16
The Hostile Office: Michael as a Sexual Harasser
“That is the law according to the rules.” (Dwight)
Michael has a difficult time balancing the roles of boss, friend, and comedian. For example, in the episode “Sexual Harassment,” his nemesis Toby, the human resources representative, advises him to refrain from telling inappropriate jokes. Michael responds: “There is no such thing as an appropriate joke, that’s why it’s a joke.” After he is advised by Jan and the company’s lawyer, Michael reluctantly informs the staff of the new situation:
Michael: Attention, everyone. Hello. Yes, I just want you to know that—this is not my decision—but from here on out, we can no longer be friends. And when we talk about things here, we must only discuss work-associated things. And you can consider this my retirement from comedy. And in the future if I want to say something funny, or witty, or do an impression, I will no longer ever do any of those things.
Jim: Does that include “that’s what she said”?
Michael: Yes.
Jim: Wow, that is really hard … You really think you can go all day long? … Well, you always left me satisfied and smiling, so …
Michael: That’s what she said!
Michael’s “retirement from comedy” lasted only a few seconds. Except for Kevin and Dwight, who seem to enjoy Michael’s humor, the rest of the staff has a low opinion of Michael’s comedic skills and would have been glad if he remained in retirement. They have all been targets of Michael’s humor, as well as his insensitive remarks and his simple insults. His offensive behavior has prompted warnings from Jan and Toby, a visit by a diversity consultant, a large file of complaints against him in Toby’s desk, and a three-month paid vacation and company car for Oscar in exchange for agreeing not to sue Dunder-Mifflin.
Michael’s real talent is his ability to offend everyone and for every possible reason. He can be racist, sexist, and homophobic. He can be insulting of a person’s age, physical appearance, intelligence, social skills, knowledge of cultural fads, and so on. He can even be several of these at once, for example when in “Diversity Day” he requires each employee to “say a race that you are attracted to sexually.” While all of this behavior is deplorable, this chapter will focus specifically on Michael’s sexual harassment.
Not only are the women, most often Pam, subject to Michael’s innuendos, vague and probably insincere come-ons, provocative remarks, uninvited touching, and the like, so are some of the men. Despite Michael’s repeated and unsolicited assertions of his hetero-sexuality, Ryan the Temp became a focus of his attention soon after arriving at the office. Michael rewarded him with “The Hottest in the Office” Dundie, which he conferred with a slap on Ryan’s rear. He also demonstrated an unusual amount of affection for Ryan when he got him a Video i-Pod as his “Secret Santa,” despite the twenty-dollar limit. Oscar has had to endure Michael’s numerous racist remarks, but in “Gay Witch Hunt” Michael kissed Oscar in a clumsy attempt to prove that he wasn’t homophobic. This led to the company’s generous settlement with Oscar.
Ryan, Pam, and many others in the office could threaten similar lawsuits. If they ever do, however, Michael could turn to the talents of his lawyer, James P. Albini, to whom we are introduced in “Sexual Harassment.” Albini (whose face we might recognize from the billboards) specializes in “free speech issues” and, as he helpfully informs the camera, “motorcycle head injuries, worker’s comp, and diet pill lawsuits.” In his defense of Michael, Albini could rely on a loophole that many believe exists in United States sexual harassment law. This law arises out of anti-discrimination law, in particular, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that workplace sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination in violation of that Act.1 However, an indiscriminating harasser, like Michael, would seem to escape the scope of federal sexual harassment law. Both genders are victims of his offensive behavior. He’s what’s been called an “equal-opportunity harasser.” Since Michael harasses both women and men, Albini could argue that Michael has not committed sex discrimination.2
But the law is not our only moral authority (if it’s a moral authority at all).3 The law enforces some of our moral principles, but not all of them. There are some behaviors that most of us would consider immoral, but which are not illegal. Angela’s snobbish and rude behavior towards others is immoral, but few would think that it should be illegal. So, whether or not Michael’s behavior is illegal, it is clearly wrong. But if it is not discrimination, what is wrong with Michael’s behavior?
In attempting to answer this question, we will be doing applied ethics. Applied ethics is the attempt to use the tools of philosophy to solve particular moral problems or dilemmas. Most of the time, we know how to behave morally. We don’t always act according to our principles, but we usually know what it is we should do. For example, in “Drug Testing,” Dwight knows that it would be wrong to give Michael his urine, but he does so anyway. However, there are situations in which our moral obligations are not as clear (should Pam be planning her wedding during company time?). In other cases, we might believe that an action is immoral, but not know why it is (if Pam shouldn’t be planning her wedding at work, why not? Is it because it’s a misuse of company time or because it’s liable to upset Jim? Or both?). Applied ethics uses all the resources and techniques of philosophy to help us answer such questions. When it comes to Michael’s behavior, many of us might believe that it’s wrong but we’re unable to say exactly why it’s wrong. But it’s not enough simply to believe that behavior like Michael’s is wrong. We might be confusing what we find unpleasant or distasteful with what is immoral. Dwight’s hairstyle is unpleasant, but there’s nothing immoral about it. Understanding the reasons why Michael’s behavior is wrong can also help us challenge such behavior when we are victims or witnesses of it, and it can reinforce our opposition to it, so we’re less likely to be perpetrators or facilitators of it.
Filthy Emails and Inappropriate Jokes: Sexual Harassment as Wrongful Communication
In order to decide what is wrong with sexual harassment, we also need to define it. Courts in the United States have distinguished between two types of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and “hostile environment.” The former occurs when an employer demands sexual attention from an employee in exchange for some job-related benefit, such as simply keeping his or her job. Except, perhaps, for his attempt to kiss Pam in “Diwali,” Michael has never been seen committing this form of sexual harassment. While he has been capricious in his hiring and firing decisions, as well as in other work-related matters (for example, in his unwarranted disdain of Toby), he has never demanded sexual favors from an employee—though he has made Dwight do his laundry.
The other type of harassment occurs when an employer is responsible for a workplace environment that is threatening or offensive to an employee.4 The employer need not be the direct cause of such a workplace. The harassers could be the employee’s co-workers. If the boss is aware of the harassment but does nothing to correct it, then he or she can be found negligent. If Michael were to be sued for sexual harassment, it would likely be for creating a hostile environment. Such things as his email forwards (and his constant refrain “That’s what she said”) could easily be construed as creating a workplace that is offensive to many. But the “king of forwards,” as he describes himself, also does nothing to stop the offensive behavior of his workers. In “Conflict Resolution,” his proposed resolution to a dispute between Kevin and Angela would actually increase the offensive behavior in the office. Angela complains that Kevin makes sexually suggestive remarks that make her uncomfortable. Michael’s solution: “Angela, you are to make sexually suggestive remarks to Kevin that will make him uncomfortable.”
But, as we have discussed, since Michael subjects everyone in the office, regardless of gender, to his offensive behavior, US courts would have difficulty finding anything discriminatory, thus illegal, about Michael’s behavior. To remedy this kind of problem, Edmund Wall, a contemporary philosopher, has provided a definition of sexual harassment that avoids any connection with discrimination.5 According to Wall’s definition, Michael’s behavior is wrong because it amounts to what he calls “wrongful communication.” Wall offers four conditions that must be satisfied for sexual harassment to occur: first, someone—say, Michael—successfully communicates a message to another person—say, Pam—that has sexual content. Second, Pam does not consent to receive such a message. Third, Michael nevertheless repeats a message of this sort to Pam. Fourth, Pam “feels emotionally distressed” either because of Michael’s disregard of her refusal to receive such messages or by their sexual content, or both (Wall, 531).
Wall describes these conditions as necessary and jointly sufficient: they all need to be true in order for sexual harassment to have occurred (their necessity), and if they are all true, that is enough for sexual harassment to have occurred (their sufficiency). The sexual content of the message can take a variety of forms. For example, it can express a sexual interest in the receiver of the message, or it can be a dirty joke. The message doesn’t need to be communicated verbally. It could be made with a gesture, a drawing, a photograph, an email, or some other form of written communication. Wall makes it clear that the harassment doesn’t need to be intentional. The harasser might not be aware that his behavior amounts to harassment, but he persists in it either because of insensitivity or ignorance. This agrees with what Toby says during his review of the company’s sexual harassment policy: “Intent is irrelevant” (“Sexual Harassment”). Even if the harasser intends only to make the victim laugh, not feel embarrassed or offended, his behavior can still count as sexual harassment. The victim of the harassment can fail to consent to the sexual messages in a variety of ways. He or she can explicitly say that she doesn’t want to receive such messages, or she can refuse these messages through, as Wall puts it, a “suggestive silence” (Wall, 532).
So, sexual harassment occurs when a person subjects another to communication that he or she does not want to receive, and when he or she has made the harasser aware of this refusal. This way of understanding sexual harassment allows us to see what’s wrong with Michael’s behavior towards both Pam and Ryan. The gender of either the harasser or the victim does not matter. The problem with the harasser’s behavior is not that it is discriminatory, but that it violates the privacy and autonomy of its victim. According to Wall, the victim’s privacy is being violated insofar as they are being coerced to discuss highly personal sexual matters. The victim’s autonomy is breached because their refusal to engage in such a conversation is being ignored. When Michael sends Angela “these filthy emails” he is subjecting her to messages that she finds inappropriate, and he is not respecting her right to refuse them.
While this definition succeeds in showing at least some of what’s wrong with Michael’s behavior, it has some problems. First of all, the definition seems adaptable to any topic—not just sex—that a person would find offensive or be disinclined to talk about. For example, in “Benihana Christmas,” Dwight’s discussions of how to slaughter a goose, or just the goose, were offensive to many (even though it was a Christmas miracle!). We need only make the necessary substitutions in Wall’s definition and we will have another instance of wrongful communication (for example, “someone successfully communicates to another person a message that is about how to slaughter a goose,” and so on). So, while it might identify what is wrong with such behavior, Wall’s definition fails to pick out anything especially egregious in the case of sexual harassment. There is more to sexual harassment than just forcing someone to discuss matters that they are disinclined to discuss. For example, in “The Fire,” Michael compels Ryan to listen to his business advice. He also admits (during the “Who would you do?” game) that he would want to have sex with Ryan. These two cases seem to be importantly different both in the kind of offensive message being communicated and the degree of its offensiveness.
But do the messages even need to have a sexual content in order for sexual harassment to occur? US courts, at least, have begun to recognize, as Sandra M. Tomkowicz explains, “that a workplace can be made hostile or abusive not only by overt sexual conduct or conduct tinged with sexual overtones, but also by conduct that demeans, derides, denigrates or otherwise deprives an individual of opportunities because of that individual’s gender.”6 In “Alliance,” Michael calls the party-planning committee his “party-planning bitches.” In “Boys and Girls,” Michael interrupts Jan’s “women in the workplace” meeting to plead with them against doing anything like what was done in the Albany office, namely turn the break room into a lactation room; “which is disgusting,” he says. These remarks are not sexual, at least not in the sense meant by Wall, but they are nonetheless offensive, and seem to be perfect examples of sexual harassment. But since Wall does not see any connection between sexual harassment and the disparate treatment of genders, his definition cannot identify what, if anything, is wrong with remarks like these.
There’s another problem with the definition we’ve been discussing. People’s level of tolerance for offensive behavior varies. Contrast Meredith and Angela, for example. An employee might also become hardened to offensive behavior after being subjected to it for a very long time.7 Couldn’t there still be something wrong with communicating sexual messages to these employees, even if they do not feel offended by them? And what if an employee has good reason for not objecting to behavior that she finds offensive (perhaps the fear of retaliation by her co-workers or boss)?
“That’s what she said”: Sexual Harassment as Sex Discrimination
The legal scholar Catherine A. MacKinnon has been an influential advocate of the view that sexual harassment is wrong because it discriminates. According to this view, Michael doing such things as saying of Angela in “The Dundies” that she has a “great caboose” or encouraging Pam in “The Convention” to unbutton the top button of her blouse so as to, as he puts it, “let those things breathe,” is not wrong simply because he is telling people things they’d rather not hear from him. Rather, MacKinnon would say that such behavior is wrong because it “perpetuates the interlocked structure by which women have been kept sexually in thrall to men at the bottom of the labor market.”8 Michael’s treatment of the women in the office has the cumulative effect of maintaining this structure. By constantly calling attention to their physical appearance and sexual characteristics, he is implying the particular role women are to play in society, namely, to be objects of men’s sexual attention. Any ambitions that are independent of that role are being discouraged. In the episode “Basketball,” Michael asks Pam to be a cheerleader for their team in the basketball game against the warehouse. He suggests she wear a halter-top and her hair in pig-tails; “something youthful for a change,” as he puts it. When she declines, Phyllis volunteers. Michael automatically responds: “Oh Yuck! That’s worse than you playing.” These insults take on an added dimension because of the power asymmetry between Michael—as not only their boss but also a man—and the women: “It is a reminder of that image of a deprived reality in which sexuality and attractiveness to men were all a woman had to offer—and she had very little control over either” (MacKinnon, 45). Michael treats the women in his office as if all that matters is their looks. In doing this, he is discriminating against them. He is not treating them as equals to men, as persons capable of doing more than being the objects of male heterosexual attention.9
Jan Crosthwaite and Graham Priest offer a similar way of understanding Michael’s behavior. They argue that it amounts to “a form of oppressive behavior.”10 They define oppression as “a relation between social groups which involves one group wielding power which is illegitimate, in some sense, over another group in the society” (Crosthwaite and Priest, 66). Sexual harassment is behavior that maintains or contributes to the subordinate position of one gender in society. It does this primarily through the psychological effect it has on its victims, causing the members of the oppressed group “to experience their complete powerlessness as a member of that group” (Crosthwaite and Priest, 66). Various types of behaviors can have this effect. Crosthwaite and Priest make it clear that the behaviors need not be sexual. Sexual harassment is “not best understood as harassment of a sexual nature” (Crosthwaite and Priest, 65). Calling a group of women “bitches” is not only to subject them to a word they might not want to hear (perhaps they have no problem with the word in itself or similar ones; Angela, after all, doesn’t mind using the word “hussy” to describe her co-workers); it is to treat them as members of a subordinate group. As such, it is a form of oppression.
This view of sexual harassment identifies what is especially egregious about sexual remarks. It also shows how the same harm can be caused by remarks and other behaviors that are not sexual in nature, but which nevertheless call unwarranted attention to a person’s gender. Whereas viewing sexual harassment as a kind of wrongful communication requires that the recipient of the unwelcome messages express her objection to them, this alternative account of sexual harassment allows us to see harassment in circumstances even when the victim does not actively oppose it. While Michael’s employees often express their displeasure at his behavior, more often they seem just to tolerate it. Pam might object more if she weren’t, like all the members of the office, afraid of losing her job. This or other repercussions might be the result of informing your boss that you object to his or her behavior. The difference in power between them makes it difficult for employees to oppose the harassment of their superiors (and this is a good reason to reject Wall’s second condition).
Viewing sexual harassment as a kind of discrimination also allows us to see that the victims of it can extend beyond the immediate recipient of the harassing behavior. As MacKinnon puts it, sexual harassment is a “group injury.”11 Since it reinforces the subordination of women in society, all women are injured by it, even if the immediate recipient of the behavior does not feel injured.
Finally, this view identifies the different effects that Michael’s offensive behavior can have on men and women. Ryan is certainly bothered by Michael’s attentions. Consider his reply when asked what he will do with his Dundie for “The Hottest in the Office”: “That’s the least of my concerns right now.” But Michael cannot cause him to be reminded of his “powerlessness” in society. Both the psychological and other effects of Michael’s harassment will be very different for him than for the female victims of it. However, there still seems to be something wrong with Michael’s behavior towards Ryan—something our discussion has not yet been able to identify. Crosthwaite and Priest contend that “women cannot commit [sexual harassment], nor men be victims” (Crosthwaite and Priest, 68). Only if women were the dominant group in society could Oscar or Ryan be victims of sexual harassment, and then only if their harasser was a woman.
Sandra Levitsky tries to broaden her account of sexual harassment to include cases in which a male is the victim of harassment.12 While she also sees sexual harassment as a kind of discrimination, she says that its central harm is its tendency to reinforce gender stereotypes. These stereotypes benefit men. They characterize men as capable of assuming dominant roles in society and deny that women have such a capability. Stereotypes have the power to influence how we treat other people, and gender stereotypes have the specific effect of causing us to treat men and women unequally. So, any reinforcement of a gender stereotype will add to men’s power over women. As Levitsky explains, “Preserving gender distinctions goes hand in hand with preserving the rewards men derive from these distinctions” (Levitsky, 219). Michael’s behavior towards Ryan and Oscar counts as sexual harassment because it reinforces these stereotypes: “When a person sexually harasses a man, the harasser both feminizes him and reinforces the idea that those qualities associated with women are subordinate to the qualities associated with men” (Levitsky, 219). However, according to this view, while Ryan and Oscar might be sexually harassed by Michael, they are not really the victims of his harassment. Since they are men, they actually benefit from these stereotypes. Instead, all women are the real victims of his behavior.
So, which view of sexual harassment is correct? They both are. They each identify morally egregious behavior and their different effects on their victims. It would be simply incorrect to deny that Ryan and Oscar are harassed by Michael. But it would also be wrong not to notice the different effects his harassment has on Pam and the other women in the office. When Ryan is harassed, he is not reminded of his subordinate position in society. When Oscar is harassed, he might be reminded of something like this, but what he feels is still different from what is felt by the female victims of Michael’s harassment. Everyone subjected to Michael’s behavior is harmed in some way, though not all in the same way. Some of his victims are harassed when they are treated as objects of sexual attraction by Michael; others are harassed when he treats them differently because of their gender. So, by sexual harassment we can mean two things: harassment that is sexual in nature or harassment that is directed towards one sex in particular. At most, what is in dispute between these two views is which type of behavior best deserves the label “sexual harassment.” I will not try to settle this. Instead, I want to consider whether these two views of sexual harassment are enough for understanding what’s wrong with Michael’s behavior.
“Crossing the Line”: Harassment in the Workplace
While we need both views of sexual harassment to understand what’s wrong with Michael’s behavior, they each miss something important. Both definitions fail to capture the particular effects that harassment can have in the workplace. MacKinnon comes close to identifying this when she writes that “A man who is allowed to measure a woman’s work by sexual standards cannot be said to employ her on the basis of merit” (MacKinnon, 45). But the same can be said of any employee in Michael’s office who is a victim of his harassment, especially when that harassment is of a sexual nature, but equally when it attacks the victim’s gender, race, age, physical appearance, and so on. When Michael expresses a sexual attraction to an employee, whether male or female, or when he calls unwarranted attention to her gender, he is undermining her expectation that she will be assessed only on her skills or other qualities that are relevant to the performance of her job. If employees lose this expectation, not only will their productivity likely decrease, but they will be wronged: they are entitled to be judged solely on the merits of their work.
People work for a paycheck. Many people would say that, in exchange for that check, workers have an obligation to do all the work that is expected of them by their employers. They shouldn’t be playing “Office Olympics” while the boss is away. Instead, they should be performing their duties as well and as completely as they possibly can. But many workers often do more than what is expected from them. In exchange for such things as bonuses, raises, promotions, letters of recommendation, and other job-related benefits besides a paycheck, they will do more than the minimum that is required in order to fulfill their obligations to their employers. Dwight is a perfect example. He often takes on duties that aren’t assigned to him (like investigating who wrote something about Michael on a wall in the women’s restroom) and the duties he is assigned are performed with an enthusiasm and intensity that would exceed most employers’ expectations (for example, as the elf in “Christmas Party” or the “supervisor of security,” and consider the risks he assumes, ineffectual as his efforts might be, in “The Fire,” both to put out the fire and to retrieve Michael’s phone from the building). In doing these things, he is doing more than is required of him in order to receive a paycheck. But he is not doing them for free. He reasonably expects some recognition for all the extra effort he puts into doing his job. Even Michael recognizes this when, in “The Return,” he hires Dwight back after coming to believe, though mistakenly, that Dwight made that early morning trip to New York City in order to help the office. More often, however, Michael ignores such dedication, or his behavior towards his employees implies, at least, that it is irrelevant to how he will judge them (just think of how Michael conducts his employee reviews!). But if a boss does not take such extra effort into consideration, if he is only judging his employees on their physical appearance or their gender, or their willingness to tolerate his jokes and insults, then it is all being done for nothing, and the employer is, in essence, getting this extra labor for free.13
There are certainly some employees who will use irrelevant characteristics to get ahead in a job. For example, a person might use her sexuality to keep or advance in her position. She might try to seduce her boss or make insincere sexual advances towards him. Or an employee might try to ingratiate himself with the boss in other ways, as Andy does, by pretending to be Michael’s friend or to find his jokes funny. But in doing these things, such employees are taking advantage of some characteristics that their co-workers might not possess. And since these characteristics are irrelevant to how well a person can perform his or her job, they are being unfair to their co-workers when they exploit them in this way. But it is ultimately Michael, when he takes such irrelevant characteristics into account, who is responsible for the harm done to his employees.
When Michael sexually harasses, he is undermining the legitimate expectation of his workers that they be judged fairly and only on those things relevant to the performance of their duties. They might also be discriminated against, “wrongfully communicated” to, and simply annoyed. Some harms might be worse than others, both in their scope and degree, but they are all equally real, no matter which most deserves the label “sexual harassment.”
NOTES
1 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986).
2 This loophole appears to be closing. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment can occur when the harasser and the harassed are of the same gender, and even when there is no sexual attraction for the harassed by the harasser. The harassment just needs to be “because of sex” (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 1998).
3 See Mark D. White, “Respect My Authorita! Is Cartman ‘The Law,’ and Even If He Is, Why Should We Obey Him?” in South Park and Philosophy, ed. by Robert Arp (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007).
4 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the government body commissioned with bringing sexual harassment suits on behalf of employees, describes both forms of sexual harassment in the following way: “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment” (www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.xhtml).
5 Edmund Wall, “Sexual Harassment and Wrongful Communication,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 31 (2001): 525–537. Hereafter cited parenthetically as (Wall, page number) in the text.
6 Sandra M. Tomkowicz, “Hostile Work Environments: It’s About The Discrimination, Not ‘The Sex,’ ” Labor Law Journal 55 (2004): 99– 111.
7 The Supreme Court has ruled that Title VII is violated even if the plaintiff does not suffer psychological harm from a hostile environment (Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 1993).
8 Catherine A. MacKinnon, “Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination,” in Sexual Harassment: Issues and Answers, ed. by Linda LeMoncheck and James P. Sterba (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 43. Hereafter cited parenthetically as (Mackinnon, page number) in the text. The LeMoncheck and Sterba anthology will hereafter be cited as SH in the notes.
9 Even Jan is treated in this way by Michael, but it is a good question— one I don’t have the space here to explore—whether that can count as sexual harassment, since Jan is his boss. But while their relationship— what there is of one—is voluntary, could Jan be sexually harassing Michael, her subordinate? Some advocates of the present view, as we will soon see, would say no.
10 Jan Crosthwaite and Graham Priest, “The Definition of Sexual Harassment,” in SH, p. 65. Hereafter cited as (Crosthwaite and Priest, page number) in the text.
11 Catherine MacKinnon, “Sexual Harassment as Sex Discrimination,” in Sexual Harassment: Confrontations and Decisions, ed. by Edmund Wall (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992), p. 145.
12 Sandra Levitsky, “Closing the ‘Bisexual Defense’ Loophole in Title VII Sexual Harassment Cases” in SH. Hereafter cited as (Levitsky, page number) in the text.
13 It might be said that workers in such a workplace simply shouldn’t put in this extra effort. If they know that the boss is not going to take it into account, then they are just wasting their time and energy. But among the benefits that workers seek when they work harder at their jobs than expected is simply continual employment. With the threat of downsizing, this has been an important motivation for the workers in The Office. But the employment relationship is always a tenuous one. Most of the workers at Dunder-Mifflin seem to be at-will employees. That means that their employment can end at any time. As it is often explained, the at-will employee can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.
Both US courts and legislation have made some exceptions to the at-will doctrine. For example, courts have recognized a “public policy” exception to the doctrine, such as when an employee is fired for refusing to do something illegal. And there is US legislation that protects employees from being fired for certain reasons, such as supporting a union.