Wrongful termination lawsuits: the employers finally win a few

Much attention has been given of late to the erosion of the "employment-at-will" doctrine. Exceptions to this doctrine began to emerge when courts held that at-will employees could sue if their termination violated public policy. The at-will doctrine was further eroded by court rulings that a contract requiring good cause in order to terminate could be inferred from employee handbooks, company personnel policies, and circumstances of employment. As the initial flood of wrongful termination lawsuits now reaches the appellate level, some guidance on the standards employers must observe can be drawn from court decisions. The authors examine these decisions as well as the legislative reform being proposed in response to them.     

Competence to consent to treatment as a psycholegal construct

The issue of whether civilly committed patients should be extended the right to accept or refuse treatment has generated much controversy and litigation during the past 15 years. In general, the current rule is that in nonemergency situations, individuals who are competent to give informed consent to treatment should be extended the right to refuse it. Obviously, the manner in which this rule is implemented partly depends on how competence to consent to treatment is defined and measured. Most researchers have implicitly assumed that an understanding of treatment information is the sole criterion of competence. It is argued that such a definition may be incomplete and is in need of reexamination. Following a review and analysis of the relevant legal and psychological literature, a comprehensive construct of competency to consent to treatment is proposed and future directions for research are discussed.