Off-duty smoking and whether or not such behavior provided a substantial reason to affect employment is the basis for the scenario presented by Arnold, Bueachamp, and Bowie (2013). The case stipulates that two equally qualified individuals present as comparable candidates for a management position at a retail store. The deciding factor for hiring one over the other is the perception that one is a smoker, provided with details of the smell of the person’s clothing and breath as well as a pack of cigarettes seen in a purse. The reasons for choosing the perceived nonsmoker are “soft;” furthermore the hiring manager explained he finds it “disgusting, and a sign of weakness of character; anyone with a strong personality would have the determination
…show more content…
Asking a question with regards to policies and compliance in previous employment is legal and would address the behavior while honoring all stakeholders. Priority stakeholders, identified investors concerned with profits, would benefit; sequentially, a course of action that does not involve further expenditures of staff to conduct interviews and addresses the same questions to both candidates makes a reasonable solution. Fully dissolving the reasons for hiring one candidate over the other is impactful in this scenario. The hiring manager’s transparency in choosing the candidate he did will provide all stakeholders clarification in this particular hiring process. In turn, discrepancies with company values and legal issues will be clarified and addressed if needed. Input from all stakeholders will provide helpful and timely insight to protect the company legally and hire the best possible candidates to ensure meeting all stakeholders …show more content…
“29 states and the District of Columbia do prohibit discrimination based on legal activities outside the workplace, which includes smoking tobacco. In these states, it is illegal for an employer not to hire you simply because you are a smoker (Smoking and the Workplace, para. 6). “ Using the process provided by King has shown that upholding the duty to stakeholders via an alternative that will ethically provide a
Asking a question with regards to policies and compliance in previous employment is legal and would address the behavior while honoring all stakeholders. Priority stakeholders, identified investors concerned with profits, would benefit; sequentially, a course of action that does not involve further expenditures of staff to conduct interviews and addresses the same questions to both candidates makes a reasonable solution. Fully dissolving the reasons for hiring one candidate over the other is impactful in this scenario. The hiring manager’s transparency in choosing the candidate he did will provide all stakeholders clarification in this particular hiring process. In turn, discrepancies with company values and legal issues will be clarified and addressed if needed. Input from all stakeholders will provide helpful and timely insight to protect the company legally and hire the best possible candidates to ensure meeting all stakeholders …show more content…
“29 states and the District of Columbia do prohibit discrimination based on legal activities outside the workplace, which includes smoking tobacco. In these states, it is illegal for an employer not to hire you simply because you are a smoker (Smoking and the Workplace, para. 6). “ Using the process provided by King has shown that upholding the duty to stakeholders via an alternative that will ethically provide a