The at-will employee: hire with caution, fire with care.

• Author: Stomierowski, Peg
• Position: HUMAN RESOURCES

In Alaska and most states, people not working under specific employment contracts are deemed "at-will" employees. While enough employers and employees alike possess a nebulous sense of what that means, it doesn't mean that an employee can be fired because the boss doesn't like the color of his or her shoes.

In Alaska, as in most states, sources suggested, an employee may not be fired if it would violate the state's public policy or State or federal law. For instance, if an employer is subject to laws prohibiting job discrimination (as all but the smallest are), an employee cannot be fired because of certain personal characteristics or for exercising certain legal rights, such as family leave, military service or jury duty.

Generally, workers protected by an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. But at-will employees in Alaska may be terminated for many reasons short of federally illegal discrimination (based on age, race, sex, religion, national origin, disability or pregnancy) or illegal termination in violation of a public policy.

CONFUSION OVER DEFINITION OF 'AT-WlLL'

At-will doctrine in practice remains a source of confusion, agreed Danielle M. Ryman, a partner with DeLisio, Moran, Geraghty & Zobel in Anchorage, who lists employer defense among her areas of practice. Unfortunately, since it involves a key principle that arises mainly around termination, employers who do not understand the limitations in an at-will arrangement often learn the nuances under threat of litigation.

Alaska, like most states, also recognizes an implied contract exception and is one of a minority of states recognizing in all employment arrangements the principle of breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This is another exception for when an employer is expected to act fairly, but may not have.

In these relatively broad exceptions to traditional at-will doctrine, it's also suggested that the employer make no misrepresentations and that the employment relationship is entered into in good faith, Ryman said. When that seems not to be the case, that breach of the implied covenant may exist. Simply put, it's a limitation on the notion that an at-will employer can terminate someone for any reason or no reason--even a poor reason.

Still, proving the terms of an implied contract can be difficult and the burden of proof usually falls on the former employee.

Employment agreements, Ryman explained, come in two varieties--contracts for a definite term of duration (employee can only be terminated...