| Course | MGT 434 Employment Law (MGT/434) |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Wrongful discharge analysis |
| Length | about 1,059 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | BS in Business |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 434 Week 5
A Bartender Who Refused to Overserve, a Cook Who Complained About Overtime and a Manager Promised a Job for Life: Wrongful Discharge in Texas
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MGT/434: Employment Law
Week 5 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Bluebonnet Hospitality Group and all employees and events are composites written for a model paper; laws are summarized generally and should be confirmed with counsel.
Last month the composite restaurant group Bluebonnet fired three employees, and each has contacted a lawyer. Kayla, a bartender, refused her manager's instruction to keep serving a regular customer who was visibly intoxicated and was fired the next day for insubordination. Luis, a line cook, complained to his general manager that he was not paid for time spent cleaning after closing and was fired a week later for lateness. Greg, a dining room manager with nine years of service, was told when hired that he would "always have a home here" and was let go in a cost-cutting move. At-will employment means an employer needs no reason to fire someone, but it never means any reason will do. This paper analyzes the three cases.
Employment at Will in Texas
Texas is among the most employer-friendly at-will states: an employer may end the relationship at any moment and for nearly any reason, and the worker may leave just as freely, unless a statute or a recognized exception says otherwise. Exceptions come from statutes, such as antidiscrimination and anti-retaliation laws, and from a small number of court-made rules (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019).
How States Differ
States vary widely in their exceptions. Many recognize broad public policy exceptions, some enforce handbook promises as implied contracts and a few recognize an implied covenant of good faith. Texas recognizes a narrow public policy exception, rarely finds implied contracts and does not recognize a general good faith covenant in employment. Montana is the only state that requires good cause for discharge after a probationary period.
Research on Exceptions
Autor et al. (2006) studied the spread of wrongful-discharge exceptions across states and found that the implied-contract exception was associated with modest reductions in employment, while the other exceptions had smaller or less certain effects. Exceptions change employer behavior, which is part of why states adopt them cautiously.
Kayla: The Public Policy Exception
In 1985, the Texas Supreme Court recognized an exception for employees fired solely for refusing to perform an illegal act. Texas alcoholic beverage law prohibits selling alcohol to a person who is intoxicated. Kayla's refusal to serve the customer was a refusal to violate the law, and she was fired the next day. Her claim appears strong.
Bluebonnet's Defense in Kayla's Case
Bluebonnet might argue she was fired for a separate reason, but the timing and the stated reason, insubordination for refusing the instruction, link the firing directly to her refusal. The company also faces potential liability if the overserved customer had caused harm. The better course is to reach a settlement and train managers on alcohol service law.
Luis: Wage Retaliation
The Fair Labor Standards Act requires pay for all hours worked, including cleanup after closing, and makes it unlawful to punish a worker for raising a pay complaint, even one made out loud to a manager. Luis complained, and a week later he was fired for lateness. Timing this close suggests retaliation, especially if his lateness was tolerated before or is no worse than others'.
Investigating Luis's Case
Bluebonnet should review Luis's attendance records and those of other cooks, how lateness was handled in the past and whether the manager knew of the complaint when deciding. If lateness was not previously punished, the claim is strong. Separately, the company must pay all cooks for unpaid cleanup time, which is a wage violation regardless of the firing.
Greg: Implied Contract
Greg relies on an oral assurance that he would "always have a home here." Texas courts generally require specific, definite promises to overcome at-will employment, and vague statements of goodwill rarely qualify. Bluebonnet's handbook also states that employment is at will. Greg's contract claim is weak.
Other Risks in Greg's Case
Greg is 58. If the cost-cutting decision selected older managers or if comments about age were made, he could bring an age discrimination claim, which would be stronger than his contract claim. Bluebonnet should confirm that the selection criteria were neutral and applied consistently.
Constructive Discharge
A related risk arises when employees quit because conditions were made intolerable to force them out. Courts treat such resignations as firings. Managers who cut an employee's shifts after a complaint, hoping the person will leave, create this risk.
Defamation and References
When former employees seek new jobs, managers' comments can lead to defamation claims if they are false and damaging. Texas law gives employers protection for truthful disclosures about former employees. Bluebonnet will confirm only dates and positions unless HR approves more.
Why Fired Employees Sue
Lind et al. (2000) studied people who had been fired and found that their sense of having been treated unfairly or disrespectfully at termination was a strong predictor of whether they filed claims. Respectful treatment and clear explanations reduce claims even when firings are lawful.
A Termination Review Process
Bluebonnet will require HR review before any termination of an employee with more than 90 days' service. The review will check whether the employee recently complained, requested leave or accommodation or refused an instruction; whether the reason is documented and consistent with past practice; and whether the employee is in a protected group with any related comments. Terminations will be conducted privately and respectfully, with a clear explanation.
Settlement Versus Defense
Not every claim should be fought. For Kayla, the facts favor her and a trial would draw attention to the overservice, so a settlement with a neutral reference is sensible. For Luis, Bluebonnet should first fix the overtime problem for all cooks and then decide based on the attendance review. For Greg, the company can defend the contract claim but should look closely at the age question before deciding. Weighing litigation cost, likely outcome and public attention is part of managing wrongful discharge risk.
Training Managers
General managers will be trained on at-will limits, retaliation, alcohol service law and documentation. Many of last month's risks came from decisions made quickly and in anger.
Conclusion
At-will employment gave Bluebonnet wide latitude, but not enough to protect two of the three firings. Kayla's claim falls within Texas's public policy exception, and Luis's raises federal wage retaliation. Greg's contract claim is weak, though age discrimination should be checked. A review process and respectful terminations will reduce future risk.
References
Autor, D. H., Donohue, J. J., III, & Schwab, S. J. (2006). The costs of wrongful-discharge laws. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(2), 211-231. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.2.211
Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2019). Employment law for business (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Lind, E. A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K. S., & Welchans, T. D. (2000). The winding road from employee to complainant: Situational and psychological determinants of wrongful-termination claims. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 557-590. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667109
What the MGT 434 Week 5 instructions ask
For the closing week of MGT 434, the prompt usually centers on wrongful discharge and how its rules apply to real firing decisions. Typical requirements include the employment-at-will doctrine, exceptions such as public policy, implied contract and covenant of good faith, statutory protections against retaliation and discrimination, constructive discharge, defamation in references and how state law varies. Many prompts present scenarios. Apply the rules of the relevant state, distinguish strong and weak claims, recommend practices that reduce wrongful discharge risk and back each conclusion with APA-cited legal and research sources. Rank the claims from strongest to weakest and explain why.
How this MGT 434 Week 5 example is built
Three firings in one month at a Texas restaurant group test the limits of at-will employment, and the paper analyzes each. Texas recognizes a narrow exception for employees fired solely for refusing to commit an illegal act, which fits the bartender who refused to serve an intoxicated customer. The cook's firing a week after an overtime complaint raises a retaliation claim under federal wage law. The manager's claim based on spoken assurances is weak in Texas, which rarely enforces vague oral promises. Research shows that how people are treated at termination affects whether they sue. The paper recommends a review process before any firing, explains when settling makes more sense than defending and identifies a possible age claim hidden behind the manager's weaker contract theory.
MGT 434 Week 5 grading rubric: where the points go
Strong wrongful discharge papers explain at-will employment accurately and apply the exceptions recognized in the relevant state to each set of facts. Instructors credit a correct statement of the state's public policy exception, recognition of federal retaliation protections, a realistic view of implied contract claims and attention to timing and documentation as evidence. Using research on what leads to claims shows depth. A practical termination review process, with consistent documentation and respectful treatment, shows the writer can turn law into management practice. Instructors also notice when a paper looks past the claim the employee raised to stronger ones the facts suggest, such as an age claim hiding behind a weak contract claim, since lawyers will look there too. Clear structure and correct APA style finish the work.
MGT 434 Week 5 help: mistakes to avoid
Students often describe at-will employment as unlimited. Explain the statutory and common law exceptions. Another frequent gap is applying exceptions that the relevant state does not recognize. Check the state; Texas recognizes fewer than many states. Students also overlook retaliation, which is now among the most common claims. Address timing. Avoid concluding that an employer is safe simply because it is at will. Consider documentation and consistency. Note defamation risks in references. Finally, recommend a review step before terminations, since most wrongful discharge risk can be reduced before the decision is made. Say who conducts the review and what questions it asks.
Related MGT 434 sample papers
Other MGT 434 week samples
- MGT 434 Week 1: EEO Law and Affirmative Action
- MGT 434 Week 2: Applying the ADA and FMLA
- MGT 434 Week 3: OSHA and ERISA
- MGT 434 Week 4: Privacy, Testing and Monitoring
More BS in Business sample papers
- MGT 401 Week 5: Funding Options
- MGT 418 Week 5: Go or No-Go Recommendation
- MGT 445 Week 5: Culture and Technology in Negotiation
- MGT 465 Week 5: The Complete Business Plan
MGT 434 Week 5 questions, answered
What does MGT 434 Week 5 usually cover?
It usually covers wrongful discharge: employment at will, public policy, implied contract and good faith exceptions, retaliation claims, constructive discharge, defamation and practices to reduce termination risk.
Where can I find a free MGT 434 Week 5 sample paper?
This page contains a complete wrongful discharge analysis of three terminations at a Texas restaurant group, with notes on each claim. A free draft of your final MGT 434 paper is available.
What is the public policy exception to at-will employment?
A rule recognized in most states that an employer may not fire an employee for reasons that violate public policy, such as refusing to break the law. Texas recognizes a narrow version limited to refusing to commit an illegal act.
Can a spoken promise create a contract of employment?
Sometimes, but courts in many states, including Texas, require specific and definite promises, and vague assurances of job security usually do not overcome at-will employment.
What is retaliatory discharge?
Firing an employee because they exercised a legal right, such as complaining about discrimination, unpaid wages or safety, which federal and state laws prohibit.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All MGT 434 week samples · All courses