Law

You are the Judge Papers.

Legal Issues.

Uriah Heep is an accountant for the City of Boca Grande. He has worked there for seven years and has a good work record. Two months ago, Uriah’s supervisor learned from some of Uriah’s employees that Uriah works weekends as an exotic dancer at a local nightclub. Last week, Uriah was fired for “engaging in activities that could discredit the City.” He has sued to get his job back. The legal issues in this case are; Was Uriah’s employer right in firing him? Was Uriah in his constitutional rights boundary as he worked as an exotic dancer? What are the legal options for Uriah and his employer?

Plaintiff’s Arguments.

Firstly, Uriah argues that his employer infringed his rights in firing him. This is because in the First Amendment, each person has the freedom of speech and expression. If the kind of expression that the person is putting across does not affect the public. Uriah also argues that his contract of employment was not due to end any time soon. He still had a whole year of work in the company and then his contract would end. He also says that his record for the seven years he had worked at the company showed that he is a good employee. In addition, he argues that his employment at the club is only for weekends and does not interfere with his performance as an accountant. Uriah also claims that his termination can be referred to as discrimination due to sexual affiliations (Macdonald 87). The employer did not give any kind of prior notice to Uriah before firing him. This can be viewed considering that he knew of Uriah’s activities for two months. He also says that he had the right to seek employment elsewhere in accordance to his property rights.

Defendant’s arguments.

Uriah’s employer fees that he has the right to terminate Uriah’s employment because he is employed at will. This means that the employer has the power to fire the employee at any time for any reason. He also argues that Uriah’s weekend employment as an exotic dancer is lewd and obscene behavior. He also says that this is damaging to the image of the company and would discourage customers, if they came to know of Uriah’s activities. He continues to say that Uriah did not inform his employer that he was taking outside employment. He insists that Uriah should have presented a written document before searching for employment elsewhere. The major reason why he fired Uriah was that he terms exotic dancing as an act that could discredit the city.

My Decision as the Judge.

In this case, Uriah should get his job back. This is because the First Amendment protects the right to all forms of communication even those forms that can be termed as vulgar or ugly by other people (Cossman and Fudge 65). In addition, the employer has to present evidence in court showing that the act that Uriah was involved in was obscene. It is difficult to produce such evidence considering that what is obscene to one person may be viewed differently by another person making it hard to define obscene. Uriah was in the jurisdiction of his rights in working as an exotic dancer. Furthermore, no complaint has been raised against him by law enforcers of that city.

On the other hand, the employer acted in a way that was in breach of contract. Though he has the right to fire Uriah at any time for any reason, there was a written contract that indicated that Uriah was still supposed to be working as an employee of the said company. In fact, Uriah can sue his employer for breach of contract and demand for damages (Strom 43). Uriah also has the right to outside employment s long as it does not affect his performance of duties in his current job. As for Uriah, he works as a dancer during weekends only and this does not affect his input as an accountant when he is at work. Another loophole in the employer’s plea is that, he knew about Uriah’s activities for two months and chose to do nothing about it. He has no right to act on this information now.

My Own Opinion.

            The legal rules that apply to termination of employment due to cause are currently fair and reasonable. This is because though an employer has the right to fire an employee at any, an employee has the right to sue the employer if he feels that the termination was not fair. In addition, an employee should not take advantage of these legal issues to act in a manner that is in obvious insubordination as such would lead to outright dismissal. Many people have come out to oppose their employers’ decisions to fire them and some have been proved to have a legitimate case. The laws should be more specific when it comes to termination of employment for cause. It should give specific issues that an employer is allowed to use to terminate an employee. When this is done, it will be easier for judges to determine when an employee is right or wrong in questioning their employers’ decisions to terminate them from their positions. In the case of exotic dancing, I find that the laws are inadequate to cover the issue as it is in the modern society. This practice has been on the rise and adequate laws should be formulated to help define these kinds of cases. In the current state, when a judge is faced with a case relating to exotic dancing, there are very few options. One has to consider the laws of specific states leaving many gaps when it comes to decision making. Obscenity should be well defined in the laws so that a person accusing another of the same can be able to define activities said to be obscene. This is due to the sensitivity of the matter and its effects on the society. If such laws are formulated, judges will be able to form a specific opinion rather than making assumptions regarding the issue. This is my view of the above case.

Works Cited

Cossman, Brenda, and Judy Fudge. Privatization, Law, and the Challenge of Feminism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. Print.

Macdonald, Lynda A. C. Managing Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers: A Practical Guide to Employing Temporary and Part-Time Staff. London: Tolley, 2003. Print.

Strom, Fredric A. Zoning and Planning Law Handbook. Zoning and land use law library. New York, N.Y: Clark Boardman, 1981. Print.