Off-the-Job Behavior

In my position, Oilers employee rights were immensely violated. The bases of his termination were baseless due to his clean record. For the matter of fact, Oiler was to be promoted for his commitment and loyalty to Winn-Dixie for all those years, and for a job well done. If Oiler had a bad job record, then he ought to be fired. Looking at his record it is clearly seen that his off duty activities led to his dismissal. The Winn-Dixie management claimed that Oiler portrayed the company negatively due to his off the job behavior.  Oiler had sued Winn-Dixie on the wrongful dismissal and lost. This was not to support the dismissal was right (Stephen, 2003).

During the judgment, the magistrate pointed that Winn-Dixie had won the case against Oiler because there were no federal laws supporting transgender. This proves that the court also thought that Oiler was wrongfully dismissed. His rights as a human being were violated because of his choice of sexuality. This should not be a base for judgment in the human resource field nor the legal system. Sexual preferences segregation is an element that should not judge a person capability to perform any duty. Transgender individuals are employees before they are transgender. Therefore, the employee rights should protect all employees equally. The court on backing Winn-Dixie, further, oppressed the rights of oiler as a human employee. There are no business laws written for specific human beings. The human resource department lost the human part in the Oiler case. As much as they should support the organization, they should also support the employees. Oiler was not supported by his HR department and was denied his employee rights even with his immense employee record and job commitment (Ricky, 2004).

Winn-Dixie disrespected the community and took away his rights as an American. This was unethical and unconstitutional and damaged their image in the society. Ironically, instead of mending their image by dismissing oiler they managed to ruin their reputation after all. Companies that punish their employees for off the job behaviors gain discriminative vibes. The community targets such companies as they deem them negatively. They claim that the companies target innocent had working employees for appropriate reasons. The off duty activities do not affect their ability to work. If the off duty actives impair the functioning of the individual in the work situation, it is right for the HR to act on the individual.

Vices like drug intake and over indulgence in alcohol directly affect the production of individuals at the work place. This dismissal will meet no resistance from the society. On the other hand, dismissal for acts that does not interfere with the employee production or due to discriminative acts on their sexual orientation is seen as discriminative. This will lead the society to lobby and join up for mass action. The judicial system does not allow the companies to act on discrimination and there are laws against them. Loop holes from the judiciary should be mended to assist individuals like Oiler (Harold, 2004).

The dismissal on the off duty behavior individuals experiences different reactions from community, depending on the reason for dismissal. Companies that practice such dismissal should weigh between the reason for dismissal and the repercussions. If the repercussions from the judicial system or the public outweigh the benefits then they should opt to maintain the individuals rather than fire them (Paul, 1982).

I believe that the Winn-Dixie organization exhibits the hot stove approach. This is because of their reaction of the Oiler case. The organization has defined rules and regulation that govern the HR to employ and dismiss.  The rules and regulations also guide the employees on the path they should follow for an ideal employment scenario. When the rules are breached by the employees, the organization has placed a guideline on the disciplinary action to be given. The hot stove approach reprimands the individual according with similar consequences, but not due to their severity and reoccurrence of misbehavior or breach of rules. There was no prior warning to the dismissal of Oiler. There was no progressive approach of caution or prior warnings to Oiler. This means that oiler suffered dismissal for reasons that could have been altered if he was warned.  This was seen as a hot stove approach. Their decision to fire Oiler for the single reason of being a transgender portrays the hot fire approach of discipline. His was terminated without explaining himself and no questions asked (Raymond, 2007).

The visions of Oiler as a good employee were put aside to warrant immediate dismissal due to his sexual character.  Oiler’s importance to the organization was not vetted. The consequences of firing Oiler, similarly, were not foreseen. If they took the Progressive approach, Oiler would have been fired for not conforming to the employment requirements and not for his sexual preferences. The reaction from the society would not have been experienced as Oiler would have been fired for non compliance to company rules. The hot stove approach witnessed used by the company had dire consequences.