At Will? At Won't?

Don D

I frequently read posts containing the words, "If you're in an at-will state". I'm thinking that I've heard that Nevada is the only non-at-will state. Is this correct? If so, we need not continue to ask each other that repetitive question over and over, or am I being redundant?

Parabeagle

Montana is not an at-will state, you can only terminate for cause (had to revise my employment applications specifically for our location there). Fortunately, what Montana considers "cause" is the same stuff I consider it to be.

marc

Nevada is an At-Will state. It thought an earlier thread reference something like 8-12 non-at will states, but I do not know if that is true or if it is, which they are. I don't know about others, but that is the main reason I ask the question on some of my posts.

rad

According to the book "Labor Pains" (great name, huh?) Montana is the only state which is not at-will.

ray a

I don't believe I've read any posts from non-at will states. So, I vote agreeing with Don about the redundancy.

Hatchetman

Perhpas the wording should be "if you're in "at- will employment relationship"...this then can exclude civil service, contract, and collective bargaining agreements, where cause may be required, in the other 49 states.

mwild31

I agree with Don on the redundancy & have been guilty of using it on a post. I also agree with Hatchman and will use his wording.

Brad Forrister

Montana is indeed the only state that's formally not at-will -- a statute there requires cause for termination.

But some other states have so many exceptions that the doctrine doesn't mean much.

I really like the "At Won't" label, Don!

Brad Forrister
Director of Publishing
M. Lee Smith Publishers

marc

I have always been a member of the department of redundancy department, but will attempt to follow the revised protocol suggested here. Either don't refer to it, or call it the "At-Won't" doctrine.

LV

Nevada-at will.