Side 1: Companies should have the right to design policies that prohibit certain risky activities, hobbies, and behaviors outside of work and terminate employees who violate these policies. In other words, argue in favor of business owners and senior leaders having the freedom to set their own policies.

Side 2: Employees should have the right to decide what activities, hobbies, and behaviors they engage in outside of work, and should not be terminated for engaging in certain behaviors. In other words, argue against companies designing prohibitive policies that put restrictions on employee behavior outside of work for which they can be terminated.

Paragraph 1: Consider your position from the perspective of either the owner of your own company, or an employee. Which side of the debate did you pick, and why? In other words, should organizations have the right to terminate employees based on their activities, hobbies, and behaviors outside of work? Provide at least two (2) specific arguments in favor of your side, drawing from the course material on Legal Issues and Separation and additional research.

Paragraph 2: Find a court case that supports your argument. Provide details of the case, and explain how this case is relevant to your argument. You may not use any cases that were mentioned in the "Privacy" video. You can Google search cases related to wrongful termination, privacy rights for employees, etc. You can also use library resources, including Bloomberg Law.

Paragraph 3: Imagine you are a Chief HR Officer, and you are given the responsibility to design a policy that takes into account both healthcare costs and employee privacy. Describe at least two basic principles for this policy. What features would it have? What restrictions would it include, or not? For example, if you decide to prohibit certain behaviors and not others (e.g., smoking cigarettes, eating junk food, riding motorcycles), where would you draw the line? What do you believe is the best balance?