The balancing of interests exemplified by the workers' compensation system should be respected and, if possible, replicated in other areas of law. The courts make a mistake if they focus on only one side in the conflict of rights, such as they all-too-often have in recent years by favoring individual recovery and courtroom access without any regard to the consequences for employers and society as a whole. If the courts or the legislature find the legal results in particular areas of law to be inequitable, the answer should be to seek new balances between the competing interests, so that all rights are at least partially served.

For example, the results in the field of wrongful discharge appear to be most inequitable in their impact on employer discretion. One possible balancing of rights that would even out the impact on individuals and employers would be to establish a system such as that found in the province of Ontario, where all individuals are entitled to a reasonable notification period for termination (the length depending on such factors as length of service, ability to find a new job, promises made by the employer), but the notification period is capped at two years. A similar balance could be struck in Michigan, whereby all employees are given some form of "good cause" protection, but the amount of damages the employer could sustain would be strictly limited. Such a system would give all "unjustly" discharged employees some compensation, but would at the same time permit the employer to make rational cost decisions in the management process.

Such a system would of course need to be the exclusive remedy for wrongful discharges. Any substantial availability of legal circumvention would make such a system untenable. Indeed, just as in the case of the workers' compensation system, the courts must respect exclusive remedy clauses (or legislatures must impose such respect) in order to make the balancing of rights viable and fair.