Can the manager legally fire you for playing on the Ford softball team? Does your answer depend upon where your employer is located? Explain. (LOOK AT THIS FROM AN "EEO and Employment Legislation" STANDPOINT) see below for ref

You work for the local Honda dealership as a sales associate. You love to play softball, but your employer refuses to sponsor a team in the local recreation league. The Ford dealership across the street from your employer has a team and lets you join. When your manager learns that you are playing on the Ford team, he tells you that "it's a conflict of interest" and that you must quit the team or lose your job.

see below for ref

11-7e Off-Duty Conduct A number of states protect employees from employment discrimination because of their lawful, off-the-job conduct. This legislation is mainly designed to protect smokers or tobacco users from employment discrimination as long as their tobacco use is off duty. Tennessee law protects the off-duty use of agricultural products not regulated by the alco- holic beverage commission. New York and Minnesota protect the legal use of consumable products off duty, covering alcohol as well as tobacco. States such as Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming protect off-duty smokers from employment discrimination but do allow employ- ers to differentiate between smokers and nonsmokers in the costs of insurance and medical benefits, as long as the cost differential reflects the actual difference in the cost of cover- age. In states such as Michigan that do not have such protective legislation, it is legal for employers to fire or refuse to hire smokers. Section 201-d of the New York State Labor Law probably goes the furthest in protecting off-the-job activities. It prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their legal off-duty recreational or political activities. On the question of whether an employees affair with a coworker was protected recreational activity under the legislation, a split developed among various courts. A state appel- late court, in the case of NYS v. Wal-Mart Stores,52 held that dating a coworker was not protected under the legislation, while the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York in two separate cases, Pasch v. Katz Media Corp.53 and Aquilone v. Republic Natl Bank of New York,54 held that dating and cohabitation with a coworker were protected. In the following case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit resolved the split. In the absence of specific legislative provisions, state tort laws may provide some protec- tion for employees off duty conduct. In Rulon-Miller v. IBM,55 the court awarded an employee damages for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress for her discharge because she was dating an employee of a competitor. But in Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corporation,56 the court held that a supervisor discharged for dating a subordinate did not have a claim for invasion of privacy because he had been repeatedly warned against such conduct and therefore had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding such conduct.