I work for a company in Georgia and I manage the office. There is no HR department, nor do I have an employment contract. I am hearing rumors that they are going to be replacing me with someone that worked for them in the past. I have had no reprimands, nor have I had any warnings, etc. If this is the case, it just because they want to rehire the person that was here before that will be moving back into the state. I have received rave compliments on the excellent job that I have done from people that I service. Unfortunately, they won't be able to help me keep my job.

I know that Georgia is at "At Will" state which I feel needs to be changed, because good, decent, hardworking people get terminated because of personal reasons and not because they haven't done an excellent job.

Do I have any recourse at all?

No, sorry, that is what "at-will employment" means. The employer may discharge you at any time for any reason not prohibited by law, and you can quit at any time for any reason. You would have no legal recourse from what you posted.

Patty, would I be able to draw unemployment.

Also, how would one go about changing the law in their state in regards to the "At Will" Employment?

Yes, in the circumstances you describe you would be able to collect unemployment, assuming that this actually comes to pass and is not just rumor.

To get the law changed you would have to lobby your state representatives. But considering that 49 out of 50 states are considered at-will and even the 50th accepts the at-will doctrine in some situations, and considering that the at-will doctrine benefits the employee as well as the employer in many, many situations, it is unlikely that you will succeed.

How does the At Will law benefit an employee?

I'll give you an example.

Only a very few years ago, the job market was very different than it is today. Employers were bending over backwards trying to find ways to incite new employees to come to them, and to encourage current employees to stay. But the employees all knew, at least in many fields, that if they left, they'd have a new job, probably with better pay and benefits because so many employers had more openings than there were people to fill them, so if the employer said or did anything they didn't like, the employee could quit and move on to something better, while the employer would be stuck with another opening to fill. It was the at-will laws that allowed an employee to do this, and I didn't hear anyone complaining about them then.

Thanks for the explanation.

It's just unfortunate that people can lose their jobs that do an excellent job and that did not do anything to get terminated. Truly unfortunate.

I had something similar happen to me, which wasn't unusual for the company as I found and suspected when I got the job. I worked for an independent company who owns 3 hotels and 2 storage units and has a main office. The owner went through 8 "managers" in one year in the other hotels. He had the opportunity to hire some good managers (including myself), but in his last statement to me, "he was smarter than me." He frequently decides he wants a "change" so he can hire at a lesser salary. He frequently hires those with no experience in hotels as managers or bookkeepers. I have recently found out is because he is going to be in a LOT of trouble for tax fraud and he aparently needs the money! He also needed a flunky to blame it on! Ink). I finally reported him to the Department of Employment, the EEOC, the Tax commission, OSHA, and anyone else who would listen. I have to tell you, though: when someone takes advantage of you like that, please be sure you have DOCUMENTATION of ALL incidents where you are having problems. My unemployment file is still pending at this time, but because I resigned, it makes my chances slim. What is helping my case, though, is if I have to appeal, I have notes and documents that address the reasons of a hostile work environment as why I had to leave with dates and times of when I addressed them to my emplolyer, and how they were still accepting unacceptable behavior. I know this sounds confusing, but my point is that documentation is the key issue here, this way you are protected in some miniscule way (GA does not really have any protection for the employee, but for the employER!).