According to an article written by Charles Muhl in the January 2001 issue of the Monthly Labor Review published by the U.S. Bureau of Laboratory Statistics, the employment-at-Will doctrine states that if an employee does not have a written contract with a certain duration, “the employer may terminate the employee for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason.” In essence, this means that without a contract, no employee has job security. But employees who feel unfairly fired still have legal means to defend themselves. The implicit theory of the contract to avoid employment by agreement should be used with caution. In 2006, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals was established in Matagorda County Hospital District v. Burwell[34] found that a provision in a personnel manual stating that dismissal could take place for a specific reason and requiring staff documents to indicate the reason for dismissal does not change a worker`s employment after departure. The New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in that state, also rejected the theory of implied contract to circumvent employment after contentment. In Anthony Lobosco, applicant v. New York Telephone Company/NYNEX, respondent,[35] the court upheld the prevailing rule that an employee cannot maintain a legal action for unlawful dismissal if state law does not recognize the unlawful action of unlawful dismissal or exceptions for dismissal contrary to public policy and the explicit responsibility of an employee manual does not preserve the employment relationship as it sees fit.

And in the same 2000 decision mentioned above, the California Supreme Court ruled that the length of a worker`s long and fruitful participation, who is alone, is not in itself evidence of an implied contract that is not terminated, except for an important reason. [7] Exclusions of liability for after-the-fact employment are a staple of personnel manuals in the United States. It is customary for employers to define what employment after authorization means, declare that an employee`s status can only be changed after authorization in a letter signed by the company`s president (or general manager), and require an employee to sign a confirmation of his or her status after authorization. [8] However, the National Labor Relations Board has been found to be unlawful against the practice of including in such exclusions a language declaring that the voluntary nature of employment cannot be changed without the written consent of management. [Note 1] [9] Employees recruited by a company because they have high-demand talents or skills cannot simply subject their new job to the whims of a company that wishes to terminate them in the future because it is opportune for the company to do so. . . .