Most employees can be terminated at any time

Q. Can an employer terminate your employment for any reason? I worked for an automobile dealership for five years. I was a supervisor in the transportation department. I recently received an increase in pay and all of my performance reviews were excellent. The dealership recently hired an additional employee into our group so business was not slow. This termination was a complete shock. My direct boss gave all sorts of very confusing reasons why it was happening. He stated I was an "employee at will." Do I have any grounds for a wrongful termination?

A. I am sorry that you were terminated. Terminations are never easy, but when they are a surprise, the terminated employee often leaves their former employer feeling angry and confused. Many managers have never received formal training and/or coaching about how to terminate an employee. It is often a responsibility that is dreaded. It is a difficult part of a manager's role.

Most managers benefit by working with a human resource professional to plan the termination. I am not certain what happened in your individual situation. Some companies offer outplacement, too. Outplacement is a service (typically paid for by your former employer) that assists the terminated employee with the transition to a new opportunity.

Finally, most employees can be terminated at any time. "At will" means you are an employee who did not have an employment contract with your former employer. About 80 percent of all employees are "at will" employees.

In layperson's terms, this means that you can be terminated at any time but also you can leave your employer at any time. Further, your employer does not have to provide you with a reason for termination. It is a good practice to provide an explanation to an employee, but it is not legally required.

Any employee can sue their employer (or anyone else). However, you will have to prove that your employer violated one or more of your rights and/or discriminated against you. Based on my limited knowledge about your particular situation, it is difficult for me to assess whether you have a strong case for successful wrongful termination suit. It may be worth discussing your situation in more detail with an employment attorney.

A. Based on the information you have presented, I agree with you. You should have been compensated for your 90-minute early arrival to work. Additionally, your lunch period may also be compensable if you were not entirely relieved of your work duties during the meal period.

I am assuming you work in Massachusetts. According to Massachusetts and federal law, an employee's normal commuting time is noncompensable. I consulted Jeffrey A. Dretler, a partner in the employment law group at Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye LLP. Dretler explains: "When employees are sent on special one-day work assignments (like the workshop you attended), the travel time is generally considered to be hours worked, because the travel is conducted for the employer's benefit and to meet the employer's needs.

"Whether or not you receive 'personal benefit' from the workshop is irrelevant to the inquiry of whether the extra 90 minutes constitutes 'time off,' because you are not free to use that time for your own purposes.

"Thus, because you were required to arrive at work an hour and one-half earlier than usual to attend a work-related workshop, the time that you spent traveling to the workshop with your supervisor was performed for your employer's benefit and is compensable (and you should have been paid for the time) because it qualifies as part of the principal activity that you were hired to perform on the workday in question."

I should reiterate though your regular commuting time is typically not compensable time under Massachusetts law. Additionally, nonexempt (or hourly) employees should not be given compensable time (sometimes called "comp time") but instead paid for the additional hours worked.

I am not certain what your supervisor's intent was by saying that your additional 90 minutes of work should be classified as "time off without pay." Under both Massachusetts and federal law, an employee is only considered off duty when he or she is completely relieved from work-related duties for a period of time long enough to use the time effectively for his or her own purposes.

Your early arrival, the time that you spent traveling with your supervisor, and your attendance at the conference does not constitute "time off" because you were not free to use the time to do other activities unrelated to work.

The period of time you spent eating lunch in the conference room with the other workshop attendees may be compensable if you were required to eat lunch with the group. Under Massachusetts law, employers must allow employees to take a 30-minute meal break if the employee works more than six hours in a single day. The meal break does not need to be paid, but the employee must be freed from all work duties during this time. Since you were required to be at work at 7 a.m. and were not returned to work until 5:06 p.m., your employer was obligated to provide you at least a 30-minute unpaid lunch break.

If you were required to eat lunch with the other workshop attendees in the conference room and you were not relieved of your job function(s) during that period then you must be paid for the meal period. However, if you voluntarily ate lunch in the conference room with the other participants, the lunch period is not compensable because you were relieved of your job duties yet chose to eat in the conference room rather than elsewhere on the premises.

A related question that I sometimes get asked is if an employer is required to pay a receptionist or administrative assistant for a lunch break if the employee is required to "cover the phones" for that lunch break. The answer is yes, the employer is required to pay for that time even though the employee may be eating their lunch while "covering the phones." The employee is not entirely relieved of their work-related duties and should be compensated for that time. Additionally, a manager can require an employee to take a 30-minute meal break.

The issue of what time is compensable and what time is noncompensable can often be a very technical one and sometimes even employers who try in good faith to comply with the law may get it wrong. The consequences of getting it wrong have become severe since the Massachusetts Legislature recently amended the state wage and hour statute to require employers to pay triple damages to employees who prevail against their employers in court on wage and hour claims. In addition, large employers who treat classes of employees in a way that violates the law risk being subject to class action lawsuits that can be very expensive to defend and carry the potential of damages sometimes ranging in the millions of dollars.

To get the compensation that you are due, raise this issue with your supervisor again, bring it to the attention of your company's human resources department, or utilize your company or union grievance procedure if one is available. My experience is that if you first approach your employer and explain your concerns, most employers will comply and pay you what you are due.

If you do not get paid what you are due, you may file a wage complaint with the state attorney general's office, which has responsibility for enforcing the wage and hours laws in Massachusetts. But again, approach your employer first. Most employers want to comply with the law.

Patricia Hunt Sinacole is president of First Beacon Group LLC, a human resources consulting firm in Hopkinton.

E-mail questions to jobdoc@globe.com or mail to Job Doc, Boston Globe, Box 55819, Boston, 02205-5819.