Employee no call, no show: what to do
The short answer
When an employee is a no call, no show, try to reach them the same day, record the shift missed and every contact attempt, and check your attendance policy. When they return, hear the reason before deciding on discipline. If you cannot reach them for the number of shifts your policy sets, send a job abandonment letter with a date to respond, then follow your state's final-pay rule.
General information, not legal advice. This page is for general information only and isn’t legal, financial or tax advice. Laws vary by state and change; check the official source or talk to a qualified professional about your situation. Every rule on this page links to its official source.
What to do the day an employee does not show up or call, how to record it, when repeated absence becomes job abandonment under your policy, and your state's final-pay rule with its official source.
Pick the right document
Attendance policySet the call-in rule and the job abandonment threshold in writingStep 4Job abandonment letterDates missed, contact attempts, a date to respondStep 7
What federal investigators found, by industry
Restaurants and food service52% of restaurants and food service cases with violations involved unpaid overtime, and an estimated 32% involved recordkeeping or other wage-law violations with no minimum-wage or overtime money owed.Based on 10,360 federal cases, FY2021-FY2025. Includes an estimate.Retail56% of retail cases with violations involved unpaid overtime, and an estimated 30% involved recordkeeping or other wage-law violations with no minimum-wage or overtime money owed.Based on 2,959 federal cases, FY2021-FY2025. Includes an estimate.Health care (incl. home care)66% of health care (incl. home care) cases with violations involved unpaid overtime, and an estimated 21% involved recordkeeping or other wage-law violations with no minimum-wage or overtime money owed.Based on 4,822 federal cases, FY2021-FY2025. Includes an estimate.Child care61% of child care cases with violations involved unpaid overtime, and an estimated 30% involved recordkeeping or other wage-law violations with no minimum-wage or overtime money owed.Based on 755 federal cases, FY2021-FY2025. Includes an estimate.
Enforcement data is not a violation rate: it shows what federal investigators found in the cases they chose to open (FY2021-FY2025). Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division and OSHA enforcement data, compiled by InterObservers Employer Desk.
Steps
Tick each step as you go. Your ticks are saved on this device only.
0 of 8 done
All steps done.
What to say in the meeting
When the employee returns or answers, open with the facts and a question, not a verdict. The reason they give decides the next step.
Check in“We could not reach you on [date] and were concerned. Are you all right?”
Facts“You were scheduled for [shift] on [date] and we did not hear from you. We called at [times] and texted.”
Ask“Can you tell me what happened, and why we did not hear from you?”
Policy“Our attendance policy asks you to call [person] before your shift if you cannot come in. That did not happen here.”
Next step“I am going to record this as [a no-call, no-show / an excused absence] and here is what I expect going forward.”
Leave out
- Deciding on discipline before you have heard the reason
- Asking for medical details beyond what you need to know the absence was for a medical reason
- Treating this employee differently from others with the same record
- Posting about the absence to the team or in a group chat
5 common mistakes
- Assuming the employee quit after one missed shift. Unless your written policy says otherwise, a single no-show is usually handled as an attendance issue, not a resignation. Try to reach the person and record the attempts first.
- Disciplining an absence that was protected leave. An absence for a serious health condition can fall under leave rules. The Department of Labor's FMLA page describes unpaid, job-protected leave for eligible employees of covered employers for qualifying family and medical reasons. Check before you act if the reason is medical.
- No record of the contact attempts. If you later end the employment for job abandonment, the dated list of calls, texts and emails is what shows you tried to reach the employee.
- An unwritten no-show rule. If the number of no-shows that counts as job abandonment only exists in a manager's head, it is hard to apply consistently. Put it in the attendance policy.
- Holding the final paycheck. A no-show does not pause final-pay rules. The Department of Labor's last paycheck page says some states may require immediate payment. Pick your state on this page to see what we have verified.
Rules that matter in your state
Final paycheck after a terminationChoose your stateRules with official sources
Choose your state above to see the rule we have verified, or check it with your state labor office.
At-will employment and its exceptionsChoose your stateRules with official sources
Choose your state above to see the rule we have verified, or check it with your state labor office.
- Final paycheck after a termination. When wages are due if you end the employment after a no-show.
- At-will employment and its exceptions. Whether employment can end without a stated reason in your state, and the exceptions that apply.
Verified so far, by state
Each rule below was checked against official sources. States not listed have not been verified yet for these topics; check them with the state labor office.
| State | Rule and law | Verified |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | At-will employment and its exceptions: Under Hoffman-La Roche v. Campbell, the language of an employee handbook can create a binding unilateral contract that modifies at-will status, unless the handbook expressly disclaims it. (McClendon v. Liberty National Life Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-1018-WKW (M.D. Ala. 2013), discussing Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell, 512 So. 2d 725 (Ala. 1987)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Alaska | Final paycheck after a termination: If the employer ends the employment, for any reason, final wages are due within three working days after the termination. (Alaska Stat. § 23.05.140(b)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Arizona | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: In Arizona employment is severable at will unless there is a written contract; a handbook or manual can create such a contract only if it expresses the intent that it is a contract of employment. Public policy: Arizona's Employment Protection Act replaced the common-law Wagenseller rule: a fired employee has a wrongful termination claim only in the circumstances the statute lists, such as discharge in violation of a state statute or in retaliation for refusing to break the law or for reporting violations. (A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(2); A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(3)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Arkansas | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Arkansas courts do not recognize a wrongful discharge claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment. Public policy: Arkansas recognizes a limited public policy exception (Sterling Drug v. Oxford): an at-will employee may sue for wrongful discharge if fired in violation of a well-established public policy of the state; it does not protect merely private interests. (Harper v. Brookshire's Grocery, No. 1:03-cv-01170-HFB (W.D. Ark. 2005), citing Gladden v. Arkansas Children's Hosp., 292 Ark. 130, 728 S.W.2d 501 (1987); Dixon v. Arkansas Surgical Hospital, No. 4:07-cv-00084-GTE (E.D. Ark. Mar. 25, 2008), quoting Palmer v. Arkansas Council on Economic Educ., 344 Ark. 461, 40 S.W.3d 784 (2001), and Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| California | Final paycheck after a termination: When an employer discharges an employee, all earned and unpaid wages are due immediately at the time of discharge. (California Labor Code § 201(a)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| California | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: California's statutory at-will presumption can be overcome by an agreement, express or implied in fact, that the employee will be fired only for good cause; courts look at the totality of circumstances, including personnel policies, length of service, employer assurances and industry practice (Foley; Guz v. Bechtel). Public policy: California recognizes a tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.), an exception to the at-will rule of the Labor Code. (Order, No. 3:19-cv-04397 (N.D. Cal.), citing Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 336 (2000); Order, No. 4:13-cv-02835-DMR (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2014), citing Tameny v. Atl. Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167 (1980)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Colorado | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Colorado does not allow a tort claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an employment contract (Decker v. Browning-Ferris); the public-policy wrongful discharge tort serves that role. Implied contract: Colorado recognizes an implied-contract exception: termination policies in a handbook or manual can bind the employer if they were an offer the employee accepted by starting or continuing work (Continental Air Lines v. Keenan); a clear and conspicuous disclaimer defeats the claim. Public policy: Colorado recognizes a tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz): a fired employee has a claim if the discharge contravenes a clear mandate of public policy. (Colorado Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, Chapter 31, Notes on Use, citing Decker v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 931 P.2d 436 (Colo. 1997); Colorado Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, Chapter 31, Instruction 31:4, Notes on Use, citing Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708 (Colo. 1987); Colorado Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, Chapter 31 (Wrongful Discharge), Instruction 31:12, Notes on Use, citing Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo. 1992)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Connecticut | Final paycheck after a termination: When an employer discharges an employee, wages must be paid in full no later than the next business day after the discharge. (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-71c(b) (CT DOL wage payment laws compilation)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Connecticut | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: Connecticut recognizes that statements in an employer's personnel manual or handbook can, in appropriate circumstances, create an express or implied contract that limits at-will termination; clear disclaimers can prevent this. Public policy: Connecticut recognizes a common-law claim for wrongful discharge when an at-will employee is fired in violation of an important public policy (Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods). Courts treat the exception as narrow, and it is generally unavailable where a statute already provides a remedy. (Wood v. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (D. Conn. 2005), applying Finley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 202 Conn. 190 (1987); Connecticut Civil Jury Instructions 3.14-3 Wrongful Discharge (citing Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC, 260 Conn. 691 (2002))) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Delaware | Final paycheck after a termination: Whether the employee quits, resigns, is discharged, suspended or laid off, wages are due on the later of the next regular payday for the period through the last day worked, or three business days after the last day worked. Payment goes through the usual pay channels, or by mail if the employee asks. (19 Del. C. § 1103(a)(1)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Delaware | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Delaware reads an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing into at-will employment, but strictly limits it to four exclusive categories: public policy violations, employer misrepresentations relied on by the employee, using superior bargaining power to deprive the employee of earned compensation, and falsified or manipulated records used to create fictitious grounds for termination (Pressman). Implied contract: Delaware courts hold that an employee handbook that is a unilateral statement of company policies does not create an employment contract; a contract limiting at-will termination must expressly create a definite term or otherwise expressly bar at-will termination. Public policy: Delaware recognizes a claim when an at-will employee's termination violates public policy, but it is handled as one of the four exclusive categories of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman), and applies only where no other remedial scheme exists. (U.S. District Court, D. Del., No. 00-803 (Brooks v. Nationwide), citing Lord v. Souder, 748 A.2d 393 (Del. 2000) and E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman, 679 A.2d 436 (Del. 1996); U.S. District Court, D. Del., No. 00-803 (Brooks v. Nationwide), citing Heideck v. Kent General Hospital, Inc., 446 A.2d 1095 (Del. 1982); Pratt v. M&T Bank Corp., No. 14-cv-1126 (D. Del.), citing Bailey v. City of Wilmington, 766 A.2d 477 (Del. 2001) and E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman, 679 A.2d 436 (Del. 1996)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| District of Columbia | Final paycheck after a termination: A discharged employee must be paid wages earned no later than the working day after the discharge. If the employee handled employer money, the employer gets 4 days to check the accounts. (D.C. Code § 32-1303(1)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| District of Columbia | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: In D.C., an employee handbook or personnel manual can create an implied contract that overrides at-will status, for example when it states specific preconditions that must be met before termination (Strass v. Kaiser); a clear disclaimer generally preserves at-will status. Public policy: The District of Columbia recognizes a very narrow public policy exception to at-will employment (Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co.): an at-will employee may sue for wrongful discharge when the sole reason for the firing was refusing to violate a statute or municipal regulation; Carl v. Children's Hospital allows further exceptions solidly based on a statute or regulation. (Memorandum Opinion, No. 1:10-cv-00900-JDB (D.D.C. Dec. 21, 2010), citing Washington Welfare Ass'n v. Wheeler, 496 A.2d 613, 615 (D.C. 1985); Order, No. 1:15-cv-01700 (D.D.C.), quoting Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28, 34 (D.C. 1991), and citing Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Hawaii | Final paycheck after a termination: A discharged employee must be paid all earned wages in full at the time of discharge, or no later than the next working day. (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 388-3(a) (as stated by the Wage Standards Division)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Hawaii | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: In Hawaii the employer's right to fire at will can be contractually modified by statements in employee policy manuals or handbooks (Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines). Public policy: Hawaii recognizes a common-law claim for at-will employees fired in violation of a clear mandate of public policy (a Parnar claim, from Parnar v. Americana Hotels). (Du Preez v. Banis, No. 1:14-cv-00171-LEK (D. Haw. Sept. 30, 2015), quoting Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawai`i 368 (2000), and Kinoshita v. Canadian Pac. Airlines, 68 Haw. 594, 601 (1986); Order, No. 1:11-cv-00326 (D. Haw.), citing Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 652 P.2d 625, 631 (Haw. 1982)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Illinois | Final paycheck after a termination: A separated employee must be paid final compensation in full at separation if possible, and no later than the next regularly scheduled payday. (Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/5 (Illinois Department of Labor FAQ)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Illinois | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: Illinois recognizes that an employee handbook or other policy statement can create enforceable contractual rights that limit at-will employment when the traditional requirements for contract formation are met (Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center). Public policy: Illinois recognizes the tort of retaliatory discharge: an employer may fire an at-will employee for any reason or no reason, except when the discharge violates a clearly mandated public policy (Kelsay v. Motorola; Palmateer v. International Harvester). The Illinois Supreme Court describes the tort as limited and narrow. (Ross v. May Co. (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., No. 1-06-0239, 2007), quoting Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center, 115 Ill. 2d 482, 490 (1987); Turner v. Memorial Medical Center, 233 Ill. 2d 494 (2009) (Ill. Sup. Ct. Docket No. 107317), quoting Barr v. Kelso-Burnett Co., 106 Ill. 2d 520 (1985)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Indiana | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Indiana does not recognize a duty of good faith and fair dealing owed by an employer to an at-will employee. Public policy: Indiana recognizes only a narrow public policy exception: an employee fired for exercising a clear statutory right (Frampton, workers' compensation) or for refusing to commit an illegal act for which the employee would be personally liable (McClanahan) has a wrongful discharge claim. (Farr v. St. Francis Hospital & Health Centers, No. 1:06-cv-00779-SEB-JMS (S.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2007), quoting Hamblen v. Danners, Inc., 478 N.E.2d 926, 929 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985); Farr v. St. Francis Hospital & Health Centers, No. 1:06-cv-00779-SEB-JMS (S.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2007), citing Montgomery v. Bd. of Trustees of Purdue Univ., 849 N.E.2d 1120, 1128 (Ind. 2006)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Iowa | Final paycheck after a termination: When employment ends for any reason, all wages earned must be paid no later than the next regular payday. (Iowa Code § 91A.4) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Iowa | At-will employment and its exceptions: Iowa recognizes a narrow tort for wrongful discharge in violation of a clearly defined public policy, covering discharge for enforcing a statutory right, refusing to participate in illegal activity, or reporting workplace illegalities. (Carver-Kimm v. Reynolds (Iowa Supreme Court, June 23, 2023), citing Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 751, 761 (Iowa 2009)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Kansas | Final paycheck after a termination: When an employer discharges an employee, earned wages must be paid no later than the next regular payday on which the employee would have been paid if still employed, through regular pay channels or by mail if the employee requests it. (K.S.A. 44-315(a)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Kansas | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: Kansas recognizes that an employer can create an implied-in-fact contract limiting at-will termination through representations in an employment manual or other sources (Morriss v. Coleman Co.); the question is the parties' intent, judged from all the circumstances. Public policy: Kansas recognizes common-law retaliatory discharge claims as a public policy exception to at-will employment, notably for exercising workers' compensation rights and for good-faith whistleblowing; the claim is unavailable where an adequate alternative statutory remedy exists. (Taylor v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 6:05-cv-01300-WEB (D. Kan. Mar. 20, 2007), citing Morriss v. Coleman Co., 241 Kan. 501, 738 P.2d 841 (1987); Debus v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., No. 2:15-cv-09121-JAR (D. Kan. Jan. 14, 2016)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Kentucky | Final paycheck after a termination: A discharged employee must be paid in full all wages earned no later than the next normal pay period after the dismissal or 14 days after it, whichever is later. (KRS 337.055) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Kentucky | At-will employment and its exceptions: Kentucky recognizes a narrow common-law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Firestone Textile v. Meadows; Grzyb v. Evans): the discharge must be contrary to a fundamental, well-defined public policy evidenced by a constitutional or statutory provision, which the court decides as a question of law. (Lewis-Smith v. Western Kentucky University, No. 1:12-cv-00014-JHM (W.D. Ky. Jan. 9, 2015), citing Grzyb v. Evans, 700 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Ky. 1985)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Louisiana | At-will employment and its exceptions: Louisiana does not recognize a common-law public-policy exception to at-will employment; under the Civil Code an employer may dismiss an at-will employee for any reason, provided the termination does not violate a statutory or constitutional provision (such as anti-discrimination laws). (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review (Jan. 2001), "The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions") | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Maine | Final paycheck after a termination: A discharged employee must be paid in full no later than the employee's next established (regularly scheduled) payday. (26 M.R.S. § 626) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Maine | At-will employment and its exceptions: Maine enforces a promise that employment may be ended only for cause only if the restriction on the employer’s right to terminate is clearly stated; employee manuals whose restrictions are not clearly stated are not contracts (Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods). (Fitzpatrick v. Teleflex, No. 1:08-cv-400 (D. Me.), citing Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, 486 A.2d 97, 99-100 (Me. 1984)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Maryland | Final paycheck after a termination: When employment ends, whether by discharge, the employer must pay all wages due for work performed before termination on or before the day the employee would have been paid had the employment not ended. (Md. Code, Labor and Employment § 3-505(a)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Maryland | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: In Maryland, personnel-policy or handbook provisions that limit the employer’s discretion to terminate, or set a required termination procedure, may become enforceable contractual undertakings if properly expressed and communicated (Staggs v. Blue Cross of Maryland); an express disclaimer of contractual intent defeats the claim. Public policy: Maryland recognizes a tort of wrongful ("abusive") discharge when the motivation for firing an at-will employee contravenes a clear mandate of public policy (Adler v. American Standard Corp.); courts treat it as a narrow exception. (Spacesaver Systems, Inc. v. Adam, No. 1797, Sept. Term 2011 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., reported), quoting Staggs v. Blue Cross of Maryland, Inc., 61 Md. App. 381 (1985); Parks v. Alpharma, Inc., 421 Md. 59 (2011) (Md. Court of Appeals, No. 115, Sept. Term 2010), discussing Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31 (1981)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Massachusetts | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Massachusetts implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment contracts, but it is limited: an employer who fires an employee in bad faith is liable for unpaid compensation clearly connected to work already performed (Fortune v. National Cash Register). Public policy: Massachusetts recognizes a wrongful-termination claim for at-will employees only when the firing violates a clearly established public policy (King v. Driscoll); the Supreme Judicial Court interprets this exception narrowly. (Bradley v. Cruz, No. 1:13-cv-12927 (D. Mass. Nov. 3, 2014), quoting Harrison v. NetCentric Corp., 744 N.E.2d 622, 629 (Mass. 2001), and Fortune v. Nat’l Cash Register Co., 364 N.E.2d 1251 (Mass. 1977); Dineen v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, No. 1:13-cv-12200 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2014), quoting King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 582 (1994)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Michigan | Final paycheck after a termination: An employee who is discharged must be paid all wages due on the regularly scheduled payday for the period in which the termination occurs (hand harvesters of crops follow a separate rule). (Mich. Admin. Code R 408.9007(1)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Michigan | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: Michigan's at-will presumption can be rebutted: stated employer policies and established procedures can make a right to continued employment absent just cause enforceable in contract or through a legitimate-expectations claim (Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield). Public policy: Michigan recognizes limited public policy exceptions (Suchodolski v. Michigan Consolidated Gas): an employee fired for refusing to violate a law, performing a legal duty, or exercising a legal right can sue; no such claim lies where a statute already prohibits the retaliation and provides a remedy. (Kinch v. Pinnacle Foods Group LLC, No. 2:16-cv-12840 (E.D. Mich. July 17, 2017), quoting Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 292 N.W.2d 880, 894 (Mich. 1980); Order, No. 1:04-cv-00835 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 8, 2006), citing Suchodolski v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 316 N.W.2d 710, 711 (Mich. 1982)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Minnesota | Final paycheck after a termination: When an employer discharges an employee, earned and unpaid wages are immediately due upon the employee's demand; if they are not paid within 24 hours after demand, the employer is in default and penalties can accrue. (Minn. Stat. § 181.13(a)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Minnesota | At-will employment and its exceptions: Minnesota recognizes only a narrow common-law public policy claim (Phipps v. Clark Oil): an employee fired for refusing to participate in an activity the employee in good faith believes violates a state or federal law, rule or regulation may sue; the Supreme Court has declined to recognize a broader claim for any violation of public policy. (Wredberg v. Canvas Health, Inc., No. A24-1897 (Minn. Aug. 12, 2026), citing Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569, 571 (Minn. 1987)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Mississippi | At-will employment and its exceptions: Mississippi recognizes only a narrow public policy exception to at-will employment (McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix): an employee may sue in tort if fired for refusing to participate in an illegal act or for reporting the employer's illegal acts. (McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., 626 So. 2d 603, 607 (Miss. 1993), as stated in Nuwer v. Mariner Post-Acute Network, No. 00-60299 (5th Cir. 2003)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Missouri | At-will employment and its exceptions: Missouri recognizes a public-policy exception to at-will employment (Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute): an at-will employee may not be fired for refusing to violate the law or a clear mandate of public policy, or for reporting wrongdoing. The Whistleblower's Protection Act codifies the existing common-law exceptions, limits their future expansion by the courts and is the exclusive remedy. (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575.3 (Whistleblower's Protection Act, L. 2017 S.B. 43)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Montana | Final paycheck after a termination: When an employee is discharged for cause or laid off, all unpaid wages are due immediately, unless the employer has a written policy extending payment to the next regular payday or 15 days after separation, whichever comes first. (Mont. Code Ann. § 39-3-205(2)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Montana | At-will employment and its exceptions: Montana's Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act replaces at-will employment once the probationary period ends: after the employee has completed the employer's probationary period, a discharge that is not for good cause is wrongful. The Act is the exclusive remedy for wrongful discharge and common-law tort and contract claims for discharge are preempted. (Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-904(1)(b) (Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Nebraska | At-will employment and its exceptions: Nebraska recognizes a public policy exception to at-will employment: an employee may claim damages for wrongful discharge when the motivation for the firing contravenes public policy. The Nebraska Supreme Court describes it as limited to cases where a clear mandate of public policy has been violated. (Dibbern v. York Surgical Assocs., 318 Neb. 928 (2025)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| New Hampshire | At-will employment and its exceptions: New Hampshire recognizes a common-law wrongful termination claim when the employer fired the employee out of bad faith, malice, or retaliation, and did so because the employee performed acts public policy would encourage or refused to perform acts public policy would condemn (Cloutier; Short v. School Administrative Unit). (Faulkner v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, No. 1:12-cv-00482-SM (D.N.H. Aug. 12, 2015), quoting Short v. Sch. Admin. Unit No. 16, 136 N.H. 76, 84 (1992)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| New Jersey | Final paycheck after a termination: Whether the employee is fired, the employer must pay all wages due no later than the regular payday for the pay period in which the employment ended. (N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.3) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| New Jersey | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: New Jersey courts do not allow a stand-alone claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by an at-will employee: the claim requires an underlying contract (for example an express contract or a Woolley handbook contract). Implied contract: Under Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, absent a clear and prominent disclaimer, a promise in an employment manual that an employee will be fired only for cause may be enforceable even though the employment would otherwise be at will. Public policy: New Jersey recognizes a wrongful-discharge claim when firing an at-will employee is contrary to a clear mandate of public policy (Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.). (D.N.J. No. 2:05-cv-01880 (citing Schlichtig v. Inacom Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 597 (D.N.J. 2003)); Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 99 N.J. 284, 491 A.2d 1257 (1985), as quoted in D.N.J. No. 2:05-cv-01880; Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 417 A.2d 505 (1980), as applied in Day v. Wells Fargo (D.N.J. No. 3:17-cv-06237, 2018)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| New Mexico | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: New Mexico does not recognize a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an at-will employment relationship (Melnick v. State Farm). Implied contract: In New Mexico, a representation in an employee handbook or personnel policies can create an implied contract that limits the employer's right to fire at will, if it is definite enough to create a reasonable expectation (Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co.). Public policy: New Mexico recognizes a retaliatory (wrongful) discharge tort: an at-will employee may recover when the discharge contravenes a clear mandate of public policy (first recognized in Vigil v. Arzola). (D.N.M. No. 1:12-cv-00261 (Back v. ConocoPhillips), quoting Melnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 106 N.M. 726, 749 P.2d 1105 (1988); D.N.M. No. 1:05-cv-00461, quoting Trujillo v. Northern Rio Arriba Elec. Coop., 131 N.M. 607 (2001), citing Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co., 115 N.M. 665, 857 P.2d 776 (1993); Herndon v. Best Buy (10th Cir.), quoting Chavez v. Manville Prods. Corp., 108 N.M. 643, 777 P.2d 371 (1989)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| New York | Final paycheck after a termination: When employment ends by termination, the final wages are due no later than the regular payday on which they would have been paid; on request the employer must mail them. (New York State Department of Labor, Wages and Hours Frequently Asked Questions) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| New York | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: New York does not imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing that limits an employer's right to terminate an at-will employee (Murphy v. American Home Products; Sabetay v. Sterling Drug). Implied contract: At-will status can be overcome only by an express written limitation on the employer's right to terminate (Weiner v. McGraw-Hill); vague oral assurances or the mere existence of a written policy are not enough. Public policy: New York does not recognize a common-law claim for wrongful or retaliatory discharge of an at-will employee in violation of public policy; the Court of Appeals has left any such claim to the legislature. (Nornberg v. Thai Magic Co., 2006 NY Slip Op 50104(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County), quoting Wakefield v. Northern Telecom, 769 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1985), on Murphy v. American Home Products, 58 N.Y.2d 293, 304-05 (1983); U.S. District Court, N.D.N.Y., No. 5:02-cv-01112 (Mar. 31, 2006), citing Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 461 (1982); Metellus v. JetBlue, No. 2:07-cv-04719 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2010), quoting Horn v. N.Y. Times, 100 N.Y.2d 85, 96 (2003)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| North Carolina | Final paycheck after a termination: Whether the employee is fired or quits, all wages due must be paid on or before the next regular payday, through the regular pay channels or by mail if the employee requests it. (NC Department of Labor, Payment of Final Wages to Separated Employees (G.S. 95-25.7)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| North Carolina | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: North Carolina does not recognize a wrongful discharge claim by an at-will employee based on an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Implied contract: Employee handbooks and policies an employer issues on its own do not become part of the employment contract unless they are expressly included in it (Walker v. Westinghouse), so they rarely change at-will status. Public policy: North Carolina recognizes a common-law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy: an employer may not fire an at-will employee for an unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes a specific expression of state public policy, such as a statute or regulation (Coman v. Thomas Mfg.; Amos v. Oakdale Knitting). (U.S. District Court, M.D.N.C., No. 1:24-cv-00323, quoting Hardin v. Belmont Textile Mach. Co. (W.D.N.C. 2006) and citing Salt v. Applied Analytical, Inc., 104 N.C. App. 652, 661 (1991); U.S. District Court, M.D.N.C., No. 1:12-cv-00286, citing Walker v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 335 S.E.2d 79, 83-84 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985); Shook v. NCG Acquisition, No. 23-1406 (4th Cir. 2024) (published), quoting Coman v. Thomas Mfg. Co., 381 S.E.2d 445, 447 (N.C. 1989)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| North Dakota | Final paycheck after a termination: When an employee is discharged, unpaid wages are due on the next regular payday established in advance by the employer. Unless the parties agreed otherwise, the employer must send them by certified mail to an address the employee designates. (N.D. Cent. Code § 34-14-03) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Ohio | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Although every Ohio contract carries a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, there is no separate cause of action for breach of a duty of good faith in the at-will employment context. Implied contract: Ohio recognizes two contract-based exceptions to at-will employment (Mers v. Dispatch Printing): an implied contract arising from a handbook, company policy or oral representations, and promissory estoppel based on the employer's promises. Public policy: Ohio recognizes a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance; Painter v. Graley) when an at-will employee is fired in contravention of a clear public policy found in the Ohio or U.S. Constitution, statutes, administrative rules or the common law. (U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio, No. 2:15-cv-02223, quoting Padula v. Wagner, 2015-Ohio-2374 (9th Dist.), and Roberts v. Hagen (9th Dist. 2000); U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio, No. 3:11-cv-00236, citing Tersigni v. Gen. Tire, Inc., 633 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) and Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co., 483 N.E.2d 150 (Ohio 1985); U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio, No. 1:20-cv-00813 (Apr. 26, 2021), quoting Dohme v. Eurand Am., Inc., 956 N.E.2d 825, 829 (Ohio 2011)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Oklahoma | Final paycheck after a termination: Whether the employee is fired or quits, wages must be paid in full (less offsets and amounts in bona fide dispute) by the next regular designated payday for the pay period in which the work was performed. (40 O.S. § 165.3(A), as published by the Oklahoma Department of Labor (Wage Law compilation)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Oklahoma | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Oklahoma does not imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment (Burk v. K-Mart Corp.), so an at-will employee cannot sue for a bad-faith termination. Implied contract: Oklahoma recognizes implied employment contracts, including ones based on handbooks and policy manuals (Hinson v. Cameron; Hayes v. Eateries); courts balance factors such as separate consideration, length of employment, handbooks, detrimental reliance and promotions, and vague assurances are not enough. Public policy: Oklahoma recognizes a narrow tort (the Burk tort, from Burk v. K-Mart Corp.) for an at-will employee fired for refusing to violate, or for acting consistently with, a clear and compelling public policy articulated in Oklahoma constitutional, statutory or decisional law. (Langston v. Therma-Tru Corp., No. 6:07-cv-00250 (E.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2008), citing Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 27 (Okla. 1989); Wood v. Handy & Harman Co., No. 06-5226 (10th Cir. Aug. 1, 2008) (unpublished), quoting Bowen v. Income Prod'g Mgmt., 202 F.3d 1282, 1284 (10th Cir. 2000), citing Hinson v. Cameron, 742 P.2d 549, 554-55 (Okla. 1987); U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Cir., No. 06-5205, citing Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 29 (Okla. 1989)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Oregon | Final paycheck after a termination: A fired or laid-off employee must receive the final paycheck by the end of the next business day. (Oregon BOLI, Paychecks (ORS 652.140)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Oregon | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: The Oregon Supreme Court (Sheets v. Knight) declined to apply the duty of good faith and fair dealing to an employer's right to discharge an at-will employee. Implied contract: Statements in an employee handbook can become part of the employment contract (Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald), but a clear disclaimer in the handbook or personnel policies keeps the employee at will. Public policy: Oregon recognizes the common-law tort of wrongful discharge as a narrow exception to at-will employment, in two situations: discharge for performing a public duty or fulfilling a societal obligation (for example jury duty, Nees v. Hocks), and discharge for exercising an important job-related right. (U.S. District Court, D. Or., No. 6:04-cv-06326 (Oct. 5, 2005), quoting Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or. 220 (1989); U.S. District Court, D. Or., No. 3:23-cv-00136, citing Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald Publ'g Co., 281 Or. 651, 656-57 (1978) and Lawson v. Umatilla Cnty., 139 F.3d 690, 693 (9th Cir. 1998); U.S. District Court, D. Or., No. 3:06-cv-01012 (Dec. 3, 2007), citing Sheets v. Knight, 779 P.2d 1000, 1006 (Or. 1989) and Nees v. Hocks, 536 P.2d 512 (Or. 1975)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Pennsylvania | Final paycheck after a termination: When an employer separates an employee from the payroll, earned wages are due no later than the next regular payday. (Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, Act of July 14, 1961, P.L. 637, No. 329, Section 5(a) (43 P.S. § 260.5)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Pennsylvania | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: An at-will employee in Pennsylvania cannot sue for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing over the termination itself (Donahue v. Federal Express). Implied contract: Pennsylvania strongly presumes at-will employment; the presumption is overcome only by an express contract, an implied agreement supported by additional consideration, or clear and precise evidence of a contract for a definite term. Vague assurances or subjective expectations are not enough. Public policy: Pennsylvania recognizes a very narrow public policy exception to at-will employment: the firing must violate a clear public policy found in the constitution, legislation, a regulation or a judicial decision, and courts have applied it mainly where the employer required a crime, prevented compliance with a statutory duty, or fired the employee where a statute specifically prohibits it. (McGee v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., No. 2:02-cv-01121 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2006), quoting Donahue v. Federal Express Corp., 753 A.2d 238, 243 (Pa. Super. 2000); McGee v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., No. 2:02-cv-01121 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2006), citing Permenter v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 38 F. Supp. 2d 372, 377 (E.D. Pa. 1999); Tanay v. Encore Healthcare, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-00792 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2011), citing McLaughlin v. Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc., 750 A.2d 283, 287 (Pa. 2000)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Rhode Island | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Rhode Island does not imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing that limits termination of an at-will employee; the covenant exists only alongside a binding contract. Public policy: Rhode Island courts do not recognize a common-law claim for wrongful discharge of an at-will employee in violation of public policy (Pacheco v. Raytheon); protections come from statutes. (Bisbano v. Strine Printing Co., No. 13-1722 (1st Cir. Nov. 27, 2013), citing Centerville Builders, Inc. v. Wynne, 683 A.2d 1340, 1342 (R.I. 1996); Shumacher v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-00500 (D.R.I. June 8, 2007), quoting Pacheco v. Raytheon Co., 623 A.2d 464, 465 (R.I. 1993)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| South Dakota | Final paycheck after a termination: When the employer separates an employee, unpaid wages are due by the next regular payday for those hours, or as soon afterwards as the employee returns all employer property in their possession. (S.D. Codified Laws § 60-11-10) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| South Dakota | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: South Dakota courts have refused to impose an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing on employment contracts in a way that overrides the at-will statute. Implied contract: A contract can override at-will status in South Dakota, including an implied for-cause-only contract, but only where the employee handbook contains a detailed list of exclusive grounds for discharge and a mandatory specific procedure the employer agrees to follow. Public policy: South Dakota, where employment is at will by statute, recognizes a narrow public policy exception: an employee fired in retaliation for refusing to commit a criminal or unlawful act has a wrongful discharge claim; the South Dakota labor department also lists firing for exercising a lawful right such as filing a workers' compensation claim. (U.S. District Court, D.S.D., No. 5:06-cv-05056 (Apr. 17, 2008), describing Peterson, 443 N.W.2d at 655, and Breen v. Dakota Gear & Joint Co., 443 N.W.2d 221, 224 (S.D. 1988); U.S. District Court, D.S.D., No. 5:06-cv-05056 (Apr. 17, 2008), quoting Bass v. Happy Rest, Inc., 507 N.W.2d 317, 321 (S.D. 1993); U.S. District Court, D.S.D., No. 5:06-cv-05056 (Apr. 17, 2008), quoting Johnson v. Kreiser's, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 225, 227 (S.D. 1988)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Tennessee | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: In Tennessee the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing cannot modify the employment-at-will doctrine: an employer does not breach it by firing an at-will employee for any reason (Goot v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville). Implied contract: A Tennessee employee handbook can become part of an employment contract, but only if it contains specific language showing the employer's intent to be bound by its provisions (Keller v. Casteel; Rose v. Tipton County); courts apply a high standard, and language reserving the employer's right to change the handbook generally prevents it from being a contract. Public policy: Tennessee recognizes a common-law retaliatory discharge claim for an at-will employee fired for trying to exercise a statutory or constitutional right, or for any other reason that violates a clear public policy evidenced by an unambiguous constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision (Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity). A statutory claim also exists under the Tennessee Public Protection Act. (Coker v. Carrier Corp., No. 4:05-cv-00051 (E.D. Tenn.), quoting Goot v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., No. M2003-02013-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2005), and McGee, 106 S.W.3d at 67; Freeze v. City of Decherd, No. 12-6160 (6th Cir. June 4, 2014) (published), citing Rose v. Tipton Cnty. Pub. Works Dep't, 953 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Levan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 3:11-cv-578 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Texas | Final paycheck after a termination: An employee who is discharged must be paid in full not later than the sixth calendar day after discharge. (Texas Labor Code § 61.014(a)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Texas | At-will employment and its exceptions: Texas recognizes only a very narrow public-policy exception (Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck): an employer may not fire an employee for refusing to perform an illegal act. (Texas Workforce Commission, Texas Guidebook for Employers (2024), Outline of Employment Law Issues) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Utah | Final paycheck after a termination: When the employer separates an employee, unpaid wages are due immediately and must be paid within 24 hours of separation. (Utah Code § 34-28-5(1)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Utah | At-will employment and its exceptions: Utah recognizes a tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of a clear and substantial public policy. (U.S. District Court, D. Utah, No. 2:03-cv-01088 (applying Utah law)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Vermont | Final paycheck after a termination: A discharged employee must be paid within 72 hours of discharge. (21 V.S.A. § 342(b)(2)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Virginia | At-will employment and its exceptions: Virginia recognizes only a narrow public-policy exception to at-will employment (Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville), which its Supreme Court has construed narrowly and applied in few instances. (Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc., Supreme Court of Virginia, Record No. 960530) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Washington | Final paycheck after a termination: Whether the employee is fired or quits, wages due must be paid at the end of the established pay period, on or before the next regularly scheduled payday. The employer cannot hold the final paycheck until keys, uniforms or tools are returned. (RCW 49.48.010(2)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Washington | At-will employment and its exceptions: Washington recognizes the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (adopted in Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co.) as a narrow exception to at-will employment. (Martin v. Gonzaga University, Washington Supreme Court No. 95269-8 (slip opinion)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| West Virginia | Final paycheck after a termination: Whether the employee is fired or quits, wages due must be paid on or before the next regular payday on which they would otherwise be due. (W. Va. Code § 21-5-4(b)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| West Virginia | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: West Virginia does not recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment; an employer has no implied duty to act in good faith when discharging an at-will employee, as long as the motivation does not contravene substantial public policy. Implied contract: West Virginia presumes at-will employment, but contractual provisions on discharge or job security, including a definite promise of job security in an employee handbook, can alter at-will status (Cook v. Heck's). Public policy: West Virginia recognizes a common-law claim (a Harless claim) when an employer fires an at-will employee to contravene a substantial public policy principle. (Coleman v. Housing Authority of the City of Weirton, No. 5:12-cv-00151 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 29, 2014), quoting Miller v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 193 W. Va. 240, 244, 455 S.E.2d 799, 803 (1995); Veltri v. Graybar Electric Co., No. 5:09-cv-00101 (N.D. W. Va.), quoting Pleasant v. Elk Run Coal Co., 486 S.E.2d 798, 802 (W. Va. 1997), citing Cook v. Heck's Inc., 342 S.E.2d 453, 459 (W. Va. 1986); Keffer v. Fayette County Board of Education, No. 22-631 (W. Va. Oct. 25, 2024) (memorandum decision), quoting Syl., Harless v. First Nat'l Bank, 162 W. Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Wisconsin | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: In Wisconsin a handbook that sets out mandatory discharge procedures can create an employment contract (Ferraro v. Koelsch), but an employee is considered at will unless evidence expressly shows the parties intended to be bound to a different arrangement. Public policy: Wisconsin recognizes a narrow public policy exception (Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet): a fired employee has a wrongful discharge claim only when the discharge is contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy evidenced by existing constitutional, statutory or administrative law. (Williams v. Milwaukee Health Services Inc., No. 13-3412 (7th Cir. Apr. 18, 2014), citing Ferraro v. Koelsch, 368 N.W.2d 666, 668 (Wis. 1985); Robinette v. Westconsin Credit Union, No. 3:09-cv-00600 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 25, 2010), citing Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 99, 113 (1998) and Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 113 Wis. 2d 561, 572-73 (1983)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Wyoming | Final paycheck after a termination: Whether the employee quits or is discharged, wages due must be paid no later than the employer's next regularly scheduled payday (or a time set by a collective bargaining agreement). (Wyo. Stat. § 27-4-104(a)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Wyoming | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Every Wyoming employment contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Wilder v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce), but a breach is actionable in tort only where a special relationship of trust and reliance exists between employer and employee, which arises only in rare and exceptional cases. Implied contract: Wyoming presumes employment is at will, but employers and employees can depart from that presumption through an express or implied contract, which may include an employee handbook; a handbook disclaimer can preserve at-will status. Public policy: Wyoming recognizes a limited public policy exception to at-will employment (McLean v. Hyland Enterprises): the employee must identify a strong and well-established public policy and show that no other remedy is available. (McBride v. Peak Wellness Center, Inc., No. 11-8037 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012), citing Wilder v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, 868 P.2d 211, 220 (Wyo. 1994) and Dubrowski v. State ex rel. Wyo. Liquor Comm'n, 1 P.3d 631, 633 (Wyo. 2000); McBride v. Peak Wellness Center, Inc., No. 11-8037 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012), citing Boone v. Frontier Ref., Inc., 987 P.2d 681, 685 (Wyo. 1999); McBride v. Peak Wellness Center, Inc., No. 11-8037 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012), quoting McLean v. Hyland Enters., Inc., 34 P.3d 1262, 1268 (Wyo. 2001)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
A tool that can help
Disclosure: InterObservers may earn a commission if you buy through links on this page, at no extra cost to you. This doesn’t change what we recommend. How we make money.
Questions people ask
What is a no call, no show?
It is when an employee misses a scheduled shift without calling in or otherwise telling the employer beforehand. Most attendance policies treat it more seriously than an absence that was reported in advance.
How many no call no shows before termination?
There is no single federal number. Your attendance policy sets it, and many policies name a number of consecutive no-shows after which the employer treats the job as abandoned. Whatever the number, apply it consistently and record each shift and contact attempt.
What is job abandonment?
Job abandonment is when an employee stops coming to work and does not contact the employer, so the employer concludes the employee has left the job. Employers usually define it in the attendance policy by a number of consecutive unreported absences, and confirm it with a letter that gives the employee a date to respond.
How many days of no call no show is job abandonment?
It is set by your own policy, not by a federal rule. Write the number in your attendance policy, and send a job abandonment letter with a response date before you close out the employment.
Can you fire an employee for a no call, no show?
In most states employment is at will by default, with exceptions that vary by state (pick your state on this page). The Department of Labor's termination page notes that where the reason is not discrimination or whistleblower retaliation, a termination is generally governed by any contract between employer and employee. Check the reason for the absence first.
Is a no call, no show considered quitting?
Not automatically. Your policy may treat several consecutive unreported absences as a voluntary resignation, and states can view it differently for final pay and unemployment. The Department of Labor notes that each state runs its own unemployment insurance program, so eligibility is decided by the state.
What should a no call no show policy say?
Who to call and by when if you cannot come in, what counts as a no call, no show, what happens after the first one, how many consecutive no-shows count as job abandonment, and how the employer will try to reach the employee. The attendance policy template linked on this page has that wording.
Sources (6)
Checked Sep 24, 2026 · How we verify every rule · Report an error