Lost my job for swinging!!

[LOL_OMG 130]

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 32]

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!

 

https://www.scarlettlawgroup.com/professional-negligence/business-commercial-litigation/

[sereneiders 263]

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:

 

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 1,097]

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 different story. After checking with a trusted authority and legal counsel, 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 professionals from all walks of life who do swing. Unfortunately no attorneys could only grin a lot about the swinger lifestyle.

 

We don't agree with what has happened to you and could only imagine the grief 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 a lot of dumb ass questions at work.

 

mrs.fun could however be fired on the grounds that it would damage clientele relationships. Not trying to be a thorn in the side just being open minded to this. We see that you were not trying to find a way for revenge 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 discriminated 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 jeopardize your life and career.

 

Again I would like to apologize for the way I put you on the spot at a time when you really didn't deserve it. Thanks for bringing this to the swingersboard, sometimes our misfortunes can be an eye opener to others.

[Jester 15]

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?

 

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 263]

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.

[Swing*8701 885]

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

 

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

[Chicup 38]

sereneiders said:

So, let's 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 omission, 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 that's the end of it for me.

 

It is 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.

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

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.

 

The OP has told you all of the story. It seems you're very quick to argue with both me and any other poster whose posts contradict your view of the world. Whether you believe it's stupid or not to post identifiable pics, the fact is that I did so in the belief that I wasn't doing anything illegal. As I've said in a previous post, it's people like you who believe that 'swinging' should be an underground activity. I happen to disagree. Tell me what kind of country this is where your right to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan or any one of a thousand other 'minority' or 'extremist' groups is protected but your right to have consensual sex with adults (or post erotic pictures of your own body) isn't?

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

Suncouple said:

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!

 

https://www.scarlettlawgroup.com/professional-negligence/business-commercial-litigation/

 

Thank you, Suncouple. I've submitted a case report with Scarlett Law Group and am keeping my fingers crossed. Even if it ends up being 'bad' advice, at least it's useful! Thanks for your time and your research ? As for suing the stalker... I know exactly who it is, and the things she knows and uses against me can only come from her. But when she doesn't leave her name or she makes 'anonymous' reports against me, there's apparently very little I can do. I paid an attorney for advice on the stalking matter a couple of years ago. He agreed that everything I have points to this particular woman but that it's not exactly 'beyond reasonable doubt' for a court of law. Even though she threatened to kill me in an email, my County Court said that emails are inadmissible (I know they're not in every county, but until I can move out of this one, I'm stuck). She also telephoned me with death threats, but as I didn't have a recorder set up, it was my word against hers. The Police have told me that even though I know she's capable of killing me, they can't act until she lays a finger on me. ?

[bill&sabrina 22]

Tell me what kind of country this is where your right to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan or any one of a thousand other 'minority' or 'extremist' groups is protected but your right to have consensual sex with adults (or post erotic pictures of your own body) isn't?

 

Swingers and pornographers aren't known to lynch people that cross them.

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

Swingers and pornographers aren't known to lynch people that cross them.

 

...are you suggesting what I think you're suggesting? lol.

 

Maybe we'll have more of a right to swing if we cut eyeholes in pillow cases and wear them for consensual sex! (I'm not being dismissive of problems faced by 'extremist' groups, before anyone complains. I'm just wondering what it would take to afford our community the same protection under the law as certain extremist groups).

[Chicup 38]

The OP has told you all of the story. It seems you're very quick to argue with both me and any other poster whose posts contradict your view of the world. Whether you believe it's stupid or not to post identifiable pics, the fact is that I did so in the belief that I wasn't doing anything illegal. As I've said in a previous post, it's people like you who believe that 'swinging' should be an underground activity. I happen to disagree. Tell me what kind of country this is where your right to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan or any one of a thousand other 'minority' or 'extremist' groups is protected but your right to have consensual sex with adults (or post erotic pictures of your own body) isn't?

 

I'm sorry but I'm quick to defend my opinions.

 

Did you honestly think that having erotic pictures of yourself on the interenet would not cause a problem for you at work, at a school? I happen to be "friends" with a number of teachers and school administrators, they ALL know that if they got caught in a publicly provable way they would lose their jobs over it. One won't go to the clubs except for halloween so she can wear a wig. How is it you did not know this? You had someone you know is a cyber stalker after you, yet still you did it in a way that was traceable. For that you have no one to blame but yourself, it was foolish.

 

Now if you want to argue if it should be a reason to get fired over, thats another matter and I would agree with you that you did no harm. I wish you luck in your fight but it will be futile, you may have had a chance with the swinging thing, but the web site photos sealed it.

 

People like me do not want to see swinging underground only, we just don't really care to fight the good fight over it. Swinging isn't worth fighting over as its a small part of our lives.

 

If you wish to fight the fight, good luck and I hope you win.

[bill&sabrina 22]

...are you suggesting what I think you're suggesting? lol.

 

Maybe we'll have more of a right to swing if we cut eyeholes in pillow cases and wear them for consensual sex! (I'm not being dismissive of problems faced by 'extremist' groups, before anyone complains. I'm just wondering what it would take to afford our community the same protection under the law as certain extremist groups).

 

Yes and no. We don't let what happened to you happen anymore, but don't lynch people to accomplish that goal.

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

I'm sorry but I'm quick to defend my opinions.

 

I happen to be "friends" with a number of teachers and school administrators, they ALL know that if they got caught in a publicly provable way they would lose their jobs over it. One won't go to the clubs except for halloween so she can wear a wig. How is it you did not know this? You had someone you know is a cyber stalker after you, yet still you did it in a way that was traceable. For that you have no one to blame but yourself, it was foolish.

 

You keep telling me it's foolish. Yes, it's foolish in hindsight knowing that it could be used against me. But I believed (and STILL believe) that I have a right to pursue an adult interest that (a) doesn't break the law; and (b) is consensual. By your argument, all 'amateur adult sites' would close. The only people who should post images that might be recognisable should be members of the 'adult industry' to avoid the chance that either someone might recognise them or that they might bring disrepute upon themselves. I would argue that there is a thriving trade in amateur erotica, whether you think it's foolish or not. You can't tell me for one minute that I am the only person sharing amateur pictures with a less-than-perfect 'regular' life.

 

...but the web site photos sealed it.

Sealed what? You admit that I have a right to have a swinger profile, where I can mention being bisexual and that I am open to the possiblity of 'recreational sex' but that I can't post a picture of MY OWN body? Hmmm.

 

 

I'm not tryinig to fight for the right to swing. I don't want to fight at all. But I believe I should have the right to do as I wish as long as I'm not hurting anybody. What if I had an artist convert my images to line drawings that were still recognisably me? Would you still argue that I shouldn't post those images, too? I took pictures of myself, I made them artistic using effects, filters, graphics packages, etc., and posted them. The pics showed my breasts. Big deal. Everyone knows I have them. I didn't plaster the pics all over every website I could find. I put the pics on an amateur pic posting site. Nobody HAS to look.

 

You can be arrested in countries like China for speaking out against the government. If someone DOES speak out, would you call them stupid? Or would you insist that they have a right to their opinion, even if the majority find that opinion offensive? If we were stopped from having public conversation on a particular subject, would it be stupid to go ahead and speak on that subject? Just because I'm being stalked (and please don't take it lightly - being stalked without physical proof it's the person you know it is is NO laughing matter), does that mean you should cease to live your life the way everybody else gets to? Again, it all comes down to the fact that I did not believe I was doing anything wrong. I didn't break any laws. I just posted my interests on a swing board that requires registration to see those interests and I posted pics on a site where you have to affirm you're an adult who wants to see amateur adult pictures.

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

Yes and no. We don't let what happened to you happen anymore, but don't lynch people to accomplish that goal.

 

I'm not sure I follow. What happened to me DID happen. My point was that I've been dismissed for something consensual. If I were a member of one of those extremist groups, I'd have a right to be a member AND continue in my job

[pinquita 15]

I think there is privacy issues. You can not get terminated for information that was obtained without your consent.

 

You did nothing wrong, according to your employers contract. Discrimination based on sexual preference or private sexual acts can not ne used to terminate you.

 

The person that came out w your private information and made it public, is herself guilty of harassment. She is no law enforcement officer nor a government employee, so, malicious intent and criminal invasion of privacy with the intent to slander a third party is the case here. Once that person discloses your private life, your employer based on the facts, could terminate you. But only if the information was made public.

Swinging is not a crime, adultery is, but, you are swinging w your husband, so, the adultery statute does not apply.

 

Your company, in the event it terminates you, will have to surrender the name of the injurious party, and, all germane information.

 

Swinging is no crime, so, the most your company could do is ask you to destroy any photos or other material that could end in the hands of fellow employees.

[Menuinnc 15]

Sorry to hear about your situation. I work for a large local government in North Carolina in Human Resources. Although, I do not swing yet (I hope my spouse will agree soon), I have to to think about the effect it will have on my job if it get s out. NC is an employment at will state. However, there is a public policy exception. The exception centers on making an employee do something that is illegal or the termination was illegal in the act alone.

 

I suggest that you talk with the Inistitute of Government at UNC-Chapel Hill. Most people believe that they are there to only help government units. That is not true. Are there gays and lesbians in the school system? (I am not busting on these groups.) What is there attitude toward them? What was their full explanation for the termination: that you swing, have pictures on the net, or both? Let me know what happens so I can be prepared if I get into swinging later.

[TeamSoBe 36]

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.

Speaking as an American entrepreneur, if we had more rigid firing laws then I would be more reluctant to hire anybody at all in the first place. I can immediately think of a list of at least 10 employees who I have hired in the past who I never would have hired if I knew that I would have to document justification for firing them when they didn't pull their weight. Some of those employees did pull their weight and I did keep them on. Aggressive employment regulation would have hurt those peoples' entire careers because they were college students who got their first chance with me. Look at the French economy to see why American-style capitalism works to provide as much freedom to operate for businesses as possible.

[TeamSoBe 36]

In my country there exist a "fire at will" clause, but it extends to a 6 month period. This should be enough for the employer to decide if the employee is worthfull enough. This makes a lot of sense to me. It is this period too short for you taste? Ok. But firing at will a guy after 18 years working for you, just because in these 18 years you didn't realized he/she didn't fit in and it's worthless for your company? If you do so, either you lack the hability or the good will to provide the social welfare you claim you have.

You're confusing us with a socialist state.

 

You're proposing that we mandate tenure for all employees automatically after six months of employment? That regulation would trigger churn employment, with employers firing employees after five months. The American employment market is very flexible intentionally. We consider employment flux to be a good thing in the long run, rather than over-regulated industries that can't properly react to changing market forces.

 

The Chinese are taking over the world through anti-idealistic pursuit of business growth above all else. That's the competition. The French economy is stagnating in 25-hour work weeks. That's the alternative.

[Chip_n_Muffy 16]

This thread has made me rethink how I handle pictures on the adult sites. I never had any recognizable pics up and have now pulled all nude or partially nude pics. Probably for the best anyway, leaving something to the imagination can be very erotic too.

[biblonde 22]

Lovely Jubblies: Boy do you have more problems than just loosing your job..This Bitch actually threatened to kill you???WOW what a nut job. I cant even imagine why anyone would act like this although I know there are alot more just like her out there. I hope this really works out. I think I would Hire a good PI and have them follow her and keep tabs on her. I would also research the crap out of her and turn in every little bit of info I could on her. She sounds like the type that could and would go after you in more ways than just making you loose your job. It is a pitty that she has to actually touch you before the police would get involved..scarrrryyyy. I wish you all the luck with her and getting your job or at least compensation back. And for those who say it is your own fault...I really disagree.

[sereneiders 263]

TeamSoBe said:

You're proposing that we mandate tenure for all employees automatically after six months of employment? That regulation would trigger churn employment, with employers firing employees after five months.

 

I am not proposing anything. And you're right, this is one of the drawbacks for this, there are companies who hire people for just six months, while others doesn't (most invest time training their employees as to be able to afford starting over and over).

 

I am not deeming the entire American labor market here, just the "firing at will". I realize also that there's a lot of happy employees in American under those clauses. But I wouldn't say the American social welfare depends on these clauses, but that this is a flaw compensated with a LOT of other virtues you people have.

 

We (other countries) have a LOT to learn for you people, but we shouldn't try to make an exact copy of your system, because your system stands above certain cultural features and mindset that we don't have (we have others, as valuables as yours). The little flaws that doesn't affect you there, here, and in many places, may not be compensated, thus rendering the entire system useless.

 

Let's rewind the tape.

 

This thread is about someone who got "fired at will" after 18 years of working for her employers. The employer did so because "she is a swinger".

 

From the discussion (and previous to my participation), Chicup advocated for the benefits of the "fire at will" for the employer. I pointed out the drawbacks.

 

Chicup claimed I shouldn't opinionate about this since in my country we still didn't figured out how to deal with our economy and our labor (which is true), i.e, an ad hominem argument deeming me as a "loser".

 

All of what's been said affects me, had to do with what defines me as a "loser", so the discussion goes on an now you say I am "proposing things"?

 

To get back to the original point.

 

Does it took 18 years for this woman employer to figure out her morality doesn't fit the required standards?

 

Even if the employer were right about the moral standards, the way she doesn't fit to the standards, and the boundaries between what's public and what's private... either the employer failed to evaluate the employee attitude during 18 years, or the employee hidden from the company certain facts that affects it.

 

If we agree that swinging is a private activity beyond the employer concern, that she have the right to post advertisements and pictures (erotic, but legal ones), the same way the employer could do the same without risking his income source, then we should agree the employee failed to evaluate her attitude, moral standards, or whatever the employee see fits, during these 18 years.

 

Does an employer require 18 years to evaluate the employee attitude, as to be able to fire the employee at will?

 

Isn't this a misuse of the employer right to fire someone at will?

 

I believe so. I understand Chicup viewpoint on this. The employer should be able to fire any employer that doesn't fit in. I just say the employee should have the right to know, after certain time, that he or she fits in (for example, to move on to a new job where he/she were able to fit as to have a confidence on how safe the job is). How long is this period?

 

For how long an employer can fairly fire someone at will? And not because of the efficiency issues Chicup bring to the discussion, but because of any other reason, like finding out the employee is a swinger, or finding out the employee isn't vegetarian.

 

In every other context where people have to prove they worth, such a prove is limited in time. For example, once you get a degree (proving you have skills for certain tasks), no one can deprive you from it, unless you commit a severe fault (which would correlate to firing someone with cause). For the jobs that are subject to permanent evaluation or require goals achievement (like management) there's a risk compensated by a higher income.

 

Now, tell me if 18 years of employment isn't supposed to give enough time to the employer to evaluate the employee worth. On my opinion, the employer had more than enough time to do this, if after 18 years the employer claims the "fire at will" clause, it is because is hiding the fact that she is being fired because of a cause, one that cannot legally be mentioned.

 

Now, as for my generalization, if an employer tells me he/she needs 18 years to decide whether one of his employees fits or doesn't fit in, then if something goes wrong with his/her company, it's more likely to happen because of his/her lack of management skills than because of his/her employers actions.

 

As for this thread discussion, so far it seems to me that employers under the "fire at will clause" (and from the discussion about the labor market I should conclude, most of the employees in America) should avoid swinging, posting an erotic pic in the web, have a political affiliation known, emit a political opinion, have a religion affiliation, etc. because at any time the employer (or a new manager hired by the employer) is able to fire them at will.

 

This would be outrageous, and makes me suppose the "fire at will" clause isn't that "at will" as it seems to be, it should be limited where it collide against the most basic civil rights, there should exist laws, regulations, court rulings about this (and this has to do with the general globalization recipes and why these recipes doesn't necessarily fits everywhere, if things are like this, then folks you're all saints living in heaven, this system doesn't take into account the human flaws we have in earth, in my world something like this would have devastating consequences).

 

Now, please, someone tell me something about this. Here's where the political discussion comes down to earth for me. Should someone, following the globalization guru's recipe, propose in my country a labor law enabling the "firing at will" clause I need to know if I should stand for or against it, because once passed I wouldn't be able to swing anymore afterwards.

[2jersey 15]

Let's go back to the topic.

 

Let's (everyone) just agree to disagree and move on...

[TeamSoBe 36]

sereneiders said:

... the "fire at will" clause ...

You keep saying that. There isn't a "fire at will" clause. There is "at-will employment". Employment is a privilege, not a right.

 

sereneiders said:

Now, please, someone tell me something about this. Here's where the political discussion comes down to earth for me. Should someone, following the globalization guru's recipe, propose in my country a labor law enabling the "firing at will" clause I need to know if I should stand for or against it, because once passed I wouldn't be able to swing anymore afterwards.

When divorce was legal in Argentina but not Chile, did you notice that people in Argentina were more willing to take the step of getting married than in Chile where the wedding was irreversible?

[robel12550 31]

Do avatars count?

 

Only yours 2jersey!

 

(I've got more on this, but I haven't gotten to the end of the posts and just HAD to stick that one in. LOL More later.)

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

Sorry to hear about your situation. I work for a large local government in North Carolina in Human Resources. Although, I do not swing yet (I hope my spouse will agree soon), I have to to think about the effect it will have on my job if it get s out. NC is an employment at will state. However, there is a public policy exception. The exception centers on making an employee do something that is illegal or the termination was illegal in the act alone.

 

I suggest that you talk with the Inistitute of Government at UNC-Chapel Hill. Most people believe that they are there to only help government units. That is not true. Are there gays and lesbians in the school system? (I am not busting on these groups.) What is there attitude toward them? What was their full explanation for the termination: that you swing, have pictures on the net, or both? Let me know what happens so I can be prepared if I get into swinging later.

 

Hi Menuinnc. Firstly, thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. Secondly - I'm becoming more painfully aware that NC is an 'At Will' State. All I can hope for, however, is that I can fight on the grounds that my letter of dismissal cited 'Immorality, sharing pornography...(and) soliciting others for immoral or objectionable acts' (actually my profile mentioned a fantasy scenario that I have, but NOT that I was looking for participants to re-enact that fantasy). As I say, I'm hoping to be able to fight that I hopefully can't be dismissed on those grounds, especially as (a) I have never actually signed a contract of employment; and (b) there doesn't seem to be any mention in my Employee's Handbook about an employee's private life unless it involves breaking State or Federal Laws. In the meantime, I will try to contact UNC in the hope that somebody can advise me there.

 

As for the question about Gays & Lesbians - I actually have no idea what my employer's stance is. I do know this much, though. A year or so ago, a colleague of mine was warned and (months later) ultimately dismissed for phoning sex lines in work time from a work's phone. I didn't even get a warning for something I did in private.

 

I hope my experience doesn't put you off dabbling in the lifestyle. It's just a shame that even if your wife agrees to do swing, you're still going to have to do it with the secrecy of the French Resistance.

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

This thread is about someone who got "fired at will" after 18 years of working for her employers. The employer did so because "she is a swinger".

 

Does it took 18 years for this woman employer to figure out her morality doesn't fit the required standars?

 

Even if the employer were right about the moral standards, the way she doesn't fit to the standards, and the boundaries between what's public and what's private... either the employer failed to evaluate the employee attitude during 18 years, or the employee hidden from the company certain facts that affects it.

 

If we agree that swinging is a private activity beyond the eployer concern, that she have the right to post advertisements and pictures (erotic, but legal ones), the same way the employer could do the same without risking his income source, then we whould agree the employee failed to evaluate her attitude, moral standards, or whatever the employee see fits, during these 18 years.

 

Does an employer require 18 years to evaluate the employee attitude, as to be able to fire the emploee at will?

 

Ins't this a missuse of the employer right to fire someone at will?

 

Thanks again for another in-depth reply to my topic. I should just take this opportunity to point out that during my 18 years with the same employer, I have an excellent disciplinary, attendance and sick record. If I'm ill but can move around, I go to work. I work through my lunch hour five days a week. I stay behind if there's work needing to be done within a deadline. I have given my all to my job, and whilst I know I could be happier elsewhere, I am conscientious and professional. My private life should be my own and has no bearing on my work, regardless of my use of the Internet to share information or pictures.

 

(I'm not suggesting for a moment that you were criticising me, I'm just using your post to highlight the kind of employee I am).

[robel12550 31]

OK, I've read it all (or at least most of it since this has really been one LONG thread).

 

Now who started this? Oh yea, Lovely Jubblies.

 

#1 - DON'T GET DISCOURAGED! You are at the beginning (or middle) of some tough times ahead. Not wanting to get religious, but I believe it was Rev. Schuller who said something to the effect of "Tough times don't last. Tough people do." Look around you (in this forum). You have asked for help and the majority of people with whatever resources at their disposal have come forward to help you in whatever way they could. Therefore, you are NOT alone in your problem. Hopefully this thought will help you during tough times ahead.

 

#2 - YOU'VE LEARNED SOMETHING NEW. We can argue until the cows come home about whether it was "right" for them to dismiss you or not, but the point is THEY DID. The issue of whether you have a case against them or not has apparently already been determined that you very well might, but the problem you need to address is finding someone who will be able to launch that case successfully with the resources at your disposal. The thing you've learned though (I hope) is despite what is "right" or "wrong", you've been subjected to what others have defined as what they feel is "right". That isn't to say they are correct.

 

I had an employee who once worked for me who was very outgoing and friendly. Unfortunately, others didn't have the same exuberance toward his behavior that he did. We talked about this at length and he felt he had to become someone who is wasn't in order to stay in the good favors of others. It wasn't that he was doing anything "wrong". There was no sexual harassment (which is a big pile of doo doo, in my opinion) or anything that that was legally or immorally wrong that he did, it was a behavioral trait that others didn't like or at least complained about because they might just not have liked "him". In any event, the bottom line was that if he wanted to "fit in" with the rest of the employee community, he would have to drop his "touchy, feelly" behavior and adjust to how most other people behaved.

 

Likewise, from this situation, hopefully you've learned that regardless of what you feel is the rights you have, there are others who don't share those feelings. Therefore, if you want to be employed in the manner you have been (i.e.-related to school/students even though you might not come into contact with them), you'll need to modify your behavior.

 

#3 - YOU MAY NEED TO THINK MORE CREATIVELY TO ACHEIVE YOUR GOALS. Contacting the ACLU sounds like a good idea and you've done that. Considering that your problem centers around a freedom to sexually express yourself, maybe contacting more sexually free thinking operations could help, like Playboy and Penthouse or even porn suppliers? There has been a fair amount of references (either good or bad) about the swinging lifestyle in recent times (i.e. - C.S.I. episodes, etc.) so this isn't something totally alien to many people (though the "Moral Minority" currently seems to be running the seat of power). Since you really DON'T want your old job back, but do want to arrive at as good a settlement for compensation for (hopefully) a bad dismissal, you might not have anything to lose by seeing if these esoteric sources might be willing to back your plight in a legal battle.

 

Furthermore, by your posting, you might have made others stop and take another look at how they are on this nebulous system called the "Internet" so they might not run into the same problems you have.

 

By the way, I can never let the Ms. see this post or else she'd shut us down right away. Your situation is one of the major concerns she's had all along with regard to us being "caught" even though we've not even done anything. It is something I've tried to be VERY careful on how our messages and profiles are constructed. And it's one of the main reasons why we do NOT post or send photos. As one person basically said, if they want to see you nude, let them do it in person with no cameras. (Very wise advise.)

 

Personally, I feel deeply for you. We are very similar to you folks with regard to how we'd want to pursue the possibility of swinging - friends first then let's see if there's additional benefits later on. We've found the people we've met in the swinging community to be interesting and more free spirited than "vanilla" folks. So we understand why you decided to post.

 

We wish you the best and as things move on, please don't forget #1.

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

Lovely Jubblies: Boy do you have more problems than just loosing your job..This Bitch actually threatened to kill you???WOW what a nut job. I cant even imagine why anyone would act like this although I know there are alot more just like her out there. I hope this really works out. I think I would Hire a good PI and have them follow her and keep tabs on her. I would also research the crap out of her and turn in every little bit of info I could on her. She sounds like the type that could and would go after you in more ways than just making you loose your job. It is a pitty that she has to actually touch you before the police would get involved..scarrrryyyy. I wish you all the luck with her and getting your job or at least compensation back. And for those who say it is your own fault...I really disagree.

 

Thank you for your support, biblonde. What you said has touched me.

 

Unfortunately I have little to no disposable income and just can't afford to go down the legal road that would help me with my stalker. When I've had the money, two separate attorneys have told me that there just isn't enough physical proof to have her charged, even though they believed me. The last time I DID have enough to file a charge, she filed a counter-charge at me (she sent herself an email with my name on threatening to kill her - I didn't communicate with her at all). Perversely, her County Court allows emailed threats to be used as evidence. My County Court doesn't!

 

Anyway, thank you again for being supportive. That meant a lot to me. I seriously hope no-one else has to go through this mess that I am

[2jersey 15]

...Unfortunately I have little to no disposable income and just can't afford to go down the legal road that would help me with my stalker. When I've had the money, two separate attorneys have told me that there just isn't enough physical proof to have her charged, even though they believed me. The last time I DID have enough to file a charge, she filed a counter-charge at me (she sent herself an email with my name on threatening to kill her - I didn't communicate with her at all). Perversely, her County Court allows emailed threats to be used as evidence. My County Court doesn't! ...

 

LJ, We no longer believe in the credibility of your story. You are either completely delusional (morally excuseable) or totally deceptive (as we suspect). In either case, you appear to be either manufacturing or purposely embellishing (distorting) the facts of your situation. The inconsistiencies in your story are glaring, and we suspect that most others on this board have already caught on by now... Let it die.

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

LJ, We no longer believe in the credibility of your story. You are either completely delusional (morally excuseable) or totally deceptive (as we suspect). In either case, you appear to be either manufacturing or purposely embellishing (distorting) the facts of your situation. The inconsistiencies in your story are glaring, and we suspect that most others on this board have already caught on by now... Let it die.

 

Excuse me? What on earth gives you the right to try to hit me with this sh*t? My original post was about losing my job to swinging. The post that you quoted was the background to the person who has reported me. If you don't believe what I'm telling you then just turn up at Forsyth County Court (or phone then, I don't care) and ask them whether they'll issue an Arrest Warrant for an emailed threat. How dare you make the accusations you did. I came here for support, and have had it on the most part. Just because there's a ton of sh*t going on in my life and it's all inter-related doesn't mean it's not happening and isn't killing me and my family. If you've got nothing better to say then please f*ck off and don't reply to my post. This is difficult enough as it is without dealing with somebody who doesn't believe something just because it doesn't fit into their pigeon-holed view of the world

 

Oh, and if (God forbid) you're ever stalked - try to make sure you ask the person stalking you to leave as much physical evidence as possible. It will make your life so much easier. Unfortunately in the real world, that tends not to happen.

[Chip_n_Muffy 16]

2jersey said:

LJ, We no longer believe in the credibility of your story. You are either completely delusional (morally excuseable) or totally deceptive (as we suspect). In either case, you appear to be either manufacturing or purposely embellishing (distorting) the facts of your situation. The inconsistencies in your story are glaring, and we suspect that most others on this board have already caught on by now... Let it die.

 

If inconsistencies in the application of law between various courts is your basis of judging her credibility, I think you do not have very much experience in the court system of this fine nation. Federal is bad enough, when you get to the county and municipal levels, you will feel like Alice Through the Looking Glass. Having dealt with a few crazy people in the past, I tend to believe the stalker part of the story. Nothing worse than someone who is smart, psychotic, and has her sights set on YOU!

 

Chip

[m&j 15]

hi we are sorry to hear of you losing your job.

 

with the permission of this group we would like to refer everyone to a free yahoo group that is moderated by a lawyer in the lifestyle. he will give you free advice if you post there.

 

United Florida Lifestylers Alliance

 

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/unitedfloridalifestylersalliance/info

[vanelane 15]

Well I read most of the thread. You keep saying you should have the right to post your profile, pics, etc. as long as it's legal. Maybe so. That doesn't mean they have to keep you employed. Are you absolutely positive it's legal? A very brief Google of North Carolina pornography law indicates to me it may not be (adultery is definitely illegal in your state). If it isn't, you'll now say you shouldn't be singled out to lose your job for doing something that's illegal but everyone does it anyway. Sorry, this is the real world. You can scream and holler until you're blue in the face and tell everyone you come in contact with that "IT"S NOT FAIR!" Doesn't change the reality. You've been fired, you're not getting that job back. If you truly have no disposable income as you've stated several times, I'd suggest you immediately begin looking for another job and stop trying to publicize the reason you lost your old one. If by chance you eventually prevailed and got some sort of reinstatement or financial settlement (highly unlikely) it would be many years in the future and that doesn't feed your kids today.

 

Self-righteous anger may feel good now, but a calm, clear look at reality and your practical options would serve your family better. Just my opinion.

[m&j 15]

Another Swinger help site is National Coalition for Sexual Freedom

[LOL_OMG 130]

Conduct which erodes the public confidence

 

I have seen this statement several times over the years. You will probably be hit with this in your legal pursuit.

 

As it pertains to the original post....the problem (in my opinion) is not that you are a swinger or that you have a profile on a swinger site that requires membership. The problem is that you had pictures on a free site with public access. Access from students, parents, local press etc.

 

You can argue that it's not right or fair, but an employer who is in the public eye....particularly one that deals with children...is more likely to deal with these issues in just this way.

 

Mrs LOL

[AuroraDD 15]

 

Excuse me? What on earth gives you the right to try to hit me with this sh*t? My original post was about losing my job to swinging. The post that you quoted was the background to the person who has reported me. If you don't believe what I'm telling you then just turn up at Forsyth County Court (or phone then, I don't care) and ask them whether they'll issue an Arrest Warrant for an emailed threat.

 

Oh, and if (God forbid) you're ever stalked - try to make sure you ask the person stalking you to leave as much physical evidence as possible. It will make your life so much easier. Unfortunately in the real world, that tends not to happen.

 

I've been lurking on this thread, but had to add support for LJ here:

 

As a fellow recipient of stalking, I know how frustrating it is not to be able to do anything about a stalker. LJ's right, unless they physically harm you - you pretty much have no way to file a restraining order, sometimes even with written proof. I live in CA, which is one of the most progressive states in the Union, and I still couldn't get a retraining order even with batches of letters sent to me, pictures taken by friends, and verbal testimony from witnesses.

 

I had to move 100 miles away to be rid of him and not be constantly looking over my shoulder...

 

Unfortunately I have no advice to add, LJ, other than giving you my support and hoping you decide to pursue legal action. It may be a hard road, but I hope you're successful.

[M&B 21]

Lovely, I sympathize with you. I just don't know what I could offer in the way of advice. I am truly stumped.

 

Jester,

..........................

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.

 

Good point. But, wouldn't photos posted on the internet be considered to be located in the public domain? That could be going through the school adminstration's mind.

 

Lovely, is the site a private paid membership site?

[sereneiders 263]

M&B said:

Lovely, is the site a private paid membership site?

 

As far as I understood, this is the case, and because of this I am talking about a privacy invasion. If she were using a public website, then no one would be disclosing anything private.

 

This may lead to another aspect for this problem.

 

For sure the website have Terms of Service the users should honor. I'd check these ToS because it is very likely they forbid to disclose publicly their user's private information. It's very likely that in order to make public for third parties (non members agreeing the ToS) they would require a court order or a similar request from law enforcement agencies.

 

In the other hand, here we have rights regarding the ways personal data is being managed by third ones. I am pretty sure there are similar laws in the US, and I'd check them. In most countries where there exist regulations, these at least grants you the right to trace back the source for any piece of data you claim to be inaccurate or defamatory (moreover if there's a decision involved affecting your life, for example, when asking for a loan, or for a job). If I am right, there should be a legal procedure forcing the employer to tell identify the source, to this source to identify the previous one, and so until reaching the ultimate source.

 

If I am right here, the ultimate source should be either:

1) The web site itself, after a legal order asking them to disclose this employee specific data.

 

Should this order exist (I want to believe) it should state a PURPOSE for such a request and be LIMITED to certain specific actions (this would resemble a search order, at least here it states specifically what they want to find, and how this findings are supposed to be used. For example, if the police have an order to find a gun in your place, and they don't find the gun but drugs, they would need a new order in order to validate the finding. If you have pictures of yourself naked, they cannot touch them.)

 

If I am right, I'd contact the web site. The web site itself may be interested in finding out what's going on. Should something like this start happening pretty often or made public, the web site would be damaged and could face big loses because of the lost of confidence from the members, who wouldn't use the service anymore afraid of the unsafe way the web site preserves the members privacy. The web site may choose to cover the member attorney expenses and join efforts to sue someone as to show their users they're up to enforce the members privacy protection.

 

2) Another member of the web site, who wouldn't be honoring the ToS when disclosing the information found in the web site. This user, once identified, could be sued by this employee and by the web site because of the damages. And if the user cannot be identified, then the employer (or some intermediate source) is basing the allegation on rumors, and because of this could be sued for the damages.

 

So even when fired, this employee should be able to blame on someone, either the employer, someone (crazy enough) that takes the burden as this information source, or this freak woman who supposedly started all of this.

[sereneiders 263]

Lovely Jubblies said:

The last time I DID have enough to file a charge, she filed a counter-charge at me (she sent herself an email with my name on threatening to kill her - I didn't communicate with her at all). Perversely, her County Court allows emailed threats to be used as evidence. My County Court doesn't!

 

Lovely, either you're getting something wrong here, you're exaggerating, or her County Court is stuck in the middle age (compared with what FOR SURE happens in many other places in the US, that I am aware of even when not living there).

 

The e-mail system have one design flaw allowing anyone to fake the sender address. This is well known and not only among technicians, also in the legal community, because of the spam problem. You see, there is a very widespread agreement about spam deserving to be taken as a crime (the receiver is covering the advertiser expenses, the advertiser is stealing money from your pocket), but any crime require an identifiable perpetrator as to be proper and legally definable. This flaw forbids anyone to identify the actual sender for an e-mail, thus rendering this definition impossible to accomplish. In places where it was defined as a crime, the actual sender must be identified by means of tracking the e-mail route to the original computer, because this is the only way to prove an e-mail author.

 

So, if this woman send herself an e-mail with your address as a sender or just your name on it, this shouldn't be an admissible proof in ANY court, unless they were able to trace back this mail route to your computer (which would require the help for your ISP, and after this prove they could cease the service from a ToS violation).

[xxoticangel 98]

My $.02 here. Years ago (1996-97) I was a divorced mother of two toddlers working part-time for a doctor and going to school. Through the internet I hooked up with a girl that had her own adult website and was actually making a good living doing it. After talking with her she convinced me that the way to get ahead was to do my own site. I agreed and let her take pictures, create a website, and begin advertising. Part of her advertising plan was to post the pictures on various free amature sites (voyeurweb, watchersweb etc). Within 2 months my boss had found out, showed me a stack of pictures that a patient had dropped off, and fired me. She also took it on herself to contact my ex and let him know what I was doing. I immediately had the site taken down and was able to stay out of court on a custody battle but I still live in fear of my pictures surfacing again. Over the years I have checked some sites and have only found two pictures of me being posted. A word of warning, if you post your pictures you give up all rights to them. Millions of people around the world can download them and use them however they want.

[DBL D 120]

I'd be interested in what SluttyWife has to say since she has websites...She may not have to worry about being fired though.

 

Sure am sorry this happened to you. You will get through it though...there's no other way to look at it. Bad deal, but make the most of your new found freedom.

 

Male D

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

I've been lurking on this thread, but had to add support for LJ here:

 

As a fellow recipient of stalking, I know how frustrating it is not to be able to do anything about a stalker. LJ's right, unless they physically harm you - you pretty much have no way to file a restraining order, sometimes even with written proof. I live in CA, which is one of the most progressive states in the Union, and I still couldn't get a retraining order even with batches of letters sent to me, pictures taken by friends, and verbal testimony from witnesses.

 

I had to move 100 miles away to be rid of him and not be constantly looking over my shoulder...

 

Unfortunately I have no advice to add, LJ, other than giving you my support and hoping you decide to pursue legal action. It may be a hard road, but I hope you're successful.

 

I have to say I came very close to never returning to this board again. Most people seem to have no idea of the hell another can go through whilst a perpetrator remains within an inch of the law. You don't have to give me advice, Aurora - just knowing that someone understands my plight his lifted a little of the weight. I've now spoken to maybe 4 different attorneys and each of them tell me I've got a real case. Unfortunately I still haven't found one to work with me pro-bono (oh, and to those of you who have pointed out that I mentioned being short of money on more than one occasion in this thread - I make no apologies. I'm answering posts as they come in, not trawling through my every reply to check whether I've said the same thing twice).

 

Thank you again, Aurora. You've been a huge help just by posting your message.

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

My $.02 here. Years ago (1996-97) I was a divorced mother of two toddlers working part-time for a doctor and going to school. Through the internet I hooked up with a girl that had her own adult website and was actually making a good living doing it. After talking with her she convinced me that the way to get ahead was to do my own site. I agreed and let her take pictures, create a website, and begin advertising. Part of her advertising plan was to post the pictures on various free amature sites (voyeurweb, watchersweb etc). Within 2 months my boss had found out, showed me a stack of pictures that a patient had dropped off, and fired me. She also took it on herself to contact my ex and let him know what I was doing. I immediately had the site taken down and was able to stay out of court on a custody battle but I still live in fear of my pictures surfacing again. Over the years I have checked some sites and have only found two pictures of me being posted. A word of warning, if you post your pictures you give up all rights to them. Millions of people around the world can download them and use them however they want.

 

Thanks, xxoticangel. That makes perfect sense to me. I hate what happened to you, and can't believe they even contacted your ex! That's disgusting treatment. I totally understand the point about millions being able to download the pictures, but it seems there should be some way of dealing with those who do use them. After all, even if I post the pics it seemed to me that I own the copyright on them (by taking pictures myself of ME). What about these sites that put a copyright notice on their pics? Surely that's there for a reason? I know the legality of that is for an attorney to decide, but it still seemed logical to me (not that logic counts for much these days)

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

Lovely, either you're get something wrong here, you're exagerating, or her County Court is stuck in the middle age (compared with what FOR SURE happens in many other places in the US, that I am aware of even when not living there).

 

The e-mail system have one design flaw allowing anyone to fake the sender address. This is well known and not only among technicians, also in the legal community, because of the spam problem. You see, there is a very widespreaded agreenment about spam deserving to be taken as a crime (the receiver is covering the advertisor expenses, the advertisor is stealing money from your pocket), but any crime require an identifiable perpetrator as to be proper and legaly dafinable. This flaw forbids anyone to identify the actual sender for an e-mail, thus rendering this definition impossible to accomplish. In places where it was defined as a crime, the actual sender must be identified by means of tracking the e-mail route to the original computer, because this is the only way to prove an e-mail authory.

 

So, if this woman send herself an e-mail with your address as a sender or just your name on it, this shouldn't be an admisible proof in ANY court, unless they were able to trace back this mail route to your computer (which would require the help for your ISP, and after this prove they could cease the service from a ToS violation).

 

Actually, you've hit the nail on the head with just one exception. It's MY County Court that won't allow an email to be used as admissible evidence (despite Social Services, Family Services, EEOC and an attorney telling me otherwise). I even turned up at my County Court with the appropriate legislation that showed emails are admissible and was told that if I wished to argue with the Clerk of Court they would have me arrested. Yes, the woman harrassing/stalking me did exactly what you said - she put her own email together using my address. She alleged that I sent it via AOL who told me that they wouldn't release any records of sent/received emails without a Court Order (even my own as I was to be using them for legal purposes).

 

When the Police turned up to arrest me, they weren't concerned with whether or not I actually sent the email or whether the woman composed it herself. They told me (understandably, I suppose) that they were there to serve an Arrest Warrant and that Court was the place to argue. The woman ended up dropping the charge that I had allegedly emailed death threats on condition that I dropped her very real one of threatening to kill me over the telephone. We went to mediation, where she agreed to have no direct or third party contact with me, and unfortunately I cannot prove it's her doing the harrassing now, although only she could know the things that are being alleged.

 

And whilst I understand that you have to take this into consideration, I'm not exaggerating anything here. To repeat an earlier reply - I'm being driven to Hell and back by a woman who wants to ruin my life and is increasingly manipulative. You know that addage about 'Hell hath no fury...' Well that doesn't just apply to a man who's p*ssed a woman off

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

As far as I understood, this is the case, and because of this I am talking about a privacy invasion. If she were using a public website, then no one would be disclosing anything private.

 

 

Thanks for another reply, guys. (I won't use up thread space by quoting your whole message). To answer your question - the Swing site my information came from was SLS (in the three years I have been a member there, I spent some months Paid then let me account change to 'Free'). I had no externally viewable profile and had opted out of the 'Featured Member' section. I attended a grievance hearing yesterday and my SLS profile had been printed directly from the screen (I've since deleted the profile and told Tech Support I was deleting it because someone had reported it to my employers. I wasn't aware until yesterday that it had been printed). I'm going to see what I can find in regards to SLS' TOS after I finish this reply to you.

 

I also got to see the envelope that was sent to my employer with the information. The address label had been printed and no return address given. Interestingly, it was addressed to my Office Supervisor by name rather than title. I didn't get to see whether there was any other information, but it appears to have been sent anonymously.

[Lovely Jubblies 15]

Further to some comments on here about posting one's own images and/or information on the Internet and other's uses of those images and/or information, I just found this interesting piece from a Prof. Thomas G Field of Pierce Law

 

"Fair use is one of the most important, and least clear cut, limits to copyright. It permits some use of others' works even without approval. But when? Words like "fair" or "reasonable" cannot be precisely defined, but here are a few benchmarks.

 

Uses that advance public interests such as criticism, education or scholarship are favored -- particularly if little of another's work is copied. Uses that generate income or interfere with a copyright owner's income are not."

 

I'm going to seek further legal help on this one, but it seems that as I took the pics and they're of me, I hold copyright, regardless of where I choose to use them. And as my images and information have been used to directly interfere with my income, it seems that that isn't fair use of my own copyright materials. I'm sure some do-gooder here will tell me I'm misconstruing this information, but if nothing else, there's a Professor of Law who has stated what I have believed all along - what I do with MY own images and information is MY business, regardless of where I decide to post them.

[biblonde 22]

I am reading some of the replies to this thread and just shaking my head in disbelief...Some of you are saying she got what she deserved or was setting herself up because god forbid she put pictures online? So that is a good reason to not only loose your job or get stalked?? That is no different than saying someone deserved to be raped because they dressed sexy, therefor she was asking for it. At least that is the way I look at it. In the US you have the right to put up pics where ever you want and it shouldnt be ok that someone uses them against you because they have a grudge. She shouldnt be told "you were asking for it..." because she lost her job. Hey it could happen to any of us.

[TeamSoBe 36]

I'm going to seek further legal help on this one, but it seems that as I took the pics and they're of me, I hold copyright, regardless of where I choose to use them.

In the absence of any other agreement sure, but you may have given up some rights. You may have granted ownership or a use license to the web site when you uploaded the images. That would depend on the terms-of-service agreement for the web site or you may have agreed to a 'click-wrap agreement' during the actual upload by checking a box that says 'yes I understand that I'm transferring my rights to this image' or possibly 'yes I understand that I'm granting a license for this image to this web site'.