...Please refer to the case, "Pete Oiler and Winn-Dixie Stores," found in the pdf file I attached. It is from a textbook, Business Ethics: Cases & Concepts (7th ed.), at pp376-77. Determine whether it was wrong for Winn-Dixie to fire Pete Oiler, in light of the theories: Utilitarianism, Rights, Justice, Caring and Virtue. Conclude by presenting your own judgment of the issue and your estimation of which theory was most appropriate for this problem. State your reasons for your judgment and estimation. Directions for the Case Analysis paper 1. NO OUTSIDE RESEARCH, do not attempt to change the facts in light of further research (on line or via more traditional media). Assume the facts are as presented in the case (as I certainly will). 2. Please organize the paper in the following manner (page nos. are guides, not requirements or limits), with each new topic beginning on a new page: A. Cover Page (Name, Class, Summer 2012)– 1 page B. Introduction (identifying the key facts and issues in the case) – 2-3 pages C. Utilitarianism (2-3 pages) a. Elements (addressing the theory that is used for utilitarian analysis) b. Application (your reasoning about whether it was wrong for Winn-Dixie to fire Pete Oiler based on utilitarianism perspectives) D. Rights (2-3 pages) a. Elements (addressing the Kant’s theory that is used for rights analysis) b. Application (your reasoning about whether it was wrong for Winn-Dixie to fire Pete Oiler based on Kant’s perspectives) ...
Words: 490 - Pages: 2
...Peter Oiler was a outstanding employee as a truck driver for Winn-Dixie with an impeccable record had a responsibility to the company he worked for. As a driver Mr. Oiler daily task was to deal directly with the public as Winn-Dixie’s representative. He is the foreperson for the company, which everyone sees when he makes deliveries. Every company has goals and expectations as to how they want their company to be represented and how they want their customers to view them, so when a company goes through the hiring process they want employees who will represent the company and the company’s image. In the case of Oiler v. Winn-Dixie (2002), Mr. Oiler filed a case with the help of The American Civil Liberties Union to file a federal suit. They argued that Winn-Dixie violated his Civil Rights Title VII because “Mr. Oiler was not confirming to the company’s opinion as to how a man ought to look”. The court ruled that “The plaintiff was terminated because he is a man with a sexual or gender identity disorder who, in order to publicly disguise himself as a woman, wears women’s clothing shoes, underwear, breast prostheses, wigs, make-up, and nail polish, pretends to be a woman, and publicly identifies himself as a woman “Donna”. They conclude that Winn-Dixie did not violate his Civil Rights. Another case The Huffington Post (2013) reports, Olivia Sprauer was forced to resign as a high school teacher for posing in a bikini for a racy modeling photo. Even though the case has not...
Words: 489 - Pages: 2
...work. Point deductions will occur if more than 15% of the answer is borrowed. I want to read YOUR thoughts on these questions. However, I do expect at least some citations and references for all assignments. 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 co-workers 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...
Words: 627 - Pages: 3
...1) Yes I do believe that Oiler’s employee rights were violated. Oiler was a dedicated employee of twenty years he did an outstanding job, oiler’s personal life for twenty years did not affect the company (Winn-Dixie) or his ability to do a good job. I do not believe that a company should be able to fire anyone for their personal ways. When I say personal ways I mean how someone lives, dresses, or acts outside of their working environment unless it has to do directly with the company itself. If oiler was going around representing Winn-Dixie in any way then yes I could understand why the company would feel a little threatened. I feel that the decision to fire Oiler was based off of someone’s personal feelings towards Oiler being a cross dresser which is very unprofessional, a company should not fire anyone based on personal feelings but instead on how could this effect the company. On the clock Oiler was a very professional employee for twenty years. Not only was Oiler’s employee rights violated but his civil rights also. The seventh Amendment to the civil rights act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in hiring based on sex, religion, and national origin. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government not deprive any individual of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. By firing Oiler for cross dressing is depriving him of living his life in which I do not believe that companies should legally be able to fire employee’s...
Words: 789 - Pages: 4
...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-7.pdf. Mr. Peter Oiler certainly has unique situation that he/she has to contend with. But by virtue of the amount of negative publicity that the food chain, Winn Dixie would have to contend with, I think that they made a wise decision. Case-and-Point; say for instance, Mr. Oiler was on a normal outing and decided that he wanted to drink a little. He’s dress in his finest dress while at the Shady Grove Bar and Grill, when all of a sudden, someone from Winn Dixie recognizes him. They start a conversation and a fight ensues. Mr. Oiler and his co-worker are eventually pulled apart, but the damages are insurmountable. The owners of Shady Grove Bar and Grill, through a police report fine that Mr. Oiler is employed at Winn Dixie, and file a Class-Action Suit against the corporation. The fact of the matter is, no one cares who you are, until they find out that you work for a large corporation. From a Human Resources perspective, I feel that we are all under the gun. For every action that you take, there is a equally and determining reaction. In this world of recessions and downsizing, every employee has to really think about the consequences that surrounds their off-the Job behaviors. I’m not saying that Mr. Oiler is right or wrong in...
Words: 971 - Pages: 4
...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 co-workers 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...
Words: 439 - Pages: 2
...Week two assignment Do you believe that Oilers employee rights were violated? Explain your position In my opinion Oilers rights were completely violated, he was terminated on ground that did not pertain to Winn Dixie, honestly I feel as though what a person does outside of a company in not the company’s business unless that action of that person is intentionally harming the company that statement excludes political parties and/or high officials of an Organization I feel this way because society holds them at a higher bracket of responsibility than others. Oiler’s work ethics were never considered he gave Winn Dixie twenty years of long hard labor with impeccable and unblemished work ethics, his productiveness was never considered. I does not mention that he was confronted about his outside life he was just terminated. According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, on October 23, 2000 the United States District court Eastern District of Louisiana ruled that Winn-Dixie unlawfully discriminated against Oiler on the basis of sex in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the employment non-discrimination Act employment discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers is pervasive and harmful. It violates core American values of fairness and equality by discriminating against qualified individuals based on characteristics unrelated to the job. What do you see as the consequences of organization that punish employees...
Words: 337 - Pages: 2
...Week 2 Case Study MGMT 410 1. Can we live a normal life out of work with out the stress that what we do cannot affect our job position? Certainly that is not the case and that is what happened Oiler even though his action in no way harmed the business. Oiler was the person who lived a different live when out side of work while wearing a wig, make up, he chose to live this lifestyle. That is why I do believe Oiler’s employee right were violated. I can understand if the business is to say that Oiler’s image would affect the reputation of the image since has a virtually become an asset to the business but can be judge by a different image. Of course now a days HR and managers can make the decision as to if they should hire you based on some Facebook pictures but in most cases those are different acts. If some one acts out using drugs or having an abuse with alcohol or actually committing a crime can then they judge as to if you should be fired or not. As the image and the reputation of a business can actually be affected by the circumstance as it might also affect their stockholders and other investor or partner. Still Oiler was a committed person to the business and his action after work did not harm anyone. Also the fact that he was not on duty or on the premises of his work area should show that there was no correlation to his action and his job. Overall, I am 100% percent behind those that rallied for Oiler, that Winn-Dixie’s action was just not right for the many that...
Words: 866 - Pages: 4
...Case #1 Webb vs. City of Philadelphia This case involves Kimberlie Webb and the City of Philadelphia (mainly the police department). The case was heard by the United States court of appeals, third circuit in 2009. The suit was filed because Webb believed her religious rights were being decimated against. Webb is a Muslim woman who servers on the Philadelphia Police Department. Webb asked permission to wear a headdress that would not cover her face or ears due to her religious beliefs. She was disciplined for failing to comply with Police Department Directive 78 (which basically states that all officers must wear a certain uniform and dress in a certain way in order to appear uniform and unbiased). The Philadelphia Police Department stated that in order to obtain their overall collectiveness could not allow Webb to wear her headdress because it would be obvious what her religious beliefs were and would allow citizens to see that the Police Department is impartial, meaning they could lose the trust and respect of the community. The Judges in this case dismiss the case because for a group of people to be uniform (collectively similar) their cannot be any appearance of religion and that all those who serve must appear neutral to better server the community. Anything to separate identity could be costly when it comes to the overall good of protection. The Judge(s) decide this because if it seems that the police department is partial then citizens may not or will not...
Words: 1186 - Pages: 5
...I most definitely think that Oiler rights were violated. My opinion though really doesn’t matter if this behavior was discussed with Oiler at the start of him employment with Winn Dixie. Depending on the rules and regulation that were set forth by Winn Dixie and gone over with Oiler in orientation he very well may have been in violation of the company’s policy. I work for the state in the behavioral health department. Occasionally there are events that take place in the community, within legislature or people in charge of making very big decision. And as we all know the media is always looking for their next big story. Policy here stated that we are not to speak to any media, not be telephone, mail correspondence or in person. We have one specific person at the agency that covers all interviews. This is to make sure that the correct information is being given to the public. Employees here consider these to be strict guidelines and we make sure that we do as policy states. In Oiler’s case there may have been something in policy that stated that this type of behavior was not going to be accepted and that termination would result of it. This is why it is very important that everything given to a person be read prior to signing, especially if you know you partake in questionable activities. In Oilers case it is obvious this was not the case. It’s sad that society works this way but unless we own the business and work for ourselves we must abide by others...
Words: 266 - Pages: 2
...ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS OF AUTHORITY I THIS COURT SHOULD AFFIRM THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER AND JUDGEMENT BECAUSE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A GENIUINE DISPUTE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT THEREFORE FARM TOWN MORTGAGE IS ENTITLED TO JUDGEMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 DOES NOT INCLUDE TRANSSEXUALS AS A PROTECTED CLASS FROM DISCRIMNATION IN THE WORK PLACE THUS, THE APPELLANT’S APPEAL FOR SEX DISCRIMINATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED. The district court’s holding in Lopez v. Farmtown Mortgage Services (FMS) that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not protect transgendered or transsexuals was correct and should be affirmed on appeal. The district court’s grant of summary judgment to FMS demonstrated the plaintiff Veronica Lopez’s (VL) lack of sufficient evidence to prove that there was a genuine dispute as to any material fact for a Title VII discrimination claim. (R. 1.) This Court of Appeals reviews a district court’s grant of motion for summary judgment pursuant to federal rule 56(c) de novo. (R. 1.) According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Title VII), 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...
Words: 3919 - Pages: 16
...AN EXAMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TRANSGENDER AMERICANS IN THE WORKPLACE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 26, 2008 Serial No. 110–99 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor ( Available on the Internet: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 43–027 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:55 Dec 17, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 G:\DOCS\110TH\HELP\110-99\43027.TXT HBUD PsN: DICK COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia Lynn C. Woolsey, California ´ Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio David Wu, Oregon Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Susan A. Davis, California Danny K. Davis, Illinois ´ Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Timothy H. Bishop, New York ´ Linda T. Sanchez, California John P...
Words: 49958 - Pages: 200
...62118 0/nm 1/n1 2/nm 3/nm 4/nm 5/nm 6/nm 7/nm 8/nm 9/nm 1990s 0th/pt 1st/p 1th/tc 2nd/p 2th/tc 3rd/p 3th/tc 4th/pt 5th/pt 6th/pt 7th/pt 8th/pt 9th/pt 0s/pt a A AA AAA Aachen/M aardvark/SM Aaren/M Aarhus/M Aarika/M Aaron/M AB aback abacus/SM abaft Abagael/M Abagail/M abalone/SM abandoner/M abandon/LGDRS abandonment/SM abase/LGDSR abasement/S abaser/M abashed/UY abashment/MS abash/SDLG abate/DSRLG abated/U abatement/MS abater/M abattoir/SM Abba/M Abbe/M abbé/S abbess/SM Abbey/M abbey/MS Abbie/M Abbi/M Abbot/M abbot/MS Abbott/M abbr abbrev abbreviated/UA abbreviates/A abbreviate/XDSNG abbreviating/A abbreviation/M Abbye/M Abby/M ABC/M Abdel/M abdicate/NGDSX abdication/M abdomen/SM abdominal/YS abduct/DGS abduction/SM abductor/SM Abdul/M ab/DY abeam Abelard/M Abel/M Abelson/M Abe/M Aberdeen/M Abernathy/M aberrant/YS aberrational aberration/SM abet/S abetted abetting abettor/SM Abeu/M abeyance/MS abeyant Abey/M abhorred abhorrence/MS abhorrent/Y abhorrer/M abhorring abhor/S abidance/MS abide/JGSR abider/M abiding/Y Abidjan/M Abie/M Abigael/M Abigail/M Abigale/M Abilene/M ability/IMES abjection/MS abjectness/SM abject/SGPDY abjuration/SM abjuratory abjurer/M abjure/ZGSRD ablate/VGNSDX ablation/M ablative/SY ablaze abler/E ables/E ablest able/U abloom ablution/MS Ab/M ABM/S abnegate/NGSDX abnegation/M Abner/M abnormality/SM abnormal/SY aboard ...
Words: 113589 - Pages: 455
