Why Is My Business In My Business?!

On Friday, April 2, Paul Pierce went live on his Instagram page. The live stream featured himself smoking weed and surrounded by partially nude dancers. After the video made its rounds throughout the interwebs, it finally fell into the hands of ESPN. After working with ESPN since 2017, ESPN has cut working ties with Pierce over the video. This is another instance in where an employee’s personal life has cost them their professional one. The firing has sparked debate over how involved a company should be in their employees’ personal lives.

The Argument For

Many have argued that an employee represents the company they work for. Now, I can agree to an extent. Take the case of Amy Cooper, the white woman who threatened to call the police on a Chris Cooper, a Black man, and bird watcher. Last May in Central Park, Chris Cooper told Amy Cooper to keep her dog on a leash so as to not disturb the birds. Amy Cooper responded by calling 911, claiming that Chris Cooper was threatening her life and her dog’s life. Chris Cooper, who recorded the incident, had luckily left the scene before law enforcement arrived. The Manhattan District Attorney charged Amy Cooper for falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. She was also fired from her job at Franklin Templeton Investment.

In the case of Amy Cooper, and many others like hers, racism, xenophobia, and homophobia should not hold positions of power or influence. If people like Amy Cooper can threaten the lives of marginalized peoples with a phone call, it is no telling what she can do in her professional life. As an investment firm, this incident could alienate many of their non-white clientele. According to federal law, an employee has certain protections for their off-duty activities to keep them from termination. However, if a company finds that those activities do not align with its interests then they are generally able to terminate an employee. But what about when off-duty that are both legal and non-discriminatory?

The Argument Against

Kirsten Vaughn was a 24-year-old mechanic who worked at the Don Ayres Honda dealership in Fort Wayne where she maintained a great track record. Things took a turn when her coworkers found her provocative photos on the website OnlyFans. OnlyFans is a site where content creators can post content for subscribers to pay a monthly fee to have access to. Recently, sex workers have found the site to be highly lucrative as it negates the need for an agent. They also have more ownership over their own content. Don Ayres Honda fired Vaugn for her page, claiming she violated company policy.

Granted, Vaughn did post photos dressed in her uniform and in the company bathroom. She argued that she did take great pains to hide the company’s logo and identifying features. However, the company did nothing to curb the sexual harassment Vaughn faced once her photos were revealed. They even went as far as to blame Vaughn for bringing about her own sexual harassment. The company argued that her OnlyFans account could potentially harm the reputation of their business.

Now, was the company right in firing Vaughn? I think not. Vaughn, at 24 years old, is within all legal rights to create adult content. Was her OnlyFans account prohibiting her from maintaining her perfect track record? No. Were the other workers who sexually harassed her terminated for “violating company policy”? No. It is also interesting to note that a male employee was featured in a video on his girlfriend’s OnlyFans page and was not reprimanded. A violation of company policy seems like a convenient excuse to perpetuate the hateful sentiments that have prevailed in our country.

My Two Cents

When we place a company’s interests against an employee’s personal life, it is not black and white.  In the case of Amy Cooper, bigotry cannot continue to hold positions of power. Hateful sentiments towards marginalized communities have thrived in this nation far too long. Wherever it rears its ugly head, it must be isolated and dismantled. I personally would not endorse a company that willingly funds the livelihoods of bigots.

On the contrary, this line of thinking is also shared by those who find things like marijuana and sex work taboo. In the cases of Paul Pierce and Kirsten Vaughn, companies weaponize their employee policies. Both Pierce and Vaughn engaged in perfectly lawful activities. Their terminations speak to the gross control companies are having over their employees’ lives. Imagine posting an enjoyable Friday night with your friends to your social media only to have a talk with HR Monday morning. Not for being tardy, or low performance, but for engaging in activities that most adults over the age of 21 do.

A company’s interests can generally be whatever ideology the person in charge subscribes to. If a managing entity in the company holds racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or even archaic sentiments, then that will usually influence their decisions. It is not strippers, marijuana, or adult content that have no place in society. It is allowing both bigoted employees and employers to make decisions that affect the livelihoods of innocent people. There needs to be a greater focus in our justice system on protecting the free will of individuals rather than the profits of companies. A push in this direction, in my opinion, will create a more equitable environment for both employees and employers.