NorMas 2013
Argumentation about Norms
Henry Prakken
August 23, 2013
Olga Monge v. Beebe Rubber
Company (1974)

Facts (1):


Law:



Olga Monge, employed for an indefinite period of time (“at
will”), was fired by her foreman for no reason
Every employment contract that specifies no duration is
terminable at will by either party
If an employment contract is terminable at will, then the
employee can be fired for any reason or no reason at all
Decision:

Firing Olga Monge was a breach of contract
Olga Monge v. Beebe Rubber
Company (1974)

Facts (1):


Law:



Every employment contract that specifies no duration is
terminable at will by either party
If an employment contract is terminable at will, then the
employee can be fired for any reason or no reason at all
Decision:


Olga Monge, employed for an indefinite period of time (“at
will”), was fired by her foreman for no reason
Firing Olga Monge was a breach of contract
Facts (2):

Monge claimed that she was fired since she had refused to
go out with the foreman
Rational reconstructions of
Monge


Rational reconstruction 1: defeasible reasoning with
rules and exceptions
Rational reconstruction 2: arguing about whether the
rule should be changed
If a person cannot be fired
in malice and s/he was
fired in malice, then firing
him/her is a breach of
contract
Attack on conclusion (Monge)
Firing Olga Monge
was no breach of
contract
…
Olga Monge’s
contract was
terminable at will
Every employment
contract that specifies
no duration is
terminable at will by
either party
If a person can be fired
for any reason or no
reason at all and s/he
was fired, then firing
him/her is not a breach
of contract
Olga Monge
was fired
Olga Monge’s
contract specified
no duration
…
Firing Olga Monge
was breach of
contract
Olga Monge
cannot be fired in
malice
Employees cannot be
fired in malice
Olga Monge
was fired in
malice
Olga Monge was
employed
Attack on inference (Monge)
Firing Olga Monge
was no breach of
contract
…
Olga Monge can
be fired for any
reason or no
reason at all
Every employment
contract that specifies
no duration is
terminable at will by
either party
Olga Monge
was fired
Olga Monge’s
contract specified
no duration
The employment
at will rule does
not apply to Olga
Monge
The employment at will
rule does not apply to
people fired in malice
Olga Monge
was fired in
malice
Common Law vs. Civil law
(traditionally)

Civil law has formally enacted legislation


Courts have no authority to change
legislation
Common law has no legislation, only
precedents + stare decisis

Rules evolve over time in case law
Quotes from Monge


In all employment contracts, whether at will or for a definite
term, the employer's interest in running his business as he sees
fit must be balanced against the interest of the employee in
maintaining his employment, and the public's interest in
maintaining a proper balance between the two.
We hold that a termination by the employer of a contract of
employment at will which is motivated by bad faith or malice or
based on retaliation is not in the best interest of the economic
system or the public good and constitutes a breach of the
employment contract.”
Supporting and using legal rules
Conclusion of rule R
Rule R
We should adopt rule
R as the valid one
Condition of rule R
IF we should adopt
rule R as the valid one
THEN rule R
Supporting and using legal rules
in the Monge case (1)
Monge’s contract can be
terminated at will by
Monge’s employer
Every employment contract that
specifies no duration is terminable
at will by either party
We should adopt the
Old Rule as the valid
one
Further arguments for and
against this premise
Monge’s contract
specified no
duration
IF we should adopt
rule R as the valid one
THEN rule R
Supporting and using legal rules
in the Monge case (2)
Monge’s contract cannot
be terminated at will by
Monge’s employer
“Every employment contract that
specifies no duration is terminable at
will by either party, unless the
employer terminates the contract
in bad faith, malice, or retaliation
We should adopt the
New Rule as the valid
one
Further arguments for and
against this premise
Monge’s contract
specified no
duration
IF we should adopt
rule R as the valid one
THEN rule R
Monge was
fired in malice
Arguments from good/bad
consequences:
promoting or demoting legal values
Action A causes G,
G promotes (demotes) legal value V
Therefore (presumably), A should (not) be done

Critical questions:



Are there other ways to cause G?
Does A also cause something else that promotes
or demotes other values?
...
Short for “Every employment contract
that specifies no duration is terminable
at will by either party unless the
employer terminates the contract
in bad faith, malice, or retaliation”
Short for “Every
employment contract
that specifies no
duration is terminable
at will by either party”
Monge as practical reasoning
We should adopt the Old
Rule as the valid rule
The old rule makes
that employers can
run their business as
they see fit
Employers being
able to run their
business as they
see fit promotes
individual liberty
We should adopt the New
Rule as the valid rule
The new rule makes
that good employees
cannot be fired in
malice
Good employees
not being able to
be fired in malice
promotes the
economic system
and public good
Argument A weakly defeats argument B if A
attacks B and is not weaker than B
Argument A strictly defeats argument B if A
attacks B and is stronger than B
Monge as practical reasoning
We should adopt the Old
Rule as the valid rule
The old rule makes
that employers can
run their business as
they see fit
Employers being
able to run their
business as they
see fit promotes
individual liberty
We should adopt the New
Rule as the valid rule
The new rule makes
that good employees
cannot be fired in
malice
Good employees
not being able to
be fired in malice
promotes the
economic system
and public good
Quotes from Monge


In all employment contracts, whether at will or for a definite
term, the employer's interest in running his business as he sees
fit must be balanced against the interest of the employee in
maintaining his employment, and the public's interest in
maintaining a proper balance between the two.
We hold that a termination by the employer of a contract of
employment at will which is motivated by bad faith or malice or
based on retaliation is not in the best interest of the economic
system or the public good and constitutes a breach of the
employment contract.”
Concluding remarks



Rule change during rule application occurs in various
normative domains
Arguments about rule change can be modelled as
argumentation about action, using argument
schemes from good or bad consequences
All this can be formalized, e.g. in the ASPIC+
framework:


Defeasible reasons
Preferences