Off-the-Job Behavior
Textbook Case Study
Off-the-Job Behavior
1. Do you believe Oiler’s employee rights were violated? Explain your position.
Peter Oiler’s termination from his job by the Winn-Dixie Corporation was an obvious violation of his employee rights. Though balancing employee rights with proper discipline is a constant challenge for HR professionals. But in this case of Oiler, the work place behavior of the employer had not changed and there is no problem, with the co-employers also. Also in the own time, the company have no rights about the way he dress. Hence there is also no such challenge for the Winn-Dixie that it has to terminate Oiler. Hence I would consider that Winn-Dixie has violated the employee rights of Oiler. Also his social security has been compromised. When we consider the situation here is more normal than a similar case in 2005, which happened in Georgia. According to that, the courts consider this as sexual discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. And the development of trans-gender transitions has a real concern and the laws accept the claims of discrimination under employer’s categorizing of genders. Thus Oiler’s claim is acceptable and Winn-Dixie has to oblige to the claims of Oiler. Here Oiler’s can be taken as an example of opposition of trans-genders in the general public. Though the laws are guarding them, the manipulation of thought caused by these cases is more than the actual violation. Since the court ruled out as not a violation, it will be a wrong guideline as the decision can be referenced in consecutive references.
2. What do you see as the consequences of organizations that punish employees for certain off-the-job behaviors? Explain.
In the case of punishment of the employees, the people have united against this unrightfully action. Also it had created an uneasy environment among the workers. Most organizations which do the punishment of workers for off-job
Off-the-Job Behavior
1. Do you believe Oiler’s employee rights were violated? Explain your position.
Peter Oiler’s termination from his job by the Winn-Dixie Corporation was an obvious violation of his employee rights. Though balancing employee rights with proper discipline is a constant challenge for HR professionals. But in this case of Oiler, the work place behavior of the employer had not changed and there is no problem, with the co-employers also. Also in the own time, the company have no rights about the way he dress. Hence there is also no such challenge for the Winn-Dixie that it has to terminate Oiler. Hence I would consider that Winn-Dixie has violated the employee rights of Oiler. Also his social security has been compromised. When we consider the situation here is more normal than a similar case in 2005, which happened in Georgia. According to that, the courts consider this as sexual discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. And the development of trans-gender transitions has a real concern and the laws accept the claims of discrimination under employer’s categorizing of genders. Thus Oiler’s claim is acceptable and Winn-Dixie has to oblige to the claims of Oiler. Here Oiler’s can be taken as an example of opposition of trans-genders in the general public. Though the laws are guarding them, the manipulation of thought caused by these cases is more than the actual violation. Since the court ruled out as not a violation, it will be a wrong guideline as the decision can be referenced in consecutive references.
2. What do you see as the consequences of organizations that punish employees for certain off-the-job behaviors? Explain.
In the case of punishment of the employees, the people have united against this unrightfully action. Also it had created an uneasy environment among the workers. Most organizations which do the punishment of workers for off-job