<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>HRLegalNews.com &#187; colorado</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hrlegalnews.com/tag/colorado/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hrlegalnews.com</link>
	<description>Up-to-the-minute cases and law impacting HR</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:17:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Is “employment at will” in jeopardy?</title>
		<link>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/is-%e2%80%9cemployment-at-will%e2%80%9d-in-jeopardy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/is-%e2%80%9cemployment-at-will%e2%80%9d-in-jeopardy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 10:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam Narisi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In this week's e-newsletter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latest News & Views]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[at-will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[colorado]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[just cause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrlegalnews.com/?p=104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s gaining momentum: a movement at the state level to do away with &#8220;at will.&#8221; Most states have a clearly defined &#8220;employment at will&#8221; doctrine &#8211; that is, unless an employee is under a contract, he or she can be terminated for any (non-discriminatory) reason, or no reason at all. But in Colorado, a coalition [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It’s gaining momentum: a movement at the state level to do away with &#8220;at will.&#8221; <span id="more-104"></span></p>
<p>Most states have a clearly defined &#8220;employment at will&#8221; doctrine &#8211; that is, unless an employee is under a contract, he or she can be terminated for any (non-discriminatory) reason, or no reason at all.</p>
<p>But in Colorado, a coalition led by labor groups is pushing to change the state&#8217;s constitution to require employers to have a justifiable reason before letting anyone go. Practically speaking, companies rarely fire someone for no reason, but a regulation like this would give them a much bigger burden, and employees would have a lot more opportunities to sue.</p>
<p>Does it have a chance? Most experts say no, since the at-will relationship is pretty ingrained at this. Still, it&#8217;s the kind of thing that could rally a lot of popular support, and if it happens in one state, people elsewhere will take notice.</p>
<p>Right now, the coalition is trying to get the proposal onto the ballot in November. We&#8217;ll keep you posted if anything happens.</p>
<p>Read more from the <a href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/05/labor-issues-may-find-ballot/">Rocky Mountain News</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/is-%e2%80%9cemployment-at-will%e2%80%9d-in-jeopardy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

