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 coworkers 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 wife—in restaurants, at church—Donna 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 could—but 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. Questions: 1. Do you believe Oiler’s employee rights were violated? Explain your position.