Question 1:
Question 2
Question 3.
The board never gave a clear justification to fire Pettit and their predicament was based on the oral copulation case that might affect children at the school. The board made the decision on the basis of their conservative values who believed that children were susceptible to such behaviour and it was possible they might pick up on such behaviour from their teacher. The board claimed that Pettit was unfit to teach, but the explanation was unrelated to the profession, rather it was based on her sexual preferences. To justify her termination, the board needed to give evidence of poor performance, past misconduct, or any anticipation of probable problems. The board failed to give record of any such information, making it clear that the termination was based on the oral copulation case. Due to this reason, Pettit’s firing by the board was not justified with valid reasons.
Question 4.
The earlier case of homosexual teacher the court reversed the decision of firing the teacher as the behaviour was not considered as unprofessional or immoral. The court also added that the board has acted insufficiently in that case as they did not collect enough evidence. But, in case of Mrs. Pettit the court decided to uphold the decision of the school board to fire the teacher. Also, the board collected enough information and testimonies from other teachers about the effect such behaviour could have on the students. The court also took in the factor that Mrs. Pettit was caught in public, whereas the previous case was more private. Therefore, the court’s verdict in both cases was different as the homosexual teacher was reinstated whereas Mrs. Pettit was fired. The court did not remain consistent with the decision as they went with the evidence and beliefs of the majority which were heavily criticized by one of the majority.
Question 5.
It does not make sense to fire Mrs. Petit for something that she did in her personal life. She is entitled to her sexual preferences and called her unfit to teach is unjustified. Teacher like Mrs. Pettit who has a positive track record and have proven to be successful in her career as a teacher should not be judged for her personal choices. As the judge points out that Mrs. Pettit should not be expected to be moral exemplar in her personal life as long as she is professional in her job. Mrs. Pettit being charged for oral copulation was based on the California Law, but there was no law for firing her for oral copulation. Similarly, employees in other jobs should not be forced to follow a moral exemplar as professional and personal lives should not be mixed. On the job, people should follow moral exemplar in every profession as it is an expectation of the professional, rather than the expectation of the society.
Question 6.
Unprofessional conduct can be anything that is considered and identified as unacceptable behaviour that workplace. Therefore, drunken driving, smoking marijuana in the workplace, advocating marijuana use at the workplace, forging a check, and resisting arrest for assaulting a police officer and disorderly conduct are unprofessional conducts. Immorality can be anything that the society might consider as unacceptable behaviour. Therefore, drunken driving, smoking marijuana, advocating the use of marijuana, forging a check, being discovered in a compromising position with a student, propositioning a student, cheating on income tax, and calling attention to one’s openly homosexual lifestyle is immoral act. Lack of fitness to teach is where a teacher performs activities at workplace that interferes with their ability to fulfil the job responsibilities. Therefore, drunken driving, smoking marijuana, advocating the use of marijuana, forging a check, resisting arrest for assaulting a police officer and disorderly conduct are part of being unfit to teach.
Question 7.
Employers tend to monitor the behaviour of their employees off-the-job as they want to avoid controversies and controversial employees who can tarnish the company’s image. Employers can be concerned when their employees are involved in criminal activities off-the-job. There are certain conditions under which employers have legitimate concerns over their employees’ off-the–job behaviour. Employers are concerned when any employee is charged with a criminal case as they are concerned that thing can boil over and affect the reputation of the company. Employers are also concerned when employees are deemed unfit to work due to addiction. Addiction to alcohol or recreational drugs is one of the main factors that can increase employer’s interest in their employee’s behaviour. Also, employers are concerned when employees start looking for other opportunities and might reveal company secrets. Employers mostly counter these by non-compete clauses in employment contracts.
References
Shaw, W. H. (2016). Business ethics: A textbook with cases (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
