The case of Uriah Heep is apparently the case of the violation of rights of Uriah Heeps because he could not be fired. In actuality, the case involves not only legal but also ethical issues and the Uriah’s supervisor probably mixed up legal issues with ethical ones, when he took the decision concerning the firing of Uriah. In this respect, it should be said that even the reason for firing Uriah apparently relates to the ethical field but not legal one since Uriah is fired for “engaging in activities that can discredit the City”. In fact, it is quite difficult to define who has the authority to qualify Uriah’s actions as discrediting since his exotic dancing in a night club was actually the main reason and the activity which was discrediting the City. Obviously, the supervisor has taken the decision on the basis of his personal biases and stereotypes, but not on the basis of objective facts. Anyway, Uriah can argue that his activities was not really discrediting.
Moreover, it is necessary to remember that Uriah worked as an exotic dancer at weekends. Consequently, it is possible to refer to his right to the private life. To put it more precisely, formally he can do anything he likes as long as his activities are legal. Being an exotic dancer is not an illegal activity in the City. Consequently, Uriah did not violate any legal norms and, thus, he cannot be fired because he has the right to the private life and his work at weekends can be a part of his private life which has nothing in common with his work as an accountant for the City. Thus, he could discredit the City only if he worked as an exotic dancer during his working hours of an accountant for the City.