRA "is not fulfilling its function" when the union density within the private sector is "currently under 10%." (Joseph E. Slater, 2006, 8-9). Furthermore, according to Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of the Human Rights Watch, there are 20,000 workers who are unlawfully terminated or discriminated against on a yearly basis for attempting to form a union (Workplace Fairness, 3).

Equally confusing, it appears that the courts are undermining unions in their rulings and seem to allow the employment at-will doctrine to over-ride the purpose of unions. This begs the question: "Did the Court import 'values and assumptions' from common law master-servant rules to undercut the NLRA rules" (National Labor Relations Act)? It is difficult to understand what is happening here. Is it really the National Labor Relations Board not doing its job, or is it simply the courts not allowing NLRA rules to flourish? (Slater, 2006, 12). Either way, it feels highly political. "The Bush Administration succeeded in revoking the collective bargaining rights of thousands of employees." Further, "governors of Indiana and Missouri recently revoked the collective bargaining rights of state employees in those states" (Slater 2006, 35).

The American worker has faced and continues to face an enormous crisis. We can save corporate America, but we can shun the American worker? We can assure that Corporations prosper economically and bail them out in the name of global necessity, while American workers can be fired without a just cause?

WHAT ABOUT TITLE VII?

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII "prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin" and over time, "Title VII has been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination" (Wikipedia, 2008).

Although there are potential remedies for those who allege discrimination in the workplace, "it is legal for employers to fire employees for any number of reasons including the morally and intellectually indefensible, the petty, and the illogical." Therefore, it is often difficult to prove such allegations. Additionally, plaintiffs in Title VII cases "lose employment discrimination cases both at the trial level and on appeal at a greater rate than plaintiffs in almost literally every other type of civil case." (Slater, 2006, 36-38).

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Title VII and provides annual statistics, which include charges and resolutions of employment discrimination for all statutes enforced by the EEOC. The EEOC figures do not include monetary benefits obtained through litigation, and the cases filed pertain to workplace issues that extend beyond unlawful terminations.

(http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/index.cfm)

A LOOK AT ETHICS

Ethics is a philosophical approach to analyzing moral issues. Pertinent facts are essential for ethical evaluations. The previous sections in this article contain many of the facts. I will utilize those facts in the Utilitarian approach, the Rights approach, and the Fairness and Justice approach to ethical analysis.

For the purpose of this article, simplistic guidelines will be given to define a just cause system. Just cause means that, "the employee's offense adversely affected his or her job performance; the rule or standard violated by the employee was known to the employee; and the infraction was serious enough to warrant termination" ('Lectric Law).

THE RIGHTS APPROACH

The rights approach to ethics focuses on an "individual's right to choose for herself or himself." According to the philosophers like Immanuel Kant, "what makes human beings different from mere things is that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose" (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer).

In an effort to determine whether the employment at-will doctrine or a just cause system is the best action, an analysis of fundamental rights will follow:

AN EMPLOYEE'S RIGHTS UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT AT-WILL DOCTRINE

Right to the Truth - Employees have a right to the truth. The employment at-will doctrine robs an employee of their right to know why they were fired because an employer is not legally required to offer them that information. Therefore, an employee's right to the truth is automatically violated.

Right of privacy – Employees have a right to privacy. According to the right of privacy, "We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others" (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer). However, because an employer can fire an employee for unethical reasons and are shielded by the "no cause" and "bad cause" elements of the employment at-will doctrine, employers freely invade their employee's right to privacy in their personal lives, which can lead to unethical and unlawful terminations. Furthermore, when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were implemented by the Founders of this country, it was never anticipated that "concentrations of corporate power would exist on a scale rivaling, and in some cases exceeding, governmental power" (Lectric Law).

As it stands, "most Americans are more vulnerable to having their rights violated by their employers than the early Americans were to having their rights violated by the government" (Lectric Law). Therefore, the employment at-will doctrine encourages an employer to violate their employee's right to privacy.

Right not to be Injured – Employees have the right not to be harmed or injured unless employees "freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment" or "freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries" (Velasquez, Andres, Shanks, and Meyer). Any employee who is fired for unethical and/or unlawful reasons is subject to financial, emotional, psychological, and physical injuries, as the means to which an employee takes care of himself/herself (and possibly a family) has been taken away due to no fault of their own.

Right to What is Agreed – An employee certainly has a right to what to what has been agreed. Any employee who is offered a job under the conditions of the employment at-will doctrine can be seen as accepting the unequal conditions under duress in the name of survival. As previously mentioned in this article, "at some point", most employees "believed that their employment was subject to just cause" (Dannin, 2007, 4). Consequently, this can be seen as the absence of full disclosure, or simply, the truth. Furthermore, in an article featured in the Monthly Labor Review in January, 2001, Charles J. Muhl cited the Florida appellate Court in Catania v. Eastern Airlines, Inc (Muhl).:

To require employers to demonstrate valid grounds and methods for an employee's discharge does not unduly restrict employers; it merely provides some balance of power. It is apparent that there is not truly freedom of contract between an employer and employee; the individual employee has no power or ability at all to negotiate an employment contract more favorable to himself. And the traditional common law [the employment-at-will doctrine] totally subordinates an interest of the employee to the employer's freedom.

The fact that, "there is not truly freedom of contract between an employer and employee" and because the employment at-will doctrine "totally subordinates an interest of the employee to the employer's freedom" an employee cannot exercise any right to what is agreed when any perceived agreement is one-sided. Therefore, it appears that it is not really a "right to what has been agreed" but rather, an employee is "forced" to accept what an employer dictates. And as such, I see the employee's right to what has been agreed as unattainable under the employment at-will doctrine.

A EMPLOYER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT AT-WILL DOCTRINE

Right to the Truth. An employer has a right to the truth. The employment at-will doctrine does not violate an employer's right to the truth.

Right of Privacy. An employer has a right to privacy. The employment at-will doctrine does not violate an employer's right to privacy.

Right not to be Injured. An employer has a right not to be injured. The employment at-will doctrine does not violate an employer's right not to be injured.

Right to what is Agreed. An employer has a right to what is agreed. Because the employment at-will doctrine is totally and completely one-sided, there cannot really be a legitimate agreement to consider. Therefore, I will see the employer's right to what has been agreed inapplicable to this analysis.

AN EMPLOYEE'S RIGHTS UNDER A JUST CAUSE SYSTEM

Right to the Truth. Under a just cause system, an employee will be entitled to the truth of why they are being fired. A doctrine would no longer exist that would violate the rights of an employee to know the truth of their termination. If there is an instance where an employee believes, however, that their employer is lying, such employee can attempt to find a resolution in a court of law or by mediation.

The Right of Privacy. A just cause system does not violate an employees right to privacy.

Right not to be Injured. A just cause system does not set up conditions for an employee to be injured.

Right to what is Agreed. In the absence of a formal employment agreement, a just cause system allows a more equal and less oppressive relationship between the employer and employee.

AN EMPLOYER'S RIGHTS UNDER JUST CAUSE SYSTEM

Right to the Truth. A just cause system does not violate an employer's right to the truth.

Right to Privacy. A just cause system does not violate an employer's right to privacy.

Right not to be Injured. A just cause system does not violate an employer's right not to be injured.

Right to what is Agreed. A just cause system does not violate an employer's right to what is agreed.

CONCLUSION OF THE RIGHTS APPROACH

It is apparent that the employment at-will doctrine violates every right single right of an employee. The only potential uncertainty is the "right to what is agreed." Because an employee, by nature, is incapable of entering into an agreement that would be in their own best interest (Muhl, 2001), any consideration of this right must not be considered under the employment at-will doctrine. It is further apparent that the employment at-will doctrine does not infringe on any right of an employer. Under a just cause system, it is noted that both an employer and an employees rights are recognized. Therefore, according to the rights approach to ethics, a just cause system is in order.

THE FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE APPROACH

The Fairness and Justice approach to ethics is rooted in the "teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that 'equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally.'" Essentially, the Fairness and Justice approach seeks to answer: "How fair is an action?" and "Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?" Favoritism is described as giving "benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out" and discrimination "imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed." Therefore, "both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong" (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, S.J. & Meyer).

Because workers in the public sector and private sector are segregated by the very nature of what they are subject to within an employer/employee relationship, fairness and justice are fundamentally unequal and unjust. The majority of public sector workers enjoy union representation, which provides such workers with collective bargaining agreements.

The are approximately 80 million private sector workers in the United States (Lectric Law) of which less than 10% enjoy union representation (Slater, 8-9). However, it is not as though private sector employees have not tried to engage in actions that would result in union representation. Rather, when private sector employees show a desire to seek union representation, they are often fired (20,000 every year) (Workplace Fairness, 3).

There is a distinct and obvious unfairness with respect to public and private sector employees, which can be described as discriminatory treatment toward private sector workers who are subject to the employment at-will doctrine, which clearly portrays favoritism to public sector workers who enjoy job protection. Therefore, both instances of discrimination and favoritism are "unjust and wrong" (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer).

THE UTILITARIAN APPROACH

"Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best." The Utilitarian approach is seen as an avenue to arrive at decisions related to future actions that "provides the greatest balance of good over evil" (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, and Meyer). This approach will be limited in scope and will only address the benefits and harms of an employer and an employee. The analysis could include, but not limited to, family members and society as a whole.

There appear to be two courses of action:

(1) Allowing the employment at-will doctrine to thrive in the workplace; or

(2) Implement a just cause system.

AN EMPLOYER'S HARMS AND BENEFITS UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT AT-WILL DOCTRINE

Harms – The harms for employers in maintaining at at-will system in the workplace will enable a broad avenue for questionable business practices. When an employer is allowed to withhold the true reason for firing an employee, then suspicion of wrongdoing is entertained and can lead to lawsuits. "Almost 75% of all litigation against corporations today involves employment disputes." Additionally, "employment related lawsuits are the fastest growing type of civil case in the U.S.; nearly 25% of all litigation in federal court involves employment disputes, and an even higher percentage in state courts" (CAN, 2009).

Benefits – There are no benefits associated with the employment at-will doctrine that cannot be gained under a just cause system.

AN EMPLOYEE'S HARMS AND BENEFITS UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT AT-WILL DOCTRINE

Harms - The harms for employees are that they are subject to unethical employment termination practices, which can possibly lead to unlawful terminations. The harms associated with any unjust termination include, but are not limited to, a loss of income to support one's self (and possibly a family), employment benefits, and future employment opportunities. Should an employee resort to litigation to determine and right any perceived wrong, justice is a very expensive pursuit with respect to time and money. An employee is already in a weak financial position and once again, this puts the employer at an advantage.

Benefits - There are no benefits for employees that are associated with the at-will doctrine.

AN EMPLOYER'S HARMS AND BENEFITS UNDER A JUST CAUSE SYSTEM

Harms - An employer will not experience harm in a just cause system. If an employer believes that they are losing the ability to disengage from an employment relationship at any time, and for any reason or no reason (without just cause), then the employer needs to recognize that they chose the working relationship. It is important, then, to also recognize that an employee will never be able to choose where they are employed. Rather, an employee can only agree to it.

Benefits - An employer who operates under a just cause system will have happier employees who will no longer feel the impending doom of potentially being fired for unethical, unlawful, and no stated reasons. "Most corporate leaders know that treating employees fairly is both morally correct and good for employee motivation, loyalty, and well-being. Yet, feelings of injustice are regular occurrences in the workplace." (McShane & Von Glinow, 101).

AN EMPLOYEE'S HARMS AND BENEFITS UNDER A JUST CAUSE SYSTEM

Harms – There are no harms associated with a just cause system for employees (other than unforeseen unethical and unlawful actions an employer might implement despite a just cause system).

Benefits - An employee who is allowed to function under a just cause system will be more self-confident and effective on the job when there is no lingering threat of termination without notice, without just cause, and/or the absence of any reason at all. There will be less opportunity to fire an employee for unethical and unlawful reasons.

Action: The greatest good for the greatest number of people will be to implement a just cause system.

BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION

The best possible solution is to create and implement a just-cause employment practices, with all new parameters carefully considered and without negotiating any conditions (no trade offs) that will harm the employee in any newly conceived fashion.

CONCLUSION

The Employment At-Will Doctrine is seriously outdated and has not made much sense since its inception. The United States is behind most of the civilized world with respect to employees rights. The terminated, the work-place, and society all suffer from unethical and illegal decisions. The Employment At-Will doctrine must be abolished and replaced with a just cause approach.


Please visit the petition at: http://sites.google.com/a/eou.edu/balanceofpower


REFERENCES

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2008). The Rights of Employees.
From the 'Lectric law library's stacks. Retrieved: April 20, 2009.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp08.htm

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The National Task Force on civil liberties in the Workplace. Workplace Fairness.
http://www.workplacefairness.org/sc/sources.php

Cohen & Grigsby (2002).
Pennsylvania Supreme Court limits ability of fired employee to sue for discharge in violation of public policy. Retrieved: May 25, 2009 http://search.aol.com/aol/search?query=Consolmagno+Home+Depot&s_it=keyword_rollover

Dannin, E. (2007).
Why At-will employment is bad for employers and just cause is good for them.
Labor Law Journal. 58, 16, 12p. Retrieved October 31, 2008. EBSCO Host.
http://0-search.ebscohost.com.eos.eou.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lgh&AN=24909765&site=ehost-live

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2008). Types of Discrimination.
Retrieved: May 22, 2009). http://www.eeoc.gov/types/index.html

High Swartz (2001). What is new in employment law. Retrieved: May 25, 2009.
http://www.highswartz.com/CM/Articles/Articles73.asp

McShane, S.L., Von Glinow, M.A (2009). Organizational behavior.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Muhl, C. (2001) The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions. Monthly labor review.
Citing the Florida Appellate Court (1980). Retrieved: April 22, 2009.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

Mackey, D. (1986). Employment at Will and Employer Liability.
New York, NY: AMA Membership Publications Division

Obama, B.H., (2009). Organizing for America.
President Obama on expanding job training opportunities for the unemployed. Retrieved: May 25, 2009
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaforamerica/gGxnsj

Philips, D.T. (1998). Martin Luther King, Jr. on leadership.
New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc.

Roth, K. (2002). Unfair Advantage:
Workers' freedom of association in the United States under International Human Rights Standards.
Workplace Fairness.
http://www.workplacefairness.org/sc/sources.php

Slater, J.E. (2006).
The "American rule" that swallows the exception. Retrieved: November 5, 2008.
https://webmail.eou.edu/mail/reademail.pl?id=56&folder=Inbox&newwin=1&cache
=DF559544B05141939BCB0AA7F531773B@JMCDONALD

Standler, Ronald B. (2000). History of At-Will Employment Law in the USA. Retrieved October 23, 2008.
http://www.rbs2.com/atwill.htm

ThinkExist.com (2009). Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy quotes. Retrieved: June 7, 2009
http://www.thinkexist.com/English/Author/x/Author_3489_8.htm

Valasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., S.J., Meyer, M.
A framework for moral decision making.
http://webclass.eou.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_52359_1

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Workrights Institute.
Wrongful discharge legislative brief.
Workplace Fairness. Retrieved: April 22, 2009.
http://www.workplacefairness.org/sc/sources.php

Wikipedia (2008). Civil Rights Act of 1964.Retrieved: November 6, 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Wikipedia (2009). Second Bill of Rights. Retrieved: June 3, 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights