Lost my job for swinging!!

[LOL_OMG]

I've done a little more research, looking at a school district in NC (it may or may not be yours). At-will employees do have an appeal process. In addition, the superintendant is allowed to give you a suspension (with pay) if they think the employee must be removed from the premises immediately....while an investigation is taking place. It was in the employee handbook section of their website.

Mrs LOL

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by Lovely Jubblies

Last week I lost my job of 18 years after she reported finding one of my swing profiles (on a site requiring membership) as well as finding erotic pics of me on an amateur pic-posting site.

I think this is why you will have no recourse, there have been MANY public firings for this sort of thing as of late, and you work for a school so you can be sure they have a morality clause in their contract. You would have been equally fired for posing for playboy.

WHY do people think naked pictures of themselves are a good idea? Take a lesson from Dr. Laura, there is NO good that will come from others having your nude photos ever.

[LOL_OMG]

Okay, sigh. I didn't read that part of the original post. If you posted erotic pics on a free site I'm pretty sure you're hosed.

You may have an appeal process, but in that process you will probably lose. Your supervisor may have had a kneejerk reaction by firing you immediately (and not suspending you with pay). I think the best you could hope for is a small severance, with alot of embarassment facing people you don't know asking questions you don't want to answer.

Keep in mind that there are alot of stories ATM about teachers having sex with their students. I'm sure there have been briefings and videos that every school employee has to watch about inappropriate behavior. They will say you were aware of policies and they have a zero tolerance for sexual deviancy, which they will say you were also aware of.

Chicup is right. Nude pics can do you no good at all. Tell potential partners that if they wanna see you nude they have to do it in person (with no cameras).

If this isn't the case, let us know.

Mrs LOL

[2jersey]

Originally Posted by Chicup

WHY do people think naked pictures of themselves are a good idea? Take a lesson from Dr. Laura, there is NO good that will come from others having your nude photos ever.

Do avatars count?

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by 2jersey

Do avatars count?

Only if you have a morality clause at work and they can identify your boobie

[Pepper & Drew]

I'm not a lawyer, but I am in Human Resources. I haven't read all four pages of replies, but basically, as it currently stands, unless you are in a protected class of citizens (minority, disabled, age, sex, etc) and you can prove they acted in a way that discriminated against you, I'm afraid they absolutely can do so. Especially if they have a morality clause, or if their internal policy has always been to handle situations in this manner, and they can prove that they are consistent in applying that policy, you're pretty much out of luck, according to the way employment laws are currently interpreted. If an employer can choose not to hire you because you are a smoker even on your own time (which they currently can), I can certainly see where this situation would work in much the same way.

Now, human resources law can change in a blink of an eye and it's hard to say that what they can and can't do. Right now, they can do it without breaking any laws, and, I'd be willing to bet (if they have a HR person with any sense) that they've already contacted an attorney concerning this matter. Probably the attorney that you've sought out sees an opportunity to take the case pretty far. Good luck if you decide to pursue it. I'd be interested to see the outcome.

Pepper

[Lovely Jubblies]

Thanks for the continued posts, everyone. This is all having a profoundly negative effect on us as you can well imagine. Regardless of the fact that I had erotic pics on an amateur site, I still feel it's unfair that an employer can have a say in what we do in our private lives. I know I mentioned this earlier (and was partly ridiculed for it) but why is it ok to be seen drinking and smoking outside of work yet it can't be 'discovered' that you're willing to have consensual sex with another adult in the privacy of your own home, or that you can't post self pics on a site that's dedicated to that. I was told by my boss that the problem was that someone could stumble across my pics and that would reflect on my job. But my pics and profile were on sites requiring registration (the swing profile was on SLS) and could only be 'stumbled upon' by someone who registered, recognised me, knew my name then Googled my name and eventually found it on my employer's own website. How is that fair? It seems that even if I can be dismissed for my private life, then that is by definition forcing swinging and amateur pic posting underground, almost akin to illegal activities.

[LOL_OMG]

The only recourse that I could possibly think of is that if you know of an employee who had done the exact same thing with no repercussions, it would be disparit treatment.

Most places have lots and lots of rules, hell we had rules about stocks we could and couldn't purchase. IF you got charged with a DUI, you were subject to 1) going to a treatment program (you paid for it of course) and 2) you signed a letter saying you would NEVER drink, again. Private life? If after that you were seen in a bar having a drink...you are subject to firing my friend....

[Suncouple]

8. INTERFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP

Tortuous Interference with Employment Relationship requires four elements:

First, there must be an interference with employment relationship. Secondly, the interference must be intentional or negligent. Third, and Fourth, there must be causation and actual damage.

This is a tort. Sue her for this in civil court. You don't need the police to help you. You just need an attorney who has experience with this. Most attorneys do not.

I am not an attorney so this may be completely bad advice. At least it is free!

http://www.scarlettlawgroup.com/comm...itigation.php4

[sereneiders]

WOW, I am amazed with this thread.

I understand why some people actually believe the OP is trolling, and, from the same responses she got, I realized the story may be true and the OP may be completelly unaware of her rights. Even more, I am not sure about what these rights are, since the amount of people bringing opposed arguments for something that is supposed to be known as the law (unawareness of the law isn't an excuse, at least here... am I wrong? so you're supposed to be aware) and the basic rights.

In my country doesn't even exist such a thing like "firing at will" contract clauses for employment. It is supposed that such a thing works exclusively for the employer's interests, that there is an unbalanced power relationship between the employer and the empoyee, that at labor recesive times employers would force employer to accept such a clause because of necesity, and ultimately that most contracts would end up having these clauses.

Here, if you're fired, you're entitled to get paid a well known amount: 1/12 of the salary year income per year or fraction of year you worked there, plus the proportional part of the vacations you arelady were entitled for during the last year (whose lenght are correlated to the amount of years you worked). And everyone knows this, you learn it in high school. For the employers to avoid this payment, they require a solid grounded motivation (basically the same Intituion mentioned that applies in Canada). Even if your private life were a concern for them (and it isn't) or affected their business, they would require to PROVE your fault, they would be required to send you a legaly certified note (whose copy remains at the mail company as a legal proff) stating the motivations they have to fire you.

If they were not required to do these steps, it would be enough for the employers to LIE and ground your firing on supposed rumors to skip these labor laws and enforce something like a "firing at will" clause!

Even when laws may vary, even if having "firing at will" clauses, if the employer claims you're being fired because of your supposed lack of morality (which isn't the same as "firing at will"), this would be somethig difamatory for you unless proven. To make such an statament in public without being able to prove it, ANYONE (and not only an employer) risk to be sued by civil and/or economic damages, even if there were ANY contract between the parties.

Here NOT ONE employer would dare to fire you on these grounds (even if they were able to prove what you did, they will have to prove this damages the organization, and they would face a solid wall when dealing with civil basic rights like your privacy). The more likely is that they would manage to frame you until you fail and give them ANOTHER excuse to fire you, or to turn your every day work in a nightmare forcing you to resign, or (the more likely) make an arrangement with you were you get some money and you resign.

Another related thing is the lack of pro-bono attorneys able to carry on this case. As in Canada, here there is a Labor Ministry. The aggency have attorneys for this matters. There are lawyers specialized in labor, the use is to interview the employee, look at how feasible it is to sue the employer, and then carry on the sue at the lawyers and the State mixed expense because once the case is ruled the losing part would have to pay these expenses and provide the lawyer's benefit. As the last resource, the Public Attorney's Bar have a pool of attorneys working pro-bono.

You don't have ANY of these resources or similar resources at hand there???

This whole things seems outrageous to me, but I don't know if it's outreageous because what actually happnd, of because of the uncertan way the remaining members are talking about this. I bet a lot of the members are employees... how it is possible that they all disagree so much about the laws and their basic rights?

This question is at last what makes understandable that something like this could actually happen. If the employers have such a vague idea about all of this, and even more, if the employees have a vague idea of their rights and the laws affecting them, then something to this is very likely to happen, and very often!

Now, I'll digress (aka, hihack the thread) about Chicup comments:

Originally Posted by Chicup

As for 'at will' firing side topic

There are a reasons why the Canadian economy (and European economies) is so weak compared to the US. As an employer, at will firing allows me to get rid of loser employees quickly creating a better working environment for everyone else.

1) The question is "weak for who?". I bet my testicles that right now the OP perception of her personal economy, and how helpful the US economy strength is for her, differs from your perception. There are few situations where you feel yourself really weak as you feel when just being fired. It gives you a shit how wealth the stock market is.

2) The State (any state) is supposed to provide support to the weakest side in any relationship among the society members. As an example, it is supposed to protect kids from abusive parents (i.e., the weakest part and not otherwise), and you'll find out a huge list of examples of this sort.

As an employer the "at will firing" allows you to get rid of employees because they're "losers" (I assume you meant lazy here)... or because of whatever other reason you find usefull for you and the mood you awake certain day. Given that the employee is the weakest part in this relationship, moreover due to the "at will firing" right you already have, this is at least something incoherent with the principles the State should stand for. The "at will firing" seems to be a measure supporting the stronger part of the relationship, insead of the weakest part.

Your statement ask for the employees confidence and blind truth on your good will and intentions (and how much you be up to stand for your principles during hard times), while you claim to have the right to judge, on your own basis, your employees good will, attitude, or whatever feature you see fit the requirements for firing them at YOUR will.

I'd say the "firing at will " grants you a way to preserve your own interests, disregarding the interests from the people that helps you run your business every day, perhaps the ones from some people that already saved your day several times, and ones whithout whose collaboration your company wouldn't be where it is today. You're entitled the right to fire some of these guys in a hard time, but just because you'd preffer to preserve your profits, and even when these guys were the ones enabling you to have these profits at first, instead of giving them some credit for your company grow.

I want to believe that, in such scenario, you wouldn't do this. But... come on, tell me how many employers you know who actually didn't it when facing this scenario.

So, lets be serious, if you want to use this topic to endorse the benefits for the "firing at will" criteria by starting an analysis supporting your idea, be aware that your analysis was way incomplete.

This is not the place to discuss this, so please, let avoid the subject at all and this sort of comments, moreover when there could be people (like myself) that won't endorse them not even my omision, by keeping my mouth shut, triggering the sort of discussions unwanted inside the forum.

[fun4Ds]

mrs.lovely i would like to apologize again for the way i presented my questions. mrs.fun and i talked yesterday about this and how it could effect us. you see we had something happen to us that is a little diffrent story.after cheching with a trusted athority and legal council, our answers were a question instead, HOW FAR ARE YOU WILLING TO GO WITH THIS? as swingers it wouldn't be so much our own exposure as it would the exposure of others. we couldn't do that. yes we know teachers, doctors,and profesionals from all walks of life who do swing. unfortunatly no attornies ours could only grin alot about the swinger lifestyle.

we dont agree with what has happend to you and could only imagine the greef you have had to endure lately. after checking my work policies on this NO i dont think I could be fired for swinging. i know that seems unfair.. and in my eyes (as a male) i would probably get a smack on the back and have to answer alot of dumb ass questions at work.

mrs.fun could however be fired on the grounds that it would damage clientell relationships. not trying to be a thorn in the side just being open minded to this.we see that you were not tring to find a way for reveng but answers to questions.

i guess we are going to have to ask you , how far are you willing to go? we hope your local labor board,aclu and anyone who could possibly help can answer questions that we cant. and hope you might share that with us. as swingers in the minority we think its unfair to be descriminated against as adults doing something in the privacy of our own homes. we feel this was not your fault in a way that we can relate to. that it is someone with a sick mind who wanted to jeprodize your life and carrier

again i would like to apologize for the way i put you on the spot at a time whene you really didn't deserve it. thanks for bringing this to the swingersboard sometimes our misfortunes can be an eye opener to others. mr. fun

[Jester]

I have been watching this thread with some interest and some great things have been brought up and discussed. Now you were dismissed because of the following, correct?

Originally Posted by Lovely Jubblies

I was dismissed on the spot and given a letter citing 'Immorality', 'distribution of pornography' and 'soliciting participants for obscene, immoral, pornographic and/or sexually offensive acts on the internet'.

Does the contract you signed define Immorality, pornography and what is sexually offensive?

These seem to be concepts society as a whole struggles with to define. Several times they have been tested in the courts and it always seems a clear standard is never devised. The Supreme Court always tosses it back to the states, other than the recent child pornography cases I can not think of a test case since Miller vs. Ca. which said something to the effect of contemporary community standards must find the work without value and depict in an offensive way sexual conduct prohibited by state law.

So if the pictures on the site are no more offensive then ones that can be found in magazines sold in your community I am not sure they can be considered offensive. Pornographic maybe, but to a degree pornography is protected under free speech and hence available. Distribution of pornography to me would imply a for profit motive or unsolicited delivery of such items. If they are on your profile and you are not charging for them and you are not mailing them to people unsolicited how is this distribution of pornography? People would have to search out your profile to see these pictures would they not?

Immorality and sexually offensive are equally rolling concepts that are never clearly defined. There was a time when marrying outside of your race was considered Immoral, a concept today's society finds acceptable. Living together or sex prior to marriage was at one time considered immoral behavior that seems to be accepted by society. Sex between the same genders was likewise deemed to be unacceptable behavior yet states like NJ and Ma have laws allowing domestic partnerships. So if you were single living with a person of a different race and had an add on a dating site would they be able to fire you for soliciting participants for immoral or sexual offensive acts? Probably not. They are cloaking this around the fact you are married, which raises another issue does your employer have the right to determine what is right or not for your marriage? So now I have to ask yet another question has anyone ever been fired from your employer for having an extramarital affair? To me it seems that would also be considered immoral behavior.

This is a very complex issue that will not be resolved on a message board like this and probably never in the courts either as these are really personal opinions as to what is pornographic, immoral or sexually offensive.

IMHO, I would think unless your employer has these clearly defined and you violated one them as defined you were wrongfully terminated, but only a lawyer can give you the clear answer on that.

[sereneiders]

Jester,

You post reminds me of something that happend in France because of the automated trafic control cameras. Up to this case, in France they used to mail the infraction bill to the offender along with the proving picture. This time they did the same, the picture was showing the date and tipe overimposed, and the offender inside the car with a woman... his lover, bu his side (frontal pic, passing a red light). This guy spouse got the mail, saw the picture, and as a result he lost a divorce sue. The guy then sued the City Hall because of and invasion to privacy that leaded to the divorse, won the case and got paid for the damages. After this they send the bill and you have to go there to get the picture copy.

Something like this applies here. The employers are invading her privacy when making public something private they (supposedy) found out about her, leading to damages like being rejected when trying to get a job because of this information. I don't know in the US, but here this alone would entitle her to sue the employers.

[Edison Carter]

go to this website: http://www.workplacefairness.org/

And get a really good lawyer that specializes in workplace issues.

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by sereneiders

So, lets be serious, if you want to use this topic to endorse the benefits for the "firing at will" criteria by starting an analysis supporting your idea, be aware that your analysis was way incomplete.

This is not the place to discuss this, so please, let avoid the subject at all and this sort of comments, moreover when there could be people (like myself) that won't endorse them not even my omision, by keeping my mouth shut, triggering the sort of discussions unwanted inside the forum.

Argentina has 16% unemployment and over 50% of the people live in poverty, so please, don't lecture me on how great other systems are

This isn't the place to post this, so thats the end of it for me.

Its stupid to post naked IDENTIFIABLE pictures of yourself on the internet, especially if you have a known cyber stalker out to get you. The OP is not telling us all of the story.