The Employment-At-Will Doctrine: Three Major Exceptions

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Employment-At-Will Doctrine: Three Major Exceptions Employment at Will The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions In the United States, employees without a written employment contract generally can be fired for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all; judicial exceptions to the rule seek to prevent wrongful terminations Charles J. Muhl Work joyfully and peacefully, knowing that ing in terms of bargaining power. Thus, the em- right thoughts and right efforts will ployment-at-will doctrine reflected the belief that inevitably bring about right results people should be free to enter into employment —James Allen contracts of a specified duration, but that no ob- ligations attached to either employer or employee See only that thou work and thou canst if a person was hired without such a contract. not escape the reward Because employees were able to resign from po- —Ralph Waldo Emerson sitions they no longer cared to occupy, employ- ers also were permitted to discharge employees ike Allen and Emerson, many workers in at their whim. the United States believe that satisfactory The Industrial Revolution planted the seeds Ljob performance should be rewarded with, for the erosion of the employment-at-will doctrine. among other benefits, job security. However, this When employees began forming unions, the col- expectation that employees will not be fired if lective bargaining agreements they subsequently they perform their jobs well has eroded in recent negotiated with employers frequently had provi- decades in the face of an increased incidence sions in them that required just cause for adverse of mass layoffs, reductions in companies’ employment actions, as well as procedures for workforces, and job turnover. In legal terms, arbitrating employee grievances.2 The 1960s though, since the last half of the 19th century, marked the beginning of Federal legislative pro- employment in each of the United States has been tections (including Title VII of the 1964 Civil “at will,” or terminable by either the employer or Rights Act) from wrongful discharge based on employee for any reason whatsoever. The em- race, religion, sex, age, and national origin.3 ployment-at-will doctrine avows that, when an These protections reflected the changing view of employee does not have a written employment the relationship between employer and employee. contract and the term of employment is of indefi- Rather than seeing the relationship as being on nite duration, the employer can terminate the equal footing, courts and legislatures slowly be- Charles J. Muhl, formerly an economist employee for good cause, bad cause, or no cause gan to recognize that employers frequently have with the Bureau of at all.1 structural and economic advantages when nego- Labor Statistics, Traditionally and as recently as the early tiating with potential or current employees. The Washington, DC, is an attorney in Chicago, 1900s, courts viewed the relationship between recognition of employment as being central to a Illinois. employer and employee as being on equal foot- person’s livelihood and well-being, coupled with Monthly Labor Review January 2001 3 Employment at Will the fear of being unable to protect a person’s livelihood from Exhibit 1. Recognition of employment-at-will exceptions, unjust termination, led to the development of common-law, or by State, as of Oct. 1, 2000 judicial, exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine begin- Public- Covenant of ning in the late 1950s. The bulk of the development of these State policy Implied-contract good faith and exception exceptions did not take place until the 1980s, but as we enter exception fair dealing the new millennium, the employment-at-will doctrine has been Total................. 43 38 11 significantly eroded by statutory and common-law protec- Alabama............... no yes yes tions against wrongful discharge. Alaska.................. yes yes yes Arizona................. yes yes yes This article focuses on the three major exceptions to the Arkansas.............. yes yes no employment-at-will doctrine, as developed in common law, California.............. yes yes yes including recognition of these exceptions in the 50 States. Colorado............... yes yes no The exceptions principally address terminations that, although Connecticut........... yes yes no Delaware............... yes no yes they technically comply with the employment-at-will require- District of Columbia yes yes no ments, do not seem just. The most widespread exception pre- Florida.................. no no no vents terminations for reasons that violate a State’s public Georgia................ no no no policy. Another widely recognized exception prohibits termi- Hawaii.................. yes yes no Idaho................... yes yes yes nations after an implied contract for employment has been Illinois.................. yes yes no established; such a contract can be created through employer Indiana................. yes no no representations of continued employment, in the form of ei- Iowa..................... yes yes no ther oral assurances or expectations created by employer Kansas................. yes yes1 no Kentucky.............. yes yes no handbooks, policies, or other written assurances. Finally, a Louisiana.............. no no no minority of States has read an implied covenant of good faith Maine................... no yes no and fair dealing into the employment relationship. The good- Maryland............... yes yes no faith covenant has been interpreted in different ways, from Massachusetts...... yes no yes Michigan............... yes yes no meaning that terminations must be for cause to meaning that Minnesota............. yes yes no terminations cannot be made in bad faith or with malice in- Mississippi............ yes1 yes no tended. Only six western States—Alaska, California, Idaho, Missouri................ yes no1 no Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming—recognize all three of the ma- Montana............... yes no yes Nebraska.............. no yes no 4 jor exceptions. Three southern States—Florida, Georgia, and Nevada................. yes yes yes Louisiana—and Rhode Island do not recognize any of the New Hampshire...... yes yes no1 three major exceptions to employment at will. (See exhibit 1.) New Jersey........... yes yes no New Mexico........... yes yes no New York............... no yes no North Carolina........ yes no no Public-policy exception North Dakota......... yes yes no Ohio..................... yes1 yes no Under the public-policy exception to employment at will, an Oklahoma............. yes yes no employee is wrongfully discharged when the termination is Oregon................. yes yes no Pennsylvania......... yes no no against an explicit, well-established public policy of the State. Rhode Island......... no no no For example, in most States, an employer cannot terminate an South Carolina....... yes yes no employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim after being South Dakota........ yes yes no injured on the job, or for refusing to break the law at the re- Tennessee............ yes yes no Texas................... yes no no quest of the employer. The majority view among States is that Utah..................... yes yes yes public policy may be found in either a State constitution, Vermont................ yes yes no statute, or administrative rule, but some States have either Virginia................. yes no no restricted or expanded the doctrine beyond this bound. Washington........... yes yes no West Virginia......... yes yes no The public-policy exception is the most widely accepted ex- Wisconsin............. yes yes no ception, recognized in 43 of the 50 States. (See map 1.) Wyoming............... yes yes yes Although the significant development of exceptions to em- 1 Overturned previous decision that was contrary to current doctrine. ployment at will occurred in the 1980s, the first case to recog- SOURCE: Data are from David J. Walsh and Joshua L. Schwarz, nize a public-policy exception occurred in California in 1959. “State Common Law Wrongful Discharge Doctrines: Up-date, Refine- 5 ment, and Rationales,” 33 Am. Bus. L.J. 645 (summer 1996). Case law In Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was shepardized (verified) to update the recognition of exceptions through Peter Petermann was hired by the Teamsters Union as a busi- Oct. 1, 2000. 4 Monthly Labor Review January 2001 ness agent and was told by its secretary-treasurer that he found that applying the public policy exception in this con- would be employed for as long as his work was satisfactory. text would more fully effectuate California’s declared policy During his employment, Petermann was subpoenaed by the against perjury. Holding otherwise would encourage criminal California legislature to appear before, and testify to, the As- conduct by both employer and employee, the court reasoned. sembly Interim Committee on Governmental Efficiency and Courts in other States were slow to follow California’s lead. Economy, which was investigating corruption inside the Team- No other State considered adopting such an exception until sters Union. The union directed Petermann to make false after 1967, and only 22 States had considered the exception statements to the committee during his testimony, but he in- by the early 1980s.7 Courts clearly struggled with the mean- stead truthfully answered all questions posed to him. He was ing of the phrase “public policy,” with some finding that a fired the day after his testimony. policy was public only if it was clearly enunciated in a State’s In recognizing that an employer’s
Recommended publications
  • Frequently Asked Questions About Bullying
    Safety and Respect for All Frequently Asked Questions About Bullying 1-What is school bullying? 2-What are the consequences of school bullying? 3-What can a school community do about bullying? 4-What can teachers do about classroom bullying? 5-What can students do about school bullying? 6-What can parents of young children do about school bullying? 7-What can parents of teens do about school bullying? 8-What can community partners do about school bullying? 9-How can a caring adult work with a bully? 10-How can a school community promote an anti-bullying climate? 11-What is cyber bullying? 12-Resources 1-What is school bullying? Bullying is exposing a person to abusive actions repeatedly over time. Being aware of children's teasing and acknowledging injured feelings are always important. Bullying becomes a concern when hurtful or aggressive behavior toward an individual or group appears to be unprovoked, intentional, and (usually) repeated. Bullying is a form of violence. It involves a real or perceived imbalance of power, with the more powerful child or group attacking those who are less powerful. Bullying may be physical (hitting, kicking, spitting, pushing), verbal (taunting, malicious teasing, name calling, threatening), or emotional (spreading rumors, manipulating social relationships, extorting, or intimidating). Bullying can occur face-to-face or in the online world. What do bullies do? Bullying actions may be direct or indirect. Direct bullying or identifiable bullying actions may include: • Hitting, tripping, shoving, pinching,
    [Show full text]
  • PS-79: Flexible Work Hours and Staffing
    Flexible Work Hours and Staffing PS-79 PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is to describe the campus policy on flexible work hours and flexible staffing. FLEXTIME POLICY: The University's regular business hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. However, campus departments may have official hours which differ in order to provide necessary services, including multiple shifts. Departments are encouraged to consider flexible schedules when in the best interest of employees and the department. LSU recognizes that flexible schedules can improve morale, productivity and recognize the contributions made before and after normal work hours, particularly by professional staff. Flextime is a work schedule equal to 40 hours per week but differing from the regular business hours. A flextime schedule is appropriate only when the work schedule is beneficial to the University. Working a flextime schedule is a privilege, not an employee right and flexible schedules are not appropriate for all job situations. Flextime schedules may be considered using the following guidelines: A. Service - The level of service provided by the department may not decrease. Normally, flextime provides a wider span of service and provide staff with an opportunity to modify their work schedule to fit individual needs. Department heads must also consider the workload, flow of work, impact on quality and schedules as they relate to the mission and objectives of the department. B. Coverage - Implementation is contingent on ensuring at least minimal coverage (i.e., office front desk and phones) from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. including the lunch period as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revolving Door: Rehired Employees
    The Revolving Door: Rehired Employees Robert M. Richter, Esq., APM Vice President SunGard Relius 1 What Will Be Covered • Counting service • Break in service rules including the “rule of parity” • Entry requirements for rehires • Buy-back rights • Returning from military leave 2 Robert’s Rules of Rehires • Don’t rehire former employees • If the person was good enough to rehire, then why go to all this effort to keep the person out of the plan • In 95 percent of the cases, the person will be eligible on the date of rehire 3 Eligibility Requirements 4 410(a) Maximum • Code §410(a) limits maximum age and service condition plan can impose – Generally one year of service – Age 21 • Plan can’t impose higher service requirement – Even if plan would pass coverage 5 Two Years of Service • The law allows a plan to use a two-year eligibility condition • But pay the price – Full and immediate vesting • Exception: Can’t use two-year rule for elective deferrals • Can be years of service without an intervening break in service (first exception to rule that all service counts) 6 Entry Date • EE generally enters plan on entry date after satisfying eligibility requirements • Maximum entry date is earlier of: – First day of the first plan year beginning after the date requirements are met, or – Date that is six months after the date requirements are met • Roughly 182 entry dates – but January 1st and July 1st meet the maximum 7 Employment on Entry Date • Plan can require employment on entry date as condition to enter • If EE comes back after entry date,
    [Show full text]
  • Background - EMPLOYEE DISMISSAL
    Background - EMPLOYEE DISMISSAL The dismissal of an employee is never an easy or pleasant task and is also one that, if not handled properly, can result in future costly and time consuming problems. However if a few simple rules are followed, the potential problems of cost and time may be avoided. Any employee (other than a unionized employee covered by a Collective Agreement)* can be released at any time, with or without just cause, if the relevant rules and regulations of the applicable provincial or territorial Employment Standards Legislation are adhered too. *(A Collective Agreement covering unionized employees will contain provisions concerning discipline, suspension, discharge and an arbitration procedure which must be followed in an employee dismissal process). The applicable Employment Standards Legislation will include a required notice period (a number of weeks based on length of employment) that must be provided to an employee whose employment is to be terminated. The employer has the unilateral right to provide pay in lieu of the notice period which is the usual choice in the case of an employee dismissal. An employer is not required to provide any notice, or pay in lieu of notice, if an employee is dismissed for what is commonly referred to as “Just Cause”. What is “Just Cause”? Jurisprudence, in the case of an employee dismissal, considers it as follows. “If an employee has been guilty of serious misconduct, habitual neglect of duty, incompetence, or conduct incompatible with his duties, or prejudicial to the employer’s business, or if he has been guilty of willful disobedience to the employer’s orders in a matter of substance, the law recognizes the employer’s right summarily to dismiss the delinquent employee”.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules for Shared Parental Leave
    FEATURE Rules for shared parental leave By Alan Pitcaithley, practice management consultant arents will soon be legally their child’s first year. This will have an impact Written notice entitled to share statutory on employers and there are, therefore, precise To use these rights, eligible parents (Table leave following the birth procedures to be followed. 1) must give their employer proper written or adoption of a child. This The mother would normally be able to notice; in fact, three different notices. ‘shared parental leave’ will take up to 52 weeks’ maternity leave. Shared First, the mother must give notice to end apply to eligible parents of parental leave allows a mother to turn her her maternity leave and change over to shared Pbabies due, or children placed for adoption, maternity leave into shared parental leave. parental leave. Second, both parents must give on or after 5 April 2015. It allows employees The actual amount of shared parental leave their employers a notice of entitlement letter to break their absence from work into available depends on how much maternity that sets out their basic eligibility (Table 2). separate blocks and to share some of the leave is taken. Finally, each must provide a notice of leave leave with their spouse or partner. Potentially, Since a mother must take at least two letter that specifies the actual dates that the eligible parents, in the first year of a child’s weeks’ compulsory maternity leave following employee wishes to take as shared parental birth or adoption, will be able to dip in and the birth of their child, there could be up to leave.
    [Show full text]
  • M.D. Handbook and Policies
    M.D. Handbook and Policies 1 Please note that information contained herein is subject to change during the course of any academic year. Wayne State University School of Medicine (WSUSOM) reserves the right to make changes including, but not limited to, changes in policies, course offerings, and student requirements. This document should not be construed in any way as forming the basis of a contract. The WSUSOM Medicine M.D. Handbook and Policies is typically updated yearly, although periodic mid-year updates may occur when deemed necessary. Unlike degree requirements, changes in regulations, policies and procedures are immediate and supersede those in any prior Medical Student Handbook. The most current version of the WSUSOM of Medicine M.D. Handbook and Policies can always be found on the School of Medicine website. UPDATED 09.15.2021 UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION MAJOR COMMITTEES • Admissions Committee • Curriculum Committee • Institutional Effectiveness Committee • Professionalism Committee • Promotions Committee 2 DOCUMENT OUTLINE 1. GENERAL STANDARDS 1.1 NEW INSTITUTIONAL DOMAINS OF COMPETENCY AND COMPETENCIES • Domain 1: Knowledge for Practice (KP) • Domain 2: Patient Care (PC) • Domain 3: Practice-Based Learning and Improvement (PBLI) • Domain 4: Interpersonal and Communication Skills (ICS) • Domain 5: Professionalism (P) • Domain 6: Systems-Based Practice (SBP) • Domain 7: Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC) • Domain 8: Personal and Professional Development (PPD) • Domain 13: Entrustable Professional Activities for Entering
    [Show full text]
  • Markets Not Capitalism Explores the Gap Between Radically Freed Markets and the Capitalist-Controlled Markets That Prevail Today
    individualist anarchism against bosses, inequality, corporate power, and structural poverty Edited by Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in freed markets, not capitalism. They defend a distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up capitalists. Massive concentrations of wealth, rigid economic hierarchies, and unsustainable modes of production are not the results of the market form, but of markets deformed and rigged by a network of state-secured controls and privileges to the business class. Markets Not Capitalism explores the gap between radically freed markets and the capitalist-controlled markets that prevail today. It explains how liberating market exchange from state capitalist privilege can abolish structural poverty, help working people take control over the conditions of their labor, and redistribute wealth and social power. Featuring discussions of socialism, capitalism, markets, ownership, labor struggle, grassroots privatization, intellectual property, health care, racism, sexism, and environmental issues, this unique collection brings together classic essays by Cleyre, and such contemporary innovators as Kevin Carson and Roderick Long. It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism. “We on the left need a good shake to get us thinking, and these arguments for market anarchism do the job in lively and thoughtful fashion.” – Alexander Cockburn, editor and publisher, Counterpunch “Anarchy is not chaos; nor is it violence. This rich and provocative gathering of essays by anarchists past and present imagines society unburdened by state, markets un-warped by capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contract As Social Artifact Mark C. Suchman
    91 The Contract as Social Artifact Mark C. Suchman This article outlines a distinctive, albeit not entirely unprecedented, research agenda for the sociolegal study of contracts. In the past, law and society scholars have tended to examine contracts either through the intellectual history of contract doctrine ‘‘on the books’’ or through the empirical study of how real-world exchange relations are governed ‘‘in action.’’ Although both of these traditions have contributed greatly to our understanding of contract law, neither has devoted much attention to the most distinctive concrete product of contractual transactionsFcontract documents themselves. Without denying the value of studying either contract doctrine or relational governance, this article argues that contract documents are independently interesting social artifacts and that they should be studied as such. As social artifacts, contracts possess both technical and symbolic properties, and the sociolegal study of contract-as-artifact can profitably apply prevailing social scientific theories of technology and symbolism to understand both: (1) the microdynamics of why and how transacting parties craft individual contract devices, and (2) the macrodynamics of why and how larger social systems generate and sustain distinctive contract regimes. Seen in this light, the microdynamics of contract implicate ‘‘technical’’ theories of transaction cost engineering and private lawmaking, and ‘‘symbolic’’ theories of ceremony and gesture. In a parallel fashion, the macrodynamics of contract implicate ‘‘technical’’ theories of innovation diffusion, path dependence, and technology cycles, and ‘‘symbolic’’ theories of ideology, legitimacy, and communication. Together, these micro and macro explorations suggest that contract artifacts may best be understood as scripts and signalsFcollections of symbols designed to yield technically efficacious practical action when interpreted by culture-bearing social actors within the context of preexisting vocabularies and conventions.
    [Show full text]
  • Suggested Limitations of the Public Policy Doctrine Charles B
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1935 Suggested Limitations of the Public Policy Doctrine Charles B. Nutting Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Nutting, Charles B., "Suggested Limitations of the Public Policy Doctrine" (1935). Minnesota Law Review. 993. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/993 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW SUGGESTED LIMITATIONS OF THE PUBLIC POLICY DOCTRINE By CHARLES B. NUTTING* ECENT activity among writers in the field of the conflict of laws has revealed an awakened interest in the ever-vexing problem of determining the law applicable to situations in which the law of the forum differs from that of some other jurisdiction which may govern.' Apparently proceeding on the assumption that a court in such case is at liberty to select the law to be applied, varying suggestions have been made as to the criterion to be adopted. If the vested rights theory of conflicts is followed, much of this discussion becomes irrelevant, since under that theory there is, strictly speaking, no "choice" of law, one law and one alone being properly applicable in every case.- Whether this or some other theory embodies the true explanation of conflicts cases, we may leave to those who hurl thunderbolts about Olympus.' The writer, being sympathetically inclined toward the high church party in these matters, favors it for reasons which will appear hereafter.
    [Show full text]
  • Law-And-Economics Approaches to Labour and Employment Law Stewart J
    Cornell University Law School Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Cornell Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 3-2017 Law-and-Economics Approaches to Labour and Employment Law Stewart J. Schwab Cornell Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons, and the Law and Economics Commons Recommended Citation Stewart J. Schwab, "Law-and-Economics Approaches to Labour and Employment Law," 33 International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations (2017) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Law-and-Economics Approaches to Labour and Employment Law * Stewart J. SCHWAB This article describes the distinctive approaches that law and economics takes to labour and employment law. The article distinguishes between ‘economic analysis of law’ and ‘law and economics’, with the former applying economic models to generally simple legal rules while the latter blends messier institutional detail with legal and economic thought. The article describes three eras of law-and-economics scholarship, recognizing that economics teaches that markets work and markets fail. Era One emphasizes that labour laws and mandatory employment rules might reduce overall social welfare by preventing a benefit or term from going to the party that values it most highly. Era Two emphasizes that labour and employment laws might enhance overall social welfare by correcting market failures arising from monopsony power, externalities, public goods, asymmetric information, information-processing heuristics, and internal labour markets.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Work Break Reference Guide
    Short Work Break Reference Guide What is Short Work Break (SWB)? Short Work Break is used to create a temporary halt to a job with the expectation that the employee will be returning into the same job. Putting a job in SWB stops pay on the job but allows employees to remain active in the payroll system. When do I use Short Work Break (SWB)? Academic jobs for certain quarters of the year (Lecturers, academic student employees, etc.) Floater employees during periods of inactivity (temp services) Staff Employee on Furlough (most commonly, partial-year career 10/12) DO NOT USE FOR GRADUATE STUDENT EMPLOYEES Important Note: Please refer to the Short Work Break Matrix for more details. UCI Short Work Break Matrix Features/Benefits of Short Work Break Considerations Don’t have to re-hire Minimal transaction Doesn’t have to go to path center (local process) Returning from SWB is simple process Units will continue to have visibility to employees, still on active HR status Needs monitoring, especially the return Have to return them before you can do anything else to them (e.g. have to return to terminate them) Length of SWB is pre-determined based on title code Benefits are halted during SWB Can change position funding during SWB Can still do retro transactions during SWB Assumptions Employee needs to be returning to the same job. UCI UCPATH - Training Last updated 9/11/2019 Short Work Break Reference Guide How to put an employee on Short Work Break Navigation: PeopleSoft Menu > UC Customizations > UC Extensions > PayPath Actions.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Democratic Deliberation and Social Choice: a Review Christian List1
    1 Democratic Deliberation and Social Choice: A Review Christian List1 This version: June 2017 Forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy 1. Introduction In normative political theory, it is widely accepted that democratic decision making cannot be reduced to voting alone, but that it requires reasoned and well-informed discussion by those involved in and/or subject to the decisions in question, under conditions of equality and respect. In short, democracy requires deliberation (e.g., Cohen 1989; Gutmann and Thompson 1996; Dryzek 2000; Fishkin 2009; Mansbridge et al. 2010). In formal political theory, by contrast, the study of democracy has focused less on deliberation, and more on the aggregation of individual preferences or opinions into collective decisions – social choices – typically through voting (e.g., Arrow 1951/1963; Riker 1982; Austen-Smith and Banks 2000, 2005; Mueller 2003). While the literature on deliberation has an optimistic flavour, the literature on social choice is more mixed. It is centred around several paradoxes and impossibility results showing that collective decision making cannot generally satisfy certain plausible desiderata. Any democratic aggregation rule that we use in practice seems, at best, a compromise. Initially, the two literatures were largely disconnected from each other. Since the 1990s, however, there has been a growing dialogue between them (e.g., Miller 1992; Knight and Johnson 1994; van Mill 1996; Dryzek and List 2003; Landa and Meirowitz 2009). This chapter reviews the connections between the two. Deliberative democratic theory is relevant to social choice theory in that deliberation can complement aggregation and open up an escape route from some of its negative results.
    [Show full text]