People do not have the same rights on their jobs that they have as citizens. Individuals who want to be employed must arrive on time, follow orders, accept limits on their speech and privacy, and conform to a host of other regulations. Those who want to manage must leave their personal prejudices at home and enforce workplace rules, such as safety protocols, even if they decrease productivity. Broadly conceived, the ultimate paradox presented by employment is this: To get something (money, responsibility, opportunity to make a difference), employees must give up something (liberty, time, discretion).

Many workplace obligations and restraints are rooted in the law, and agency leaders must know these principles. In light of these many challenges, perhaps the prudent course for a manager to take is to call a human resource professional or attorney with every specific question. Of course, managers should consult with legal experts regularly, but they must make choices daily about how work is to be performed, often with little time for input from others. A basic understanding of the law, which this chapter begins to provide, will help a manager make better snap decisions and recognize when to delay a decision and consult an expert.

There are primary federal laws, as well as state statutes and local ordinances affect the employer–employee relationship as well. States and local governments, for example, have created civil service systems, raised the minimum wage above the national minimum, and passed antidiscrimination and antiretaliation laws with broader protections than those found in national laws. Not surprisingly, these laws frequently conflict, and courts must decide whether one government body’s law preempts another’s.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Labor are responsible for most federal employment laws, and they publish voluminous materials on those laws. State agencies enforce and administer state employment laws and publish related materials, but they rarely provide the comprehensive assistance that federal agencies do. While an agency’s interpretation of a statute is not binding on a court, courts defer to agencies because of their expertise.

Employers have policies and forms that define the arrangement, but legislatures and courts have added terms to it. At-will employment is the relationship predominantly used by American businesses, and governments use it liberally as well. In its pure form it means that if the parties do not specify the duration of employment—and most do not—either party may terminate the employment at any time, for any reason. Supporters claim that the relationship upholds freedom of contract and fairly balances the interests of employers and employees because either may sever the relationship. But critics point out that many workers need their jobs more than their employers need them, so at-will employment opens the door to abuse. It permits an employer to refuse to hire members of disfavored groups, to engage in opportunistic firings, and to punish employees for behaving in socially desirable ways.