Research Paper on:
Problems With Employment Termination (Case Study Analysis)

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
involves a cross dresser who worked well, but when the unusual recreational activity was uncovered, the employee was terminated (Hirschman, 2003a). Because of this, he filed a lawsuit alleging that  the company discriminated against him (Hirschman, 2003a). Technically, the charge was gender discrimination (Hirschman, 2003a). The article goes on to say that this man at first lost his case in  court, but he did win in the court of public opinion (Hirschman, 2003a). This means that Winn Dixie ultimately lost. Why was the public in favor of the cross-dresser? Many  people wondered where an employer could draw the line (Hirschman, 2003a). Indeed, this is a serious issue in society today. People can be discriminated against based on whether or not  they are smokers, even if they do not smoke on the job. Employers reason that the individuals will want a cigarette, or take more breaks, and this is distracting and  costly. While the employer may be right, and certainly terminating a cross dresser might see less gossip in the office, the motivations of the employers are not resonating with the  general public. The problem is not limited to cross-dressing and smoking. People are afraid that they could get fired simply due to a hobby they enjoy away from the office.  Although the company might have lost in terms of its image, the law is an important issue. What does the law say about firing employees for things they do  outside of working hours? Hirschman (2003a) writes: " A number of federal and state laws restrict the at-will employment doctrine and, in some cases, employees may successfully argue that these  statutes protect their off-duty behavior" (p.50). Certain things are protected. If someone is part of a protected class for example, employers cannot fire them. For instance, while cross dressing is