Case Application 4-B: Off-The-Job Behaviors

Balancing the realities of protecting the organization and the rights of employees, both in and out of work, has become a major focal point to contemporary human resource managers. For example, by everyone's account, Peter Oiler was an outstanding employee. Oiler, a truck driver for Winn-Dixie Stores and a twenty-year employee, had an impeccable and unblemished work record.61 He was punctual, trustworthy, and an exceptionally productive employee. Most co-workers viewed him as an asset to the organization. But none of that appeared to matter when Oiler was fired. The reason: Oiler was a cross-dresser. On his own time, Oiler changed his persona, becoming Donna, complete with wearing women's clothing, a wig, and makeup. Frequently out in public with his wifein restaurants, at churchDonna maintained a dignified public appearance, bothering no one, and simply went on with his personal life as he chose.

Management at Winn-Dixie, however, saw things differently. Shortly after they learned of his cross-dressing behavior, Oiler was fired. This happened in spite of the realization that his out-of-work behavior had absolutely no adverse effect on his job performance. Rather, Winn-Dixie's position was that if he was seen in public by someone who recognized him as a Winn-Dixie employee, the company's image could be damaged.

Oiler sued the company for wrongfully terminating him on the basis of sex discrimination. He claimed that cross-dressing was nothing more than his not conforming to gender stereotype as a man. During the trial, records reinforced that there was not one shred of evidence that any of Oiler's out-of-work activities affected his ability to work. Nonetheless, the court ruled in Winn-Dixie's favor, citing that there are no federal or state laws that protect the rights of transgendered employees.

Although Winn-Dixie won at the trial, they experienced an aftermath that they were not expecting. Many co-workers rallied behind Oiler, wondering if the company could do this to him, what might they do next? Certainly people understood that a company can fire anyone for any legal reason, but how much latitude should a company have in defining a legal reason? Could they fire an employee who drinks alcohol outside of work, views an inappropriate movie, or visits adult Web sites? What if one is arrested? Does that result in an automatic termination? The answer is, it couldbut there are consequences to this employer action. In such cases, companies have found that terminating an employee for outside-of-work activities brings negative publicity, lowers employee morale, and increases employee turnover.

1. Do you believe Oiler's employee rights were violated? Explain your position. I strongly believe that Oilers employee rights were blatantly violent by his employers The Winn-Dixie Corporation. Discriminating against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is certainly a very unfair practice by any company or organization. Worse, Oiler was discriminated on the basis of the way he dressed. The decision to fire him on his choice of wardrobe, and that too while off-work, is absurd and condemnable. For 20 years, Oiler maintained a spotless record never once was a blemish noticed on his productivity. In fact, he was the ideal employee, the perfect employee. To violate such an employees rights and privacy show how narrow-minded and bigoted Winn Dixie was in terminating him. Had he displayed such behavior while on work, his companys action could still be given some justification. But there is no such evidence that his off-the-job behavior was affecting his productivity in any way, leave alone in a negative way. Winn-Dixie labeled Oiler as a transgender and refused to protect a transgender employees rights. The companys decision to fire him based on his off-work behavior not only ignores the human element but also is a major violation of numerous federal and state laws. Termination from public employment on the basis of gender non-conformity is sex discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/empl118.html

2. What do you see as the consequences of organizations that punish employees for certain off-the-job behaviors? Explain. Organizations like Winn-Dixie that punish workers for off-the-job behaviors run the risk of not only facing numerous lawsuits and accusations of prejudice and discriminatory practices, but also risk losing face with existing or prospective customers, business partners and stockholders. The odds are in favor of employees like Oiler, who have an impeccable work record and are actually an asset to any organization. While some individuals might agree with Winn-Dixies action, arguing that the companys reputation was at stake, it is more likely that there will be a greater number of individuals who do not agree and decide to cut their ties with organizations who favor such practices. It would be fair to assume that financial institutions, suppliers, vendors and the like, who earlier belonged to Winn-Dixies network decide not to be associated with a company that practices such unethical and immoral standards of business. Ultimately, such action may destroy a companys past and future business relationships and obliterate its chances of success. And what about the companys internal staff? I am sure other employees will start doubting Winn-Dixie and its ethics when dealing with an employees life outside of work. As Witold "Vic" Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said of a similar case, "Discipline for off-duty conduct must be limited to behavior that is significantly harmful to the employer. the law needs to develop a clearer line to limit public employers' control over employees' offduty conduct" http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/settlementreachedwithschoo.htm

3. Would you consider Winn-Dixie an organization that exhibits characteristics of progressive discipline or the hot stove approach? Defend your position. All businesses must clearly lay out rules and regulations to be followed by all their employees. Company rule books must be accommodating though, of life style practices relevant to the current times. Otherwise, we might have companies banning their employees from eating ice-cream or fast food, from smoking, from living in certain neighborhoods or maybe from bungee jumping! I feel Winn-Dixie employed the hotstove approach, that punishes all unacceptable behaviors with identical disciplinary actions. The progressive approach, on the other hand, reprimands individuals depending on the severity and/or the reoccurrence of actions and behaviors which they have previously been warned against. In the Winn-Dixie/Oiler case the hot-stove approach of discipline was used there was no warning issued to the latter; he was not given a chance to plead his case. Just fired! The biggest downfall to this kind of hot-stove approach is that it punishes a good employee as severely as a poor one.both are disciplined in the same way, even though one employee is clearly doing a better job than the other (Encyclopedia of Tourism by Jafar Jafari).