Many employers have policies stating that employees must provide at least two weeks’ notice of resignation. The reason, of course, is to give the employer time to hire a replacement or otherwise staff the position. Even when not required by policy, two weeks’ notice often is taken for granted as a professional courtesy.

Has it really only been a week since the Kansas House of Representatives passed House Bill 2453? Supporters said it simply protects religious liberty. Opponents countered that it sanctions discrimination against same-sex couples; allows police officers, fire fighters, and other government employees to refuse to provide basic or emergency services to tax payers; and imposes significant burdens on Kansas employers. A nationwide hullabaloo ensued.

My fifteen-year-old daughter is an avid reader. She also has an offbeat sense of humor (which she must get from her mother). So perhaps I should not have been surprised to find a book titled Zombies vs. Unicorns lying around the house. "It's a question as old as time itself: Which is better, the zombie or the unicorn?" the book jacket teases.

Such weighty conflicts and comparisons have existed throughout history, of course. Good vs. Evil. Cats vs. Dogs. Yankees vs. Red Sox. King Kong vs. Godzilla. VHS vs. Betamax. And, most recently, Alien vs. Predator. In this spirit, let's examine two separate and distinct legal concepts that are sometimes misunderstood or confused with one another: Right-to-Work vs. Employment-at-Will.

Right-to-work has nothing to do with employers' ability to hire or fire. Nor does it refer to employees' right to unionize. Rather, a right-to-work law prohibits unions and employers from entering into contracts that require workers to join the union or pay union dues as a condition of employment.  

Kansas is one of 23 states with a right-to-work law. Kansas adopted a right-to-work amendment to its constitution in 1958. It provides, "No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of membership or nonmembership in any labor organization, nor shall [any employer] enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of membership or nonmembership in any labor organization." (Kan. Const. Article 15, Section 12). 

However, even in states without right-to-work laws, union membership cannot lawfully be required. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any      Continue Reading...

It is unlawful to fire an employee in retaliation for making internal oral complaints involving rights protected by the Kansas Wage Payment Act, the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled on May 4.  Less than a year ago the Kansas Supreme Court held that is is unlawful to discharge an employee for exercising rights under the Wage Payment Act, such as by filing a claim for wages with the Kansas Department of Labor.  The new decision clarifies that this anti-retaliation rule is not limited to situations where the employee has filed a formal claim, but also covers oral complaints to company management. 

However, to be protected, the complaint, whether written or oral, must be "clear enough that the employer would understand that the employee is asserting rights protected by the statute."  The Wage Payment Act requires, among other things, that employers must pay employees all wages when due.  But in this case, the court said, the employee's complaints were "too equivocal" to put the employer on notice that he was making some claim under the Wage Payment Act.  So the court upheld the district court's ruling to dismiss the claim.

Today the Kansas Supreme Court expanded the recognized exceptions to employment at will by ruling that a claim for retaliatory discharge exists when an employee is fired for filing a wage claim under the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA).  The employee, who worked for a pig-farming company in Long Island, Kansas, alleged he was fired for trying to bring home more bacon by filing a complaint with the Kansas Department of Labor (KDOL) claiming the company was not paying him as required by the KWPA.  The company said the allegation was hogwash and asked the court to dismiss the case.  The district court agreed with the company and hamstrung the employee's lawsuit, ruling that even assuming he was fired because he filed a KWPA wage claim, this was not a recognized exception to the employment-at-will rule. 

The employee, perhaps feeling he had been casting pearls before swine in the district court, appealed.  The Kansas Supreme Court explained that Kansas courts permit the common-law tort of retaliatory discharge as a limited exception to the at-will employment doctrine when it is necessary to protect a strongly held state public policy from being undermined.  The Kansas Supreme Court has previously endorsed public policy exceptions in four circumstances: (1) exercising rights under the Kansas Workers’ Compensation Act; (2) filing a claim under the Federal Employers Liability Act; (3) whistleblowing (good-faith reporting of an employer’s or coworker’s violation of the law pertaining to public health, safety, or welfare); and (4) exercising a public employee's First Amendment right to free speech on an issue of public concern.  The Court reasoned that the KWPA—which      Continue Reading...