Case #1 – “Advanced Educational Materials” Before his termination On Monday, May

Question

Case #1 – “Advanced Educational Materials”

Before his termination On Monday, May 6th, 2002, John Hilliard worked as a Senior Sales Rep for Advanced Educational Materials (AEM), a provider of high-quality educational books and supplies to junior and senior high schools. During his 12 years of employment, John was recognized as an outstanding employee with close working relationships with the schools he served. His sales record was excellent. John’s discharge resulted from what AEM claimed was a serious breach of its code of conduct for employees.

On Saturday, May 4, 2002, due to a chance meeting between John and his manager, Jean Ellison, John was observed leaving an adult video store carrying what his manager described as pornographic magazines and an X-rated video. The following Monday, Jean discussed the incident with AEM’s VP for Sales and the HR Director. All agreed that John’s off-duty behavior constituted a serious violation of the company’s code of conduct for employees, which read in part, “Employee off-duty behavior should in no way reflect unfavorably upon the company, its employees, or sales of any educational materials”. AEM has traditionally held its reps to high moral standards because the company sells extensively to public school administrators and teachers.

At his discharge meeting, John vigorously opposed his firing. While he acknowledged that he made the purchases, he argued that “what he did on his own personal time was no business of the company’s” and his behavior in no way reflected unfavorably upon AEM. AEM upheld his discharge and John has filed a claim for wrongful discharge.

Explanation / Answer

The US equal Employment opportunity Commission and forces various laws to ensure that no employer is allowed to discriminate against any prospective or existing employee on the basis of the persons sex, race, color, religion, age, National origin, sexual preference, disability or genetic information. The EEOC has introduced laws which inhibit discrimination in any aspect of employment, by ensuring that no policy or practice having a negative impact on any employee is implemented as a rule by any organisation. Purchasing and viewing of pornographic material involving adults, bye an adult above 18 years of age, is considered to be right under the first amendment. Any organisation which discriminates against an employee on the basis of sexual preference and discharges him on this basis, can be said to be in diverging and discriminatory practices and the employee can approach the equal Employment opportunity Commission to find acclaim for wrongful discharge. Any regulations and rules which have been laid down within a code of conduct handbook should be extremely explicit and not general in nature so as to be misconstrued. a statement such as, "employee off duty behaviour should in no way reflect unfavorably upon the company, its employees, or sales of any educational materials" does not in anyway specify which behavior maybe unacceptable and in what way it can impact the company's image unfavourably. Any rule which impinges upon personal freedom of an individual can be said to be unlawful and discriminatory even if it is a rule laid down by the company. John can approach the equal employment opportunity Commission and file for a wrongful discharge claim.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.