The vast majority of people will be shocked at John Galliano's behaviour - and few would condone the remarks he made - but many will be surprised that the flamboyant designer could be sacked for something he said outside the workplace.
Galliano was reportedly fired from his high profile position after the British-born designer was caught on camera shouting abuse and saying "I love Hitler" following a late night drinking session.
Despite the obvious outrage that his comments have provoked, the subsequent decision by Christian Dior to fire him can't have been an easy one as there are several legal issues to consider.
In fact it highlights a very difficult area of employment law as it is often assumed that what people do and say in their own time is their own business. However this is not always the case - especially when an employee's actions, or publicity resulting from those actions, risks tarnishing the reputation of the company they work for.
There have been a number of cases recently where less famous organisations have dismissed staff for inappropriate behaviour outside work. In many cases this has involved illegal activity that has resulted in a court appearance for the employee.
When such cases are widely reported in the media and a link has been made between the defendant and the company or organisation they work for, then it could be argued that the employee is damaging his or her employer's reputation.
However, before taking any action against an employee in such circumstances, employers need to be careful that they are following employment law. If they cannot prove that the actions of the employee could have an impact on their reputation or the business in general, they could end up having to answer to the law.
At this point it is worth noting that a business or other organisation cannot just fire staff on the grounds that they did not agree with an employee's views or legitimate activities when away from work. This even applies if those views or actions are considered outside mainstream.
At best they could lose a valuable member of staff unnecessarily and at worst find themselves facing an employment tribunal, especially if they acted on hearsay, without proper evidence, or cannot prove damage to the business.
In recent times the same principles have come into play with the growth of social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter.
It would be unreasonable, and probably impractical for a company to police every post made by every member of staff and they could only take action against an employee if they can prove that a message, photo or other material published online can harm their reputation.
This may be easy to establish if the person posting the material is famous, but more difficult in a day-to-day work situation. Once again, to avoid losing a tribunal hearing, the employer would have to establish that the offending post could provide a link back to them and that it would damage their reputation.
Of course, any anti-semitic or racist remarks such as those made by Galliano are totally unacceptable at any time but for a business to act it must either be at work or in a situation where the employee can be associated with their employer.
In Galliano's case this was because he was well known and the incident was widely reported. In other cases an employee could be wearing a uniform or be well known to clients or customers when they find themselves in the full glare of publicity for illegal or unsavoury activities.
The most important thing any organisation can do is to have a clear policy in place to deal with such situations, and to make sure all employees are familiar with the policy.
Michael Slade of Staffordshire-based Bibby Consulting and Support
