| Course | MT203 Human Resource Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Seminar reflection |
| Length | About 800 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT203 Unit 9
The Gate Was Not His: A Unit 9 Seminar Reflection on At-Will Employment and Just Cause
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT203: Human Resource Management
Unit 9 Seminar Reflection
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The pool service company, the technician, the customer and every detail are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Where I Started
I was sure of my answer before the session began. Texas is an at-will state, and the company could lawfully dismiss the technician for any reason that was not illegal, or for no reason at all. Muhl (2001) describes the at-will doctrine as the default rule in most states, limited by exceptions such as public policy, implied contracts and good faith, and none of those exceptions seemed to apply. I also thought the customer's anger was reason enough. A lost dog is frightening, and a company that sends someone into a yard is responsible for closing the gate.
The Case
The facts were short. The customer called the office at 4:10 p.m. on a Tuesday, upset, and said her dog had been found two streets away. The route supervisor saw that the technician had serviced her pool that morning. The owner called the technician that evening, told him the customer was threatening to cancel and leave reviews, and told him not to come in. Nobody asked him what happened at the gate. Nine days later a neighbor's door camera showed that the gate had been opened in the afternoon by a crew from the customer's lawn care service, hours after the pool visit.
What Changed My Mind
The live discussion moved me in two ways. First, a classmate asked whether any other technician had ever been dismissed on one unverified complaint. In this case the answer was no; two technicians with multiple gate reports had received written warnings the previous summer. That meant the decision was not only harsh but inconsistent, and the other technicians knew it.
Second, the instructor introduced the seven tests of just cause, a checklist that labor arbitrators have used for decades in union settings. The tests ask, among other things, if the worker had been told the rule, if anyone looked into the facts before deciding, if that inquiry was even-handed, if the proof was solid, and if the same rule had been enforced the same way on others. The instructor's point was that an at-will employer is not legally required to meet these tests, but can borrow them as a discipline on its own decisions.
Applied to this firing, the company would have failed most of the tests. There was no investigation; the decision was made before anyone spoke to the technician. The evidence was a single phone call. And the rule had not been applied evenly, since others with worse records had kept their jobs.
The firing was legal; that turned out to be the least interesting question about it.
What the Research Added
Colquitt et al. (2001) pooled the justice literature in a meta-analysis and reported that procedural justice, meaning the fairness of the process used to make decisions, was strongly related to employees' trust and commitment, separately from whether they liked the outcome. That finding explained what I had missed. The firing's damage did not stop with one technician. Every technician who heard the story learned that a single angry customer could end a job without a conversation. Two of them, according to the route supervisor, began taking photos of every gate they closed. That is a sensible habit, but it was born from fear rather than from a policy, and it costs each of them a minute or two at every pool.
Dessler (2020) recommends that disciplinary decisions rest on clear rules, investigation and a chance for the employee to respond, and suggests that even at-will employers benefit from following such a process. I had read that section before the seminar and thought it was advice for unionized companies.
What I Would Do Now
If I were the owner, I would adopt a simple rule: no dismissal for a single customer complaint without first hearing the employee's account and checking any available evidence, such as photos or the next visit's notes. A same-day suspension with pay would protect the customer relationship while the facts were gathered. I would also apply gate rules evenly, using the warnings already in place for technicians with repeated reports. And I would call the dismissed technician, explain what the camera showed, and offer him his route back with pay for the days he missed.
The question I take away is whether at-will employment, as a legal default, encourages managers to skip the very steps that make decisions fair. Before the seminar I treated the legal rule as the answer. Now I think of it as the floor.
References
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
Dessler, G. (2020). Human resource management (16th ed.). Pearson.
Muhl, C. J. (2001). The employment-at-will doctrine: Three major exceptions. Monthly Labor Review, 124(1), 3-11.
The Purdue Global MT203 Unit 9 instructions
The ninth unit generally asks for a first-person reflection on the seminar, focused on how your thinking about a case or idea changed. Most prompts want you to state where you started, summarize the case or topic briefly, report what in the discussion moved you, connect at least one course source, and say what you now think or would do. Employment separations, discipline and fairness are common topics at this point in the course. Honesty about your starting view matters, since a reflection that begins and ends in the same place has nothing to reflect on. Students who miss the live session normally get substitute questions about the same dismissal, and the same structure answers those. A page or two is usual, kept in first person, and APA 7 applies to every source you name, including the course text.
How this MT203 Unit 9 example is built
The reflection opens by stating the writer's original view and grounding it in Muhl's description of the at-will rule and its exceptions. The case is told in a few lines, from the 4:10 p.m. call to the camera footage nine days later. The middle section reports two turning points: a classmate's question showing two technicians with repeated gate reports had only been warned, and the instructor's introduction of the seven tests, paraphrased in plain words. A margin note marks this as the evidence of change. Applying the tests shows the firing failed on investigation, evidence and even treatment, and the highlighted line says legality was the least interesting question. Colquitt and colleagues explain why the damage spread to technicians who began photographing gates. The closing section proposes a paid suspension while facts are gathered and calling the technician back, and ends with a question about at-will employment.
Where the points sit in the MT203 Unit 9 rubric
Points on this reflection mostly follow whether the writer's thinking visibly moves. An honest starting position, stated without hedging, sets up the change. Keep the retelling of the dismissal to a few factual lines. Most of the credit sits in the middle, where the writer names the specific question or concept that shifted their view and applies it to the case. Graders tend to reward reflections that use a course source to explain something the writer had missed, rather than citing it for support. A closing that names what the writer would now do, concretely, shows the change has consequences. First person is expected, but the tone stays analytical. A final open question signals continued thinking. The reference list for Colquitt and colleagues, Dessler and Muhl must be complete and in APA 7, and the seminar itself can be described without a citation.
MT203 Unit 9 help: mistakes that cost points
Seminar reflections commonly lose credit by summarizing the session in order with no change of view. Some drafts water down the opening opinion until no real shift is possible. Some writers call the session eye-opening yet never name the comment that did it. Others name the seven tests or another framework and never apply it to the case. A conclusion that says the writer learned a lot, with no practice they would adopt, also scores lower. Be careful not to turn the reflection into a legal argument; the point is how your thinking developed. If you missed the live seminar, the written alternative usually asks the same questions, so answer them in the same shape. Tell us what your seminar discussed and where you started, and our writers can help shape an honest account of the change.
Get an MT203 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Seminar notes, even a few lines, or the posted questions for the Unit 9 written option are enough to begin, along with the rubric. The reflection returns within 24-48h in a first-person voice, anchored in one discipline or separation case with every person composite. A first sample is free of charge. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT203 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT203 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT203 Unit 2: Job Analysis
- MT203 Unit 3: Recruitment Plan
- MT203 Unit 4: Selection Method Comparison
- MT203 Unit 5: Employment Law Brief
- MT203 Unit 6: Training Needs Assessment
- MT203 Unit 7: Performance Appraisal Exercise
- MT203 Unit 8: Compensation Analysis
- MT203 Unit 10: HR Case Analysis
- MT202 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- MT140 Unit 9: Control Measures Report
- MT106 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection on Goals
- MT102 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection on Shrink
MT203 Unit 9 questions, answered
What are the seven tests of just cause?
A set of questions arbitrators have long used to judge discipline in union settings: whether the rule was known and reasonable, whether a fair investigation came before the penalty, whether proof was substantial, whether treatment was consistent, and whether the penalty fit the offense and the record. The example uses them as a voluntary checklist, not as a legal requirement for an at-will employer.
What if our seminar case was about a different separation?
The arc holds for layoffs, resignations under pressure or attendance terminations. Each has a starting view worth stating honestly, a moment in discussion that challenged it, a course concept explaining why, and a practice the writer would adopt. Send the case as your seminar framed it, and the sample is written around that separation instead of the missing watch.
Where can I find a free MT203 Unit 9 sample paper?
You can read a complete MT203 Unit 9 seminar reflection here. It follows a writer from defending an at-will firing to applying the seven tests of just cause, with three real sources and margin notes on each move.
Does the reflection argue that at-will employment is wrong?
No. It accepts that the dismissal was probably lawful and argues that legality was the wrong test. The writer moves from asking whether the company could fire the technician to asking whether it knew enough to.
What would the writer do differently after the seminar?
Require the employee's account and any evidence before a dismissal for a single complaint, use a paid suspension while facts are gathered, apply gate rules evenly and call the dismissed technician back with pay for the missed days.