How Employees In An Organization Should Also Be Protected Against The Breach Of Their Rights To Privacy (Case Study Sample)

Work Place Ethics
Instructor’s Name:
Assignment
In concerning itself with Pettit’s off the job conduct, did the Board of Education violate her right to privacy or was its concerns with her lifestyle legitimate and employment related?
Privacy is basically considered as one of the fundamental and essential rights that an individual should enjoy. Hence in this case, employees in an organization should also be protected against the breach of their rights to privacy. In Mrs Pettit’s case, the Board of Education violated her right to privacy since her conducted can be termed as off the job conduct CITATION Wil13 \l 2057 (Shaw, 2013). An organization can only raise concerns over an employee if a relationship exists between the employee’s job and his or her conduct where the conduct would consequently affect the operations of the business.
A firm should only be interested in whatever significantly affects and influences the work performance of their employees and what is rightfully their concern but if an employer has to sue an employee over his or her off duty conduct, a relationship must exist between the employees job and his conduct where the conduct would consequently affect the operations of the business. An employee’s outside behaviour should not be of concern to her employer as long as she is available for work and performs her work satisfactorily and as expected CITATION Eli05 \l 2057 (Palm, 2005).
In Mrs Pettit’s case a clear link between her teaching profession and her off duty activities is absent and there is no evidence that her job would be impaired due to her off duty conduct, hence the Education Board did infringe on her right to privacy, their concerns were illegitimate and not employment related. On the contrary, Mrs Pettit’s services were exemplary as stated by her school principal, proof of her professional competence as well as proof that her off job conduct does not in any way impair or compromise the quality of her services.
Was the Board justified in firing Pettit. Explain.
No the court was not justified in firing Mrs Pettit since a link between her conduct and her job performance lacks. Nevertheless her conduct was off the job and employers have no right to raise concerns over an employee’s private life that does not affect the operations of their business. In this case an employee’s outside behaviour should not be of concern to her employer as long as she is available for work and performs her work satisfactorily and as expected and that her conduct does not infringe on the rights of other employees or compromise the quality of her performance.
In Mrs Pettit’s case, a clear link between her teaching profession and her off duty activities is lacking and there is no evidence that her job would be impaired due to her off duty conduct. Also, action against an employee should only be taken when the legitimate interest of the organization which the employee works is injured hence the Education Board was not justified at all in firing her.
Was Pettit’s behaviour ‘unprofessional’ or ‘immoral’? Did it show a lack of fitness to teach?
Mrs Pettit’s behaviour was not unprofessional since her conduct was private and carried out outside her work premises hence, off the job conduct. Mrs Pettit’s conduct cannot be termed as unprofessional since a link between her conduct and her job performance lacks. Concrete evidence lacks where her conduct would on lead to the poor delivery of her teaching services. Unprofessional means being incompetent, inadequate and unfitting but the teacher’s teaching skills were exemplary as always stated by her school principal as well as the Board of Education.
Mrs Pettit’s behaviour and actions were also private only that the surveillance at the party offered evidence and dragged the matter to the public, an issue that was meant to be private. Never the less, Mrs Pettit and her husband viewed various sexual lifestyles as fancy and with favours hence this was all in consent with her husband as well. Arguably, if the surveillance had not taken her then activities, the matter would not have been brought up and Mrs Pettit would not have been charged. Her actions may be deemed as immoral by many people since majority of people’s opinion are bound to the reality of sexual behaviour and the public sadly assumes that a teacher should present Victorian principles of sexual morality even in their private lives CITATION Wil13 \l 2057 (Shaw, 2013).
Mrs Pettit’s off job conduct do not show in any way her lack of fitness to teach. This is because in her case a clear link between her teaching profession and her off duty activities lacks and there is no evidence that she would otherwise compromise the quality of her work. Her conduct does not hence in any way portray her unfitness to teach. In-fact, the board of education found nothing to complain about her professional services and skills as a teacher as well as also stated by her principal who termed her as being very competent CITATION Wil13 \l 2057 (Shaw, 2013).
If teachers perform competently in the classroom should they also be required to be moral exemplars in their private lives? Are other employees in other sectors expected to provide a moral example, either on or off the job?
Competence and professionalism does not have relations and links with one’s private life. An organization should not take disciplinary measures against an employee’s off duty actions that are not even rightfully the concern of the organization CITATION Kei12 \l 2057 (Goree, 2012). In this case, an employee’s off the job life as a private citizen should be well defined by his or her organization. Hence, an organization should only raise concerns over an employee’s off the job life if his conduct makes the employee’s performance in the work place decline or affects the job performance of other employees. Action against the employee should only be taken when the legitimate interest of the organization which the employee works is injured CITATION Kei12 \l 2057 (Goree, 2012). Hence if a teacher delivers satisfactorily of what is expected of him or her, the decision to be a moral example in his or her private life should be his own solemn decision provided that this decision does not cause his performance in the work place to decline nor affects the job performance of other employees.
Other employees are expected to provide a moral example while on job hence their on job conduct is important. However, it is also good to provide the same moral example while off duty but an employee as the right to privacy states, that each individual has a right to his or her private life, an employee should not dismissed or punished due to or his behaviour while off duty without being critically heard and investigating if his or her actions interfered with the performance of other employees or compromised on his or her performance at the work place.
Behaviours that would show unprofessional conduct for a teacher
Gossiping; Teachers’ professional conduct states that a teacher should not gossip or spread rumours of his pupils, his pupils’ family or gossip of his colleague teachers as this is one of th...