Camp David said:
Allowing employers to discriminately outlaw every unique characteristic or habit of their employees sets a dangerous precedent; one in which I content is a slippery slope of restriction leading to outright discrimination in every case.
Can't you also agree that telling an employer that he/she cannot fire someone for off-hours issues creates problems just as severe, if not worse?
Example: Harry likes kiddie porn, and spends many of his off hours surfing the net for kiddie porn. Harry is employed by Company X, where he is a valued and very skilled employee. When Harry gets caught in an FBI sting, and is convicted, can Company X fire him? I mean, it is totally unlrelated to his work. He's on probation, and missed no work time, using vacation days for his court appearances. Basically, unless there is some morals clause in his employment terms, there is no "for cause" reason to terminate his employment.
Example: Dave is a salesman at Company Y. He's busted in the same sting as Harry. Is also a valued employee, and a slaes leader. However, the community around Company Y has learned of his arrest, and his continued employment, and stage lawful protests outside the building. Business lags as a result of the protests, with people not wanting to do business with a known pedophile. Now can they fire him? It would still be for reasns totally unrelated to his work.
Example: Forget the kiddie porn. Local television station is doing a series on a sex club downtown. While filming the story, they get video of Dave coming out of the club. Business lags, as customers don't want to do business with a "pervert." Can you fire him now? It's still not work related.
Example: Company hires Susan to work at their office in downtown Columbus, Ohio. However, Susan is a Michigan grad, and several Ohio State alums threaten to pull their business rather than deal with a Michigan grad. How about now? Do they have to keep Susan, even if the loss of the business will shut them down? Do they have to go bankrupt, and cost all employees their jobs, or can they stay in business by getting rid of Susan?
Can you see where this is going? Forcing emplotyers to keep employees despite "off-hours" and "non-job related" issues is a dangerous trend.
With all that said,allow me to say that I find it personally disturbing to see things like health screening before employment, DNA testing employee for potential health issues, etc. I, too, am concerned about future health screening being used as a weapon, rather than a useful tool. Why take on the expense of Timmy since we know he's a 90% risk of developing Syndrome X accoding to his genetic mapping? Hire Stan, who is only a 10% risk. Timmy can sweep floors for the city, despite having a PhD in Computer Engineering.
And, Cellar Dweller, it is true that the Bill of Rights restricts government actions. An employer comes to your home without permission and takes your guns, it's called Aggravated Burglary.
