The behavior engaged in was not illegal. Nor is it illegal to be a transgendered individual. The company's actions were discriminatory. He was not fired because he was a poor employee but because of his actions away from the job.
Who are the stakeholders, and how are they impacted by this situation?
The stakeholders were Peter Oiler, his manager and Winne Dixie. Peter Oiler faced the prospect of not having a job and being ostracized in the community. The manager faced the consequences of loosing a good employee in Mr. Oiler and having to deal with the consequences if he chose not to fire Oiler. Winn Dixie would be affected if Oiler's lifestyle somehow reflected badly on the company/. It may also be the case that Winn Dixie would be negatively affected if customers saw the way this outstanding employee was treated and decided that the company was discriminating against him.
Do you agree with the federal judge's decision? If you were the judge, what would you do?
The judge had no choice if the wording of the law is such that transgender people were not protected under the law at that time. I would probably have to rule the same way but I would make it clear that just because no law exist for that type of discrimination, the way the firing of the employee was still discriminatory.
A recently passed ordinance in New Orleans prohibits discrimination against...
However, the Winn-Dixiebranch that fired Oiler is located just outside that jurisdiction. Does this affect your answer to #2?
No. Discrimination is discrimination.
For what after-hours behavior do you feel it is appropriate to terminate an employee? For what after-hours behavior is it not appropriate? Where do you draw the line, and how would you describe that line if you were developing a policy to put into an employee manual?
IT would be appropriate to terminate an employee for off the job behavior that is illegal such as selling drugs, murder, stealing, fraud and things of this nature. In such cases the off duty behavior of employees could definitely affect the business. It is not appropriate for employers to terminate employees for engaging in activities that are not illegal and for which the company's name will not be adversely affected. The problem is that some legal activities might indeed affect a company's image. Company's have to establish what activities are acceptable and what activities are not acceptable and make these activities known to employees. A list of such activities should be established in the employee handbook and if they are violated the employer should have the right to terminate or suspend the employee. The line would be whatever activities I knew would be detrimental to the ability of the business to make a profit.
