Fired, Without Explanation

It perhaps, at least for workers, is one of the most misunderstood aspects of employment, the circumstances under which you can be fired and the fact that you may not be given a reason at all.

Just the other day I was fired for no reason. Well, I was not given a reason for why I was being fired. I was hardly ever late for work and I always did what I was told. So I'm not sure why I was fired. I was never given a handbook and I didn't have to sign anything when I first started or when I was fired. But I was able to read the handbook, and it stated that you would be given a verbal warning, then a written warning before being fired. Again, none of this happened. I was never warned about anything, nor told I did something, nor corrected for something I did wrong. I feel I was fired because of the one woman I worked with didn't like me and also because I was not a church-going-type person. I'm just seeing if there is something wrong in how I was fired.

Bill Bethune, a Washington lawyer who mostly represents corporations in employment disputes and occasionally workers, says that throughout the United States that unless there is a contract between an employer and a worker "for a specific duration of employment," all employment is at will. That means that for the most part employers can hire and fire who they wish just as employees can decide where they want to work.

In this case, Bethune says that a "dismissal without a cause is not necessarily wrong. There's no law that says you have to give a reason."

But he says that the corporation would be entirely justified in firing this worker if it did not need his services any longer, was not satisfied with his work, felt he was unqualified or overqualified or perhaps could find someone willing to do the same work for less pay.

In other words, Bethune says it could fire this worker for about any reason as it long it was not for discriminatory reasons, such as based on the worker's race, religion, skin color, national origin, age or disability, all prohibited by federal law. In addition, some states and local governments ban dismissals based on sexual orientation, pregnancy or the need to tend to family responsibilities, such as caring for children or elderly parents.

He says this worker's suspicion that he was fired because he was "not a church-going-type person" is "pretty vague" and as a result would be unlikely in itself to form much of a case alleging he was fired unfairly. Conversely, Bethune says if the person who fired him made a specific reference to his lack of church attendance in connection with the dismissal or in a performance review, he might well have a discrimination claim he could pursue before federal or state fair employment agencies.

He says the fact that the company appears not to have followed its own handbook with warnings ahead of the dismissal also would not inhibit the company's right to dismiss the worker since those warnings would likely be related to a specific offense, rather than a routine dismissal for whatever reason it wished in an at-will employment situation.

Kenneth Bredemeier has six years of experience writing about the workplace. On the Job, a column addressing real worker questions about office relationships, corporate policies and workplace law, is written exclusively for washingtonpost.com.

To submit a question, e-mail onthejob@washingtonpost.com. We reserve the right to edit submitted questions for length and clarity and cannot guarantee that all questions will be answered.