Bosses, Workers, Courts, and Labor Arbitrators
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Missouri Law Review Volume 57 Issue 1 Winter 1992 Article 7 Winter 1992 Procrustean Beds and Draconian Choices: Lifestyle Regulations and Officious Intermeddlers--Bosses,ork W ers, Courts, and Labor Arbitrators Marvin Hill Jr. Emily Delacenserie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Marvin Hill Jr. and Emily Delacenserie, Procrustean Beds and Draconian Choices: Lifestyle Regulations and Officious Intermeddlers--Bosses,ork W ers, Courts, and Labor Arbitrators, 57 MO. L. REV. (1992) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol57/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hill and Delacenserie: Hill: Procrustean Beds and Draconian Choices Procrustean Beds and Draconian Choices: Lifestyle Regulations and Officious Intermeddlers-Bosses, Workers, Courts, and Labor Arbitrators Marvin Hill, Jr.° Emily Delacenserie'" I. INTRODUCTION In Greenburgh, New York, Paul Solomon, once a popular sixth-grade teacher, faces possible dismissal for his role in the "Fatal Attraction" case involving the shooting death of his wife, Betty Jeanne Solomon. Mr. Solomon, who was granted immunity from prosecution, admitted in open court to having numerous extramarital affairs, including an affair with a fellow teacher, Carolyn Warmus. She is currently facing a second trial after a hung jury in her first trial for the killing of Mrs. Solomon. Leon Leighton, an 88- year-old lawyer who has lived in the community for 47 years, has sent a letter to 100 citizens asking them to press the school board for Solomon's dismissal. Leighton is quoted in the New York Times to have said that "what he has done is immoral" and returning Solomon to the classroom would be "an unforgiv- able outrage to the integrity of our school system and a body blow to our property values."' Others have echoed similar concerns with Solomon's ability to function as a role model for students. 2 * Professor of Labor and Industrial Relations, College of Business Administration and Adjunct Professor of Law, College of Law, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois. J.D. & Ph.D., University of Iowa. A member of the National Academy of Arbitrators, Hill is actively engaged in arbitration in the public and private sectors. Hill has co-authored (with Anthony V. Sinicropi) three books: Management Rights: A Legal and ArbitralAnalysis (BNA, 1986), Remedies in Arbitration (BNA, 1991), and Evidence in Arbitration (BNA, 1987). ** J.D., (candidate) College of Law, Northern Illinois University. Copyright, 1991. Marvin F. Hill, Jr. and Emily Delacenserie. All rights reserved. The authors wish to thank James Wright, an associate in the law firm of Sutkowski & Washkuhn, Ltd., Peoria, Illinois, for his comments on an earlier draft of this article. His work was beyond the call. 1. Some Ask if Husband in Love-Triangle Case Is Fit to Teach, N.Y. TIMES, August 17, 1991, § 1, at 23, Col. 2. 2. Nadine Brozan,A Post-TrialQuestion: ShouldAdultererTeach?, N.Y. TIMEs, Aug. 17, 1991, at 23. In September, 1991, Paul Solomon was denied classroom duties Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository, 1992 1 MISSOURIMissouri LAW Law Review, REVIEW Vol. 57, Iss. 1 [1992], Art. 7 [Vol. 57 What should the board of education do? Even more interesting, what can the board do in response to the citizens' desiring to terminate the contract of Mr. Solomon? Would it be constitutional for Paul Solomon to be held to a higher standard of behavior than other employees of the district (the janitor, for example)? To what extent can private and public-sector employers regulate or control, under threat of discipline or discharge, an employee's personal off-duty lifestyle? Can management withhold a benefit or promotion because of the employee's unhealthy or bizarre lifestyle? Aside from the educational environment, examples where both private- and public-sector management concerns itself with the employee's lifestyle, or the results of that lifestyle, are numerous: In the air, American Airlines, similar to United, Delta, and Continental, promulgated weight standards for flight attendants. American, like most airlines, does not want "fat" flight attendants. Those who do not tip the scales at the right numbers according to height and weight tables are placed on leave. If weight is not made within a designated period, dismissal follows. 3 In Cranston, Rhode Island a hospital attendant is refused employment with her former employer, the State of Rhode Island, because at 315 pounds she is considered fat. Management believes that its workers' compensation costs might rise if it rehired her.4 A bus driver, who received extensive publicity for his off-duty activities as Acting Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, is discharged for his "political" activities. Management rejects outright the employee's constitutional 5 arguments relating to free speech and association. The Omaha Girls Club dismisses an unmarried staff member because she conceived a child out of wedlock. According to management, her condition made her a negative role model to the children and, thus, unsuitable for 6 continued employment. Concluding that management had to take steps to help contain medical costs and that "there are certain lifestyle decisions that we are just not going to assure the results of,"7 the Circle K Corporation, the nation's second- although he still draws full pay. Warmus, free on $250,000 bond, faces an additional charge of having forged a defense exhibit in the first trial. 3. In The Air, A New Battle Over Weight, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 2, 1990, at A-12. 4. The Providence chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lynette Labinger, of counsel, has filed a lawsuit against the State of Rhode Island in The United States District Court of Rhode Island. See Cook v. State of Rhode Island, Dep't of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals, C.A. No. 90-0560-T (D. R.I. 1991). 5. Baltimore Transit Co., 47 Lab. Arb. Rep. (BNA) 62 (1966) (Duff, Arb.). 6. Chambers'v. Omaha Girls Club, Inc., 834 F.2d 697 (8th Cir. 1987). 7. Kenneth B. Noble, Company Halting Health Plan On Some "Life Style" Illnesses, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 6, 1988, at Al. https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol57/iss1/7 2 1992] LIFESTYLE REGULATIONS-EMPLOYMENTHill and Delacenserie: Hill: Procrustean Beds LAW and Draconian Choices53 largest convenience store chain, announced that it would terminate the medical coverage of "employees who become sick or injured as a result of AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse or self-inflicted wounds."8 The Walt Disney Company, in the midst of hiring some 12,000 employees to maintain and populate its Euro Disneyland theme park in Mame- la-Vallee, 20 miles east of Paris, has spelled out a dress and appearance code that goes beyond height and weight requirements. The rules mandate strict guidelines on the length of men's hair, and prohibit facial hair and the display of tatoos. Women's hair must be one natural color, and women can use only limited amounts of makeup. Further, the length of women's fingernails is restricted and false eyelashes and other eye makeup is completely disallowed: As for jewelry, women can wear only one earring in each ear with the earring's diameter no more than 2 centimeters.... Neither men nor women can wear more than one ring on each hand. Further, women are required to wear "appropriate undergarments" and 9 only transparent pantyhose, not black or anything with fancy designs. Although a daily bath is not mentioned in the rules, employees are expected to appear for work "fresh and clean."' ° Similar rules are in force at Disney's three other theme parks. The French Government has lodged a formal complaint against Disney." An executive is dismissed because he was accompanied by someone other than his spouse at a convention. The executive argues that nothing less than a public policy is at issue and that management should not be allowed to effect a dismissal simply because his lifestyle is different than that of his superiors.'" Other examples include the Turner Broadcasting System, who will not consider an employee for employment if he is a smoker. 3 At U-Haul International, workers who smoke or are underweight or overweight pay for their health insurance. 8. Id. 9. A Disney Dress Code Chafes in the Land of Haute Couture, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 25, 1991, at Al. 10. Id. 11. Id. 12. Staats v. Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 620 F. Supp 118 (W.D. Pa. 1985) (upholding dismissal and rejecting public policy argument). 13. J. Ellison, Busybodies: New Puritans, TIME, Aug. 12, 1991, at 20; cf Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City, 816 F.2d 539 (10th Cir. 1987). Grusendorfis discussed at infra note 74 and accompanying text. Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository, 1992 3 MISSOURIMissouri Law LAW Review, REVIEW Vol. 57, Iss. 1 [1992], Art. 7 [Vol. 57 A. Focus of Article Is there a remedy at law for any of these employees, including the Mr. Solomons of the world, if management elects to effect a dismissal because the employee does not fit in the company's procrustean bed? 4 What are the limits of management's power to regulate the individual lifestyles of employees, even when those lifestyles have little or no relation