Mgmt410 Week2 Casestudy
Greg Wollett
MGMT-410
Week 2 Case Study Assignment
1. I do believe that Oilers rights were violated upon his termination from Win-Dixie. In no way can what Oiler did in his personal time be reflected in the actions of what others “may” do if they find out. By the Case study, it was known out in the open that oiler did in fact cross dress with going to church and other public places and has shown no negative outcomes to him performing his duties for Win-Dixie as a truck driver. It should be noticed that the court agreed that the termination was ok because there were no laws that protected transgendered individuals. Let us remember that transgender is only a more resent term used to describe individuals who dress of a different sex. In the Civil Rights Act of 1964 title VII section 2000e-2, it is written that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin or to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 2012). In the case study it was mentioned that the laws were too broad, but it is left broad to leave open to growth and to cover many entities. The termination of Oiler was by my view a violation of the Civil Rights Act under “sex” of an individual.
2. Consequences to employers who punish employees for off the job behavior that I see would start with negative repercussions by the employees against the organization. One way would be the employee claiming restitution for unlawful
MGMT-410
Week 2 Case Study Assignment
1. I do believe that Oilers rights were violated upon his termination from Win-Dixie. In no way can what Oiler did in his personal time be reflected in the actions of what others “may” do if they find out. By the Case study, it was known out in the open that oiler did in fact cross dress with going to church and other public places and has shown no negative outcomes to him performing his duties for Win-Dixie as a truck driver. It should be noticed that the court agreed that the termination was ok because there were no laws that protected transgendered individuals. Let us remember that transgender is only a more resent term used to describe individuals who dress of a different sex. In the Civil Rights Act of 1964 title VII section 2000e-2, it is written that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin or to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 2012). In the case study it was mentioned that the laws were too broad, but it is left broad to leave open to growth and to cover many entities. The termination of Oiler was by my view a violation of the Civil Rights Act under “sex” of an individual.
2. Consequences to employers who punish employees for off the job behavior that I see would start with negative repercussions by the employees against the organization. One way would be the employee claiming restitution for unlawful