Lost my job for swinging!!

[Amanda69 24]

Actually if you read the disclaimers on most sites, once you post images on them they become the property of the site in question. While they may attempt to prevent people from copying those images there is no sure fire way to do so. The only way to truly prevent anyone from getting hold of compromising materials is to not post them in the first place.

[intuition897 2,177]

(Mrs. intuition here)

You know LJ, your story as well as XXotic's are truly saddening. Apparently everyone knows that we all have sex, but GOD FORBID anyone actually ADMITS to it! Why, think of the children! The poor little things...the adults that are supposed to be guiding and nurturing them...actually having the gall to be...UGH! SEXUAL!

 

What a bloody hopeless continent we live on.

[biblonde 22]

intuition897 said:

(Mrs. intuition here)

You know LJ, your story as well as XXotic's are truly saddening. Apparently everyone knows that we all have sex, but GOD FORBID anyone actually ADMITS to it! Why, think of the children! The poor little things...the adults that are supposed to be guiding and nurturing them...actually having the gall to be...UGH! SEXUAL!

 

What a bloody hopeless continent we live on.

 

Well said...couldn't have said it better myself...

[LOL_OMG 130]

Just FYI LJ -

 

I feel that you have 3 issues here, and the entire thread has become so convoluted it's hard to pinpoint where people are pissed and where they agree. I think it would help if you could relay what is the focal point of your problem.

 

1) that you were fired for being a swinger (headline of the post)

 

2) that you were fired for posting pics on an amateur site

 

3) someone is stalking you for 8 years.

 

Mrs LOL

 

PS - The post I made way back (I think on page 3) came from the Forsyth County School District handbook. I did an SLS profile on you and tried to find some HR info on your area. I didn't mention the county but you did later so I wanted you to know that it is the same one. The handbook is online, and it does talk specifically about at-will employment.

[MoonLightKiss 28]

LJ, I am no lawyer and the laws here probably differ from the ones where you live, but it may be something for you to check into. I bring these points up from experience working in a lawyer's office nearly 9 years ago, so my info can also be outdated as well.

 

I read somewhere on this post that this woman has threatened you? If so, it is called Terroristic Threatening, which in most, if not all, states is a class D felony. Most states on a first time offense may offer probation and a fine, but it puts you in a position to obtain an EPO, or emergency protection order. Now recently in my state, EPO's were knocked back to cover family members and spouses only, but a restraining order does come into effect if the person is convicted of terroristic threatening. You should not have to have proof. Unfortunately here, you cannot call the police and have this done, you have to go to the county attorneys, and most times force them to listen to your problem. So many people today make false claims after an argument and the county attorneys have to deal with the backlog from those. I am not saying these DA's are right, only saying they hear alot of similiar stories to yours and it turns out to be nothing. I would say double check on that specific charge and if your state or county contains a law like that, then go back to the county attorney to file. Harassment may not be the way to go, as you yourself have said its nearly impossible to prove.

[ANGEDKY(mr) 100]

holy crap 111 posts......... I dont think Uumo could have stirred the pot this good

 

Lovely Jubblies,

I think your are on the right track(and theoretically your beliefs seem sound). However you must realize that at some point this will end.......keep in mind that it may not end in your favor because of:

A) pro bono work vs. time involved

B) your financial limitations

C) society just isnt ready to accept where MOST of us here are coming from and ultimately you may just flat out lose the battle.

 

As for the stalking, that is the tip of the iceberg as far as some department's (un)involvment. Think of it this way "There are many forms of justice, not all take place in the courtroom"

 

As a side note.............This thread has had a positive impact on us as well. At least now I can clearly identify Ken and Barbie (per se) Should we ever run into them in person.

 

Ken ~n~ Barbie (def)

when one or both members of a couple, of above average physique & looks, exude a holier-than-thou, condescending, judgmental, we-are-better-than-you attitude. Often times combined with transparent personality and politically correct facade

 

Best of Luck LJ

 

angedky(mr)

[Chicup 38]

Ken ~n~ Barbie (def)

when one or both members of a couple, of above average physique & looks, exude a holier-than-thou, condescending, judgmental, we-are-better-than-you attitude. Often times combined with transparent personality and politically correct facade

 

O'Rly?

 

There is so much wrong with this thread that it makes my eyes bleed just reading it.

 

First, remember we only have one side of the story.

 

Secondly I have little sympathy for someone who basically did it too themselves. You have the mystery cyber stalker (and I bet there is a fine story there), she works in a school, she posts naked identifiable pictures of herself. Now who's fault is this again?

 

Third, the issue (despite some posts) has nothing to do with the legality of posting naked pictures of yourself, it has to do with do you have a right to employment if you do so. You can argue that it won't effect the job, but lets think about it. IF the mystery cyber stalker is so hell bent to get our heroine here, and she wasn't fired, what would stop her from alterting the PTA, or even letting it be known to the students where you could find her pictures? This would be a major disruption to the school, which we assume had a morality clause she doesn't remember about.

 

I have about 15 women who work for me. I could care less what they do in their off time, I don't care if they are doing scat bestiality porn. If on the other hand it became known to the public at large that they were doing porn or whatever and it became a distraction at work I'd have to fire them. If your private life effects your job performance or the business as a whole it is no longer a privacy issue to me but a business issue and as such I'd have to make a business decision.

 

We are all taking what the OP says at face value and in a case like this I highly doubt we are getting everything. Just because its on the internet doesn't make it true.

 

All porn stars know they have changed their lives forever once they do it, they limit themselves from jobs and aspects of society just because they did porn. Amature porn is no different, she made a choice, it was a poor one based on the obvious factors, but I'm not seeing any injustice beyond what is considered acceptable in society.

[JnCC 24]

Jeeze...111 posts! I don't have time to look through them all, but have you thought of contacting Playboy/Hustler, etc? They're both big supporters of sexual freedom and choice. How about the local papers? Most cities have an "Alternative" paper of some kind. Oprah? Maury? The Sexual Freedom League? The town or city council or school board? (Some of them may be swingers, you know. And...one of them may be in a position to see that his contract is not renewed. You never know...)

 

I know you probably don't want the whole damn world knowing what you do in your private life, but I suspect they already do, even if they're too polite to mention it to your face. After all, you DID post your pics on the internet.

 

My experience in these kinds of things is that the people who do this stuff like to do it in private. That is, so long as they can pull you into their office, read you "The Letter" and fire you on the spot, they're pretty bold. But when a newspaper or television reporter or asks them to sit for an interview, they usually respond with a "no comment."

 

Of course, to a seasoned reporter, "No comment" means there's a STORY there somewhere.

 

A few years ago, one of our national leaders was in some trouble over some sexual acts that were going on in his office. The opposition party, and at least one national radio broadcaster, had a veritable field day discussing this man's moral and ethical misdeeds. Then Larry Flynt offered a million dollars to anybody who would come forward with proof that a member of the "other" political party was having an affair.

 

A number of "snitches" took him up on his offer. As I recall, one major and several minor politicians resigned, or had their political careers cut short. Flynt had a field day expoliting their hypocrasy. More importantly, while we'll never know what went on behind the scenes to keep some of the offending Congressmen and Senators OFF of Flynts radar, the charges against the National leader eventually were not sustained.

 

When stuff like this hits the paper, leads develop. People talk. Wouldn't it be funny if somebody crawled out of the woodwork and said of the man that fired you, "Why, that scoundrel has been having an affair with so-and-so for years!" Or, "He's one to talk! He was busted for (whatever) in (whenever/wherever).

 

I understand the basics of "at will" employment. But...there's "the law," and then there's "how things REALLY get done." When examining a civil case, the letter of the law is a wonderful place to start, but it's almost NEVER where things end. Since your behavior, in private with consenting adults, is at issue here, I think a deposition, in which this man and others on his staff or in his employ were questioned about their sexual history could be most interesting...

 

I think a good attorney could have this guy wondering if it's worth all the trouble and attention it's going to draw to him, to have one little ol' swinger off the payroll.

[ANGEDKY(mr) 100]

O'Rly?

Yup, look a little deeper at 'em you'll see

 

 

I think your are on the right track(and theoretically your beliefs seem sound).

Simply put, she thinks she has a problem and used her resources (us here at the board) for advice.....we said (for the most part) get a lawyer. To me its decent logic. The who's where's, how's and all that crap if for the legal system. As far as the rest goes, I think sexuality is an individuals choice and really has no business in the work envionment However at some point the choices of accessability,content and morality will be adddressed by some other member of society and that's where Jncc hits the nail on the head

I understand the basics of "at will" employment. But...there's "the law," and then there's "how things REALLY get done." When examining a civil case, the letter of the law is a wonderful place to start, but it's almost NEVER where things end.

 

My point being while I think her thought process is decent, unless it goes to trial in Liberalville, Utopia it will be challenging, at best.......Then again contacting the Adult media is just the outside-the-box thinking that could really turn the tables

[JnCC 24]

Chicup said:

I have little sympathy for someone who basically did it to themselves... she works in a school, she posts naked identifiable pictures of herself. Now who's fault is this again?

She wasn't soliciting children. She wasn't posting those pictures in a place where people, especially children, might "accidentally" run across them. Moreover, what she was doing was perfectly legal in her state of residence, and not specifically prohibited by the terms of her employment.

 

I gather from your previous posts that you're a professional person. I also gather that, like most swingers, you and the Mrs. meet strangers for sex, either at clubs, or from ads you post on the internet. I would venture to say that it would be a fairly easy task for almost anybody to ascertain your true identity. The question is, does your participation in those venues make you responsible for whatever "outing" some moralistic or religious fanatic might impose upon you? Would you be so quick to come down on this woman if your own children were asked to leave their school, "because their mom was a pervert?"

 

Quote

I have about 15 women who work for me. If ...it became known to the public at large that they were doing porn or whatever and it became a distraction at work I'd have to fire them. If your private life effects your job performance or the business as a whole it is no longer a privacy issue to me but a business issue and as such I'd have to make a business decision.

Boy dude, you must be one tough guy to work for! No baby pictures on desks in your place, eh? No birthday cards, cartoons on cubicle walls, or seasonal decorations either, I presume. No music. I'll bet an office Christmas tree is out of the question. How about vacations? Do your employees take them? If they do, and they talk about them with the other girls when they get back, do you fire them? The talker or the listener, or both? Because you really should fire them both. Neither is getting any work done, you know.

 

ALL of the things I've mentioned are found in most offices, and most are "distracting." But I don't know anybody who's ever been fired for having a picture of a cute baby on their desk, or posted on the internet. I don't see why this would be an different.

 

I understand your need to make a "business decision" (I have some background in, and sympathy for, business owners) But if part of the equation you used in coming to that "business decision" involved the likelihood, if not the certainty, that a very expensive, and very public, legal proceeding would ensue, would you not consider less drastic measures to correct the problem. Like, perhaps, taking the employee aside, explaining the problem and how it's affecting your business, and asking them to take down the offending pictures?

 

My guess is that this woman's employer couldn't come up with an explanation for how something she did in her private life was affecting her office job. If I were the attorney defending her employer in a civil action, I'd be asking him for something more substantive than "because she's a swinger, and I don't like swingers" as a reason for terminating an 18-year employee with an otherwise impeccable work history. Especially a female, who likely has kids and a family to support.

 

Whether or not her "judgement was flawed," I can't say. But one thing is certain...the internet has changed, forever, what our notions of "private" and "public" are. More knowledge about what our neighbors are doing requires more tolerance of their actions, not less.

 

I hope she finds a good lawyer and cleans this bastard's clock...

[LOL_OMG 130]

She wasn't posting those pictures in a place where people, especially children, might "accidently" run across them.

This is actually the question that has been asked a few times and not answered. The original post said that there were pictures on an amateur site. Was the site accessible to the public with no membership? Only the OP can answer..

 

Moreover, what she was doing was perfectly legal in her state of residence, and not specifically prohibited by the terms of her employment.

Once again I bring up the phrase "Conduct which may erode the public confidence". I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be but I've seen this phrase used over and over in my union tenure.

 

To LJ: You have been looking for a lawyer to handle this pro-bono. You may ask about them taking it on a contingency basis. If they feel you have a strong case and can win, they will be willing to handle it this way (they will only get paid if the case is won).

[ANGEDKY(mr) 100]

Lovely Jubblies--direct question for you

 

Did you use ONLY Swinglifestyle.com or did you use another website as well, one for erotic pictures and SLS for swinging? There are several references to an "Amateur site" and "Erotic pictures" it's getting kinda confusing

 

Secondly if you did use two sites, was the second one of a register and pay type?? (ie require deliberate actions to find you)

[2jersey 15]

ANGEDKY(mr) said:

Lovely Jubblies--direct question for you

 

Did you use ONLY Swinglifestyle.com or did you use another website as well, one for erotic pictures and SLS for swinging? There are several references to an "Amateur site" and "Erotic pictures" it's getting kinda confusing

 

Secondly if you did use two sites, was the second one of a register and pay type?? (ie require deliberate actions to find you)

 

STOP!!! This thread cannot possibly get any more ludicrous. We are dealing with a moralistic first amendment rights debate, complete with a hypothetical legal case involving a "woe is me" penniless 'victim '.

 

If, however, there is any validity to the claims made by the original poster, they should act as follows: 1) Re-read the first few pages of this thread, all of the legal guidance you will need are contained within (you can skip over the advice about approaching the publisher of Hustler Magazine). and 2) Do not further discuss the facts of your case on this or any other public forum (at best, it will taint your case).

 

If you really have a woman stalking you who, as you claim, spends hours each day looking for information about you on the internet - do you think it might be a bad idea to disclose your entire story on this board?

 

We don't believe your story in its entirety. And since you will undoubtedly feel the need to reply to us in an indignant manner (and you will be surrounded by hungry villagers who have not read the entire thread but are sympathetic to your headline issue) - let us leave you with our final word (repeated three times for clarity) - yada yada yada...

[Chicup 38]

 

If you really have a woman stalking you who, as you claim, spends hours each day looking for information about you on the internet - do you think it might be a bad idea to disclose your entire story on this board?

 

Sometimes I miss the obvious, and boy did I miss this aspect.

[JnCC 24]

LOL_OMG said:

The original post said that there were pictures on an amateur site. Was the site accessible to the public with no membership?

I wonder too. But even if it was, all websites require you to do something to enter. They don't just pop up on your computer. And there HAD to be something which led to somebody clicking on that site. As has been pointed out before, there are 2 "villains" here, one who posted nekkie pics, and another who went out of her way to view them. Unfortunately, only one of them has been fired...

 

Quote

Once again I bring up the phrase "Conduct which may erode the public confidence". I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be but I've seen this phrase used over and over in my union tenure.

Another one of those stupid, "catch-all" phrases that employers use, in the hopes that they won't ever have to actually SAY what constitutes such acts. I'm the public, and I believe that a person can have any kind of sex they want, and still trust them to do a good job of office clerking or whatever. If something like this ever came to trial, they'd better hope that I'm not on the jury...

 

As a nation, our capacity for hypocrisy always amazes me. I live on the outskirts of one of the most conservative cities in the United States. At the spearhead of the anti-porn, anti-gay lifestyle in our community is a lawmaker whose name would be familiar to anybody from this area. I recently dated a woman who had a long affair with his #2 man, who was married, and whose name would again be familiar to many. She told of attending meetings with her boss, while his boss went on and on about how sin and the erosion of "family values" was destroying our community. The whole time, she had in her vagina, a pair of those remote-control vibrating egg-things, which he was controlling from across the room.

 

Better hope she's not on the jury, either...

[sereneiders 263]

But one thing is certain...the internet has changed, forever, what our notions of "private" and "public" are. More knowledge about what our neighbors are doing requires more tolerance of their actions, not less.

 

[sereneiders 263]

xxoticangel said:

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 amateur 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.

 

I am sorry about what happened to you, but your story doesn't correlate with the OP one:

 

1) You started running a PAID SITE and selling your pictures.

- She wasn't having any profit from the posted pictures.

 

2) You (or your girlfriend) advertised your website, which for sure required some of your pictures to be disclosed to the public.

- Her pictures weren't meant to be disclosed to the public. I am pretty sure SLS terms-of-service grants the users their pictures won't be disclosed publicly (because if not, no one would trust them enough to put pictures).

 

3) You were running a SEXUAL CONTENT BUSINESS that in some places would be qualified as pornographic by law.

- She, at most, published naked pictures qualified as erotic, something that isn't forbidden nor restricted by law.

 

Big part of this problem comes from confusing and blending these two cases as if they were the same.

 

If I were your employer, I would fire you: you're running a business (and have another income), that business work better as more public you have, thus you advertise, and some of my customers may become your customer as well, which in turn may lead to many unpredictable and undesirable outcome. I'd have a grounded motivation to fire you with a cause. Besides, I may also become your customer after firing you

 

In HER case, I believe her employer has no grounds to fire her.

[Chicup 38]

sereneiders said:

2) You (or your girlfriend) advertised your website, which for sure required some of your pictures to be disclosed to the public.

- Her pictures weren't meant to be disclosed to the public. I am pretty sure SLS terms-of-service grants the users their pictures won't be disclosed publicly (because if not, no one would trust them enough to put pictures).

 

In HER case, I believe her employer has no grounds to fire her.

 

You are forgetting the 'amateur' picture site. Those tend to be free access to the public and even 'pay' ones will often have samples used to advertise the site.

 

If this were all about swinging and SLS she may have a case, but the amateur picture site puts a whole different spin on it. Its no longer about lifestyle, or sexual orientation and practices, but showing the goods to the public for the sake of showing your goods to the public.

[sereneiders 263]

Lovely Jubblies said:

I attended a grievance hearing yesterday and my SLS profile had been printed directly from the screen ...

 

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.

 

Wait a second.

 

1) Anyone can fake an SLS profile and even a picture. Any friend of you using a Photoshop could fake a SLS profile with your boss picture, for the sake of rendering that proof useless (since anyone could have done the same faking your profile).

 

2) I am not an SLS user and I don't know the interface. Most web sites show in every page your user name. The printing should have to be complete (an incomplete printed page is more likely to be a fake than a complete one), and the user name should be there. This would entitle SLS to terminate that user account and, eventually, to sue charges against the user (they may pick to NOT terminate the account as to trace the offender user computer as to identify a physical person to sue). If they don't, with this printing you'd be entitled to sue SLS because they avoid to enforce the ToS in a way that affects you and eventually their users trust.

 

3) An envelope without a return address constitutes a RUMOR. Even when your employers were able to ground your firing because you're an SLS member, they would have to LEGALLY REQUEST SLS your information. They couldn't ground it not even by making themselves SLS members to look for your profile because doing this with THIS purpose is likely to be a ToS violation, so they're trusting a fakeable piece of sheet whose authenticity NO ONE IS ENDORSING.

 

4) You employers couldn't even ground your firing in what you claimed about your sexual tastes in your SLS profile. For example, someone may become an SLS member with the sole purpose of collaborating in a research for a sexual related study, so this one claim things fitting the research requirement as to survey the responses you get, thus this claim wouldn't represent his/her actual sexual tastes. So, your employers would have to additionally prove you engage in the activities you claimed. I am not a swinger because I claim I am, but because I DO swing.

 

5) If your employers were able to proof that you actually swing (disregarding what you claim you do), at this point we may start talking about your privacy rights, and it is supposed your employers should smash their face against a solid wall here.

 

What amazes me the most is that everything I wrote so far seems pretty obvious to me, there are plenty of arguments to defend your position here.

 

You may be overwhelmed in the hearing as to realize about this. But even among swingers we're still discussing the issue?

[JustAskJulie 2,588]

1. You had your info (pictures of you whether naked or not) and statement that you were looking for sex on a completely free and open profile page - YAHOO!

 

2. It's a good chance that most jobs, especially government jobs have a morality clause.

 

3. I doubt you have any recourse against your employer. If an attorney thought you had a great case they'd probably offer to take the case on the basis that they'd get paid when you got a monetary settlement (which is more likely than getting your job back). Most attorneys are going to tell you you have a good case if they think they can get you to pay them to take the case.

 

4. You may want to consider a civil suit against your stalker, if you have enough proof to show that she has been stalking you, you can go after her in civil court where the burden of proof is on her and less on you (no beyond a reasonable doubt). If you win there you may be able to use that to press charges on her.

 

Regarding XXoticangel's story: I've seen similar ones many times over the last 10 years. It was something I preached religiously when I was working in the amateur industry because too many people got into doing amateur sites thinking it was a great way to make easy money and never stopped to think about the downsides. This is exactly the same thing that people do when it comes to swinging. Even if you are only posting your nude facial pics on membership based sites there is nothing keeping someone from stealing them and posting them elsewhere (there are ways around right click blockers).

 

It's not about saying "don't do this it's bad". My point here and in the "Discretion & You" thread is that you need to stop and think about what you are doing and about how you can protect yourself, as well as what risks you are taking. We think so much about the risks of STDs and realize that we are taking these risks when we swing, but we never think about the other risks involved in swinging.

[sereneiders 263]

Chicup said:

You are forgetting the ...

 

Chicup, I am not forgetting anything here. We simply disagree from the scratch. We have opposed philosophies as the root for our arguments. At last, it is a matter of taste and life experiences, and not of reasoning capabilities.

 

Even when you have almost no chances to make me change my mind, I strongly believe that your opinion have more impact in my life than my opinion on yours. Because of this I made the mistake to react against your opinion and argue you in the wrong place (here).

 

In fact it is pointless. The forbidding of political discussions, anywhere, means that only those opinions that are "politically correct" for the local community are welcomed, since only the "politically wrong" ones would lead to an endless discussion. And I am, for sure, in the "politically wrong" side of the world (both the physical world and the philosophical one), which means that disputing the facts and arguments (and I have a LOT of both), I'd be engaging in a battle that is already lost in advance.

 

I won't argue you.

[JnCC 24]

Would it change this argument if her employer had fired her for wearing a bathing suit he felt was "too revealing" on a public beach? After all, she serves in an "at will" position. How about a deeply-cut evening gown, worn to a charity ball? Might that not also be grounds for dismissal, under those rules?

 

This is not some middle-eastern dictatorship, this is the United States of America. We are not governed by the whims of our Taliban elders, we are governed (or at least we used to be) by the principles set forth in the Constitution. One of the principles guaranteed us was the right of "free association." It doesn't say, "except with other swingers."

 

I've said this before, but black people, then gays, and most recently handicapped people have shown the world that nobody has to put up with this kind of shit, IF they're organized and willing to put up a fight. It's just a pity that "our" organizations (NASCA, etc.) are more interested in running travel agencies and foo-foo "conventions," than they are in defending our right to sexual freedom.

 

If the folks running NASCA had been running the NAACP or SCLC, black folks would still be picking cotton and riding on the back of the bus. But at least they'd have 3 or 4 "National Bar-B-Q Conventions" in Las Vegas every year, and maybe a few "Bar-B-Q Cruises."

[Chicup 38]

Would it change this argument if her employer had fired her for wearing a bathing suit he felt was "too revealing" on a public beach? After all, she serves in an "at will" position. How about a deeply-cut evening gown, worn to a charity ball? Might that not also be grounds for dismissal, under those rules?

 

This is not some middle-eastern dictatorship, this is the United States of America. We are not governed by the whims of our Taliban elders, we are governed (or at least we used to be) by the principles set forth in the Constitution. One of the principles guaranteed us was the right of "free association." It doesn't say, "except with other swingers."

 

I've said this before, but black people, then gays, and most recently handicapped people have shown the world that nobody has to put up with this kind of shit, IF they're organized and willing to put up a fight. It's just a pity that "our" organizations (NASCA, etc.) are more interested in running travel agencies and foo-foo "conventions," than they are in defending our right to sexual freedom.

 

If the folks running NASCA had been running the NAACP or SCLC, black folks would still be picking cotton and riding on the back of the bus. But at least they'd have 3 or 4 National Bar-B-Q's in Las Vegas every year, and maybe a few Bar-B-Q cruises.

 

JnCC some day I hope to live in a land where we can proudly show our genitals, and be not judged by the size of our members, but the motion of the ocean. God Bless America.

 

Now did someone say BBQ? Mmmmm BBQ.

[JnCC 24]

Now that I think about it, I probably would go to a Bar-B-Q convention...

[xxoticangel 98]

In retrospect I agree that it looks like I was trying to equate my situation with Lovely Jubblies and in a way I was. I was also just trying to be understanding of her situation.

 

I didn't realize (read think) about the ramifications of posting nude pictures and as a "professional" amature I didn't even question it when I was let go. When it happened I knew that there was no way I could fight it and a part-time minimum wage job just wasn't worth trying to keep. If my ex hadn't contacted me about it I would have probably kept the site (still not thinking). It was an easy and legal way to make good money and have free time with the kids. My biggest concern was keeping custody of my children.

 

Looking back it was a very bad decision that I still have fears about today. I am a professional with a degree and work with the public everyday. I am terrified that someday the same thing will happen again and I will be forced to find something else to do.

[bill&sabrina 22]

STOP!!! This thread cannot possibly get any more ludicrous. We are dealing with a moralistic first ammendment rights debate, complete with a hypothetical legal case involving a "woe is me" penniless 'victim '.

 

If, however, there is any validity to the claims made by the original poster, they should act as follows: 1) Re-read the first few pages of this thread, all of the legal guidance you will need are contained within (you can skip over the advice about approaching the publisher of Hustler Magazine). and 2) Do not further discuss the facts of your case on this or any other public forum (at best, it will taint your case).

 

If you really have a woman stalking you who, as you claim, spends hours each day looking for information about you on the internet - do you think it might be a bad idea to disclose your entire story on this board?

 

We don't believe your story in its entirety. And since you will undoubtedly feel the need to reply to us in an indignant manner (and you will be surrounded by hungry villagers who have not read the entire thread but are sympathetic to your headline issue) - let us leave you with our final word (repeated three times for clarity) - yada yada yada...

 

Ok we get that you don't believe her, but do you have to be jerk about it?

[sereneiders 263]

It doesn't care too much if the OP is telling the true or not here (and this is valid for ANY post). The point is that something like this MAY happen and that this triggered a valuable discussion wich dragged enough interest as to have almost 200 posts.

 

This discussion could be very valuable for many other people that in the future could face some of the scenarios discussed here.

 

As for me this worths enough, as to ask the interested members to stop posting just because of the flaws we may find in the story.

[JustAskJulie 2,588]

It doesn't care too much if the OP is telling the true or not here (and this is valid for ANY post). The point is that something like this MAY happen and that this triggered a valuable discussion wich dragged enough interest as to have almost 200 posts.

 

This discussion could be very valuable for many other people that in the future could face some of the scenarios discussed here.

 

As for me this worths enough, as to ask the interested members to stop posting just because of the flaws we may find in the story.

 

If nothing else there is plenty to be learned here about what not to do!

[residentpervs 15]

Ok, I only got halfway through this thread and just hadda reply... I'll go back and finish the rest of it later.

 

First, you assholes who keep telling Jubblies that she's a liar, or delusional, or that it's her own fault all this happened and she should just accept and move on, maybe you should just shut the hell up and move on yourselves. ALL of you would be screaming from the fucking rooftops if it were you going through all of this insanity.

 

Second, Jubblies, I agree with your opinion that you did nothing wrong and that you were utterly railroaded! I wish you all the luck in the world in your fight, and hope you manage to sue the local govt and the boss who "dismissed" you into the ground, but being the pessimist that I am, I can't hold my breath for ya, darlin. NY is also an at-will employment state, and even when the employers themselves are on your side, the unions generally aren't... *UNLESS* they can stick it to the employer by helping you.

 

Third, Jubblies, did anyone mention the possibility of finding an attorney who'll take on the case and agree to take payment out of any settlement you might win? specifically those who say you've apparently got an excellent case?

 

Fourth, to sereneiders... folks, your heart *always* seems to be in the right place, and you bring up lots of good points... but you're just too long winded I have to admit that I tend to agree with most of what you're trying to say, but dude... just shorten it a bit!!

 

Ok, now that I've said my piece and been a little long-winded myself, I'll let (most of) you all get back to trying to support Jubblies in her battle.

 

Later.

[Charger500 30]

Jumblies I'm am so sorry to hear about your situation but....WOW I'm a whole lot smarter now.

 

Tell you what, after reading this and the other post about "sexual black mail" Maybe my wife and I will forget about swinging and take up another mutual hobby, like collecting butterflys or somthing!

[Chicup 38]

 

First, you assholes who keep telling Jubblies that she's a liar, or delusional, or that it's her own fault all this happened and she should just accept and move on, maybe you should just shut the hell up and move on yourselves. ALL of you would be screaming from the fucking rooftops if it were you going through all of this insanity.

 

Thank you very much

 

And no I wouldn't be screaming from the fucking rooftops. If I were in education as a profession I would take some common sense precautions like ALL the swinger educators and administrators I know do (and there are quite a lot of them).

[athena2910 17]

Lovely Jubblies said:

I'm employed by the Local Government ..(

 

I'd suggest you talk to an attorney who specializes in Employment discrimination. or a Civil Rights attorney. Since you worked for a government entity, I would say the First Amendment applies and that you have a First Amendment right to post whatever you want on the internet as long as it's not illegal.

 

And since "swinging" isn't illegal (as far as I can tell) I would say that your "swinging activity" and solicitation of swing partners is also a First Amendment right of free expression.

 

However, if you did sign a contract that expressly forbids "swinging" or "sexual immorality" that might be a problem. (However, I've worked for government entities and I've never seen such a contract, but who knows?)

 

You can look for attorneys on FindLaw at https://www.findlaw.com/ for a start.

 

(I don't graduate from law school until Sept. or else I'd love to defend you!)

 

Good luck and please let us know happens.

 

Athena

[Pepper & Drew 384]

I know this thread is old, but the topic is still relevant.

 

athena2910 said:

And since "swinging" isn't illegal (as far as I can tell) I would say that your "swinging activity" and solicitation of swing partners is also a First Amendment right of free expression.

 

Yes, but in an at-will work state, which I believe the OP is in, an employer can fire you any time for any reason, as long as the reason isn't illegal. So, an employer can fire you for anything as long as it does not discriminate against a protected class of citizens. I guarantee swingers are not in a protected class.

 

People should be aware that although it may not seem fair, or even be fair, it's not necessarily going to get your job back.

 

Pepper

[athena2910 17]

Pepper & Drew said:

Yes, but in an at-will work state, which I believe the OP is in, an employer can fire you any time for any reason, as long as the reason isn't illegal. So, an employer can fire you for anything as long as it does not discriminate against a protected class of citizens. I guarantee swingers are not in a protected class. Pepper

 

Yes, but I'm not suggesting that she on a Title VII basis, meaning because she's a member of a protected class she falls under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protection: what I'm suggesting is a pure Constitutional claim.

 

The government may not violate your First Amendment rights (even if your employer is an at-will employer) and this is the argument I'd pursue.

[JP51 40]

1. Not a protected class...under any federal title not Federal Case...

 

2. Moral grounds have been upheld in local courts for a long time, based on "community standards"...you won't win this unless you live in San Fran or a like community.

 

3. You are screwed about the job, it a done deal and no judge is going to overturn it...nothing much can be done about the firing.

 

4. About your stalker....now that could be an issue, but would have to know the local laws related to this event in NY. I say if she has money and you have real documented proof, find a good lawyer and go after the civil case.

 

Let's just say a Fed in the know, about these things.

[athena2910 17]

 

Quote

 

JP51 said:

1. Not a protected class...under any federal title not Federal Case...2. Moral grounds have been upheld in local courts for a long time, based on "community standards"...you won't win this unless you live in San Fran or a like community.

 

 

 

Ah, but you don't have to be a member of a "protected class" to sue under the First Amendment! (Whereas you must be a member of protected class to sue under Title VII.) And since it seems a government entity was the culprit here, and did the firing, you might well have a good case based on First Amendment grounds.

 

As far as "morals grounds" being upheld, I seem to remember a recent case in which a woman in a Midwestern state was fired from a Catholic school for getting pregnant before marriage. She WON her case -- even though there was a morals clause. She sued based on Equal Protection, the 14th Amendment.

 

I'd say, talk to an actual attorney who deals with civil rights issues before throwing in the towel on this one. But as far as getting your job back, why would anyone want their job back at that place?

[sereneiders 263]

Pepper & Drew said:

Yes, but in an at-will work state, which I believe the OP is in, an employer can fire you any time for any reason, as long as the reason isn't illegal. So, an employer can fire you for anything as long as it does not discriminate against a protected class of citizens.

 

I know the post is old, but just for the sake of my enlightenment...

 

Pepper & Drew and Athena,

 

Since you both seems to have grounds from where to answer, this is what I addressed in my previous posts.

 

Which employer would claim for an illegal reason to fire someone, moreover when being able to bring up a handful of suitable legal reasons to make some fit?

 

And how the State (in behalf of the citizens) can reassure the claim for a legal reason? I mean, if I am your employer "at will", can I fire you because you're too fat, too slim, too tall, too short, not blond enough, you got a scar in a recent accident I dislike? If I cannot, can I claim I do it because of downsizing, just to bring up a replacement the next day (which would mean I lie about the reason)?

 

My problem here is, how "at will" is the "at will"? Besides the fact that here there isn't such a thing like that, here, if you just provide a service, billing your customer, and the service is provided in a regular basis, and there is a dependence from your customer to your business survival, should the customer terminate the service because of a devious reason, you'd be entitled to sue your customer on solid grounds.

 

For example, I know of a case where a big food company hired individual truckers for more than 30 years to make their product delivery. The original contract, signed up at the beginning (for those truckers who had one) already expired. They were doing delivery exclusively for this company, and the trucks had to wear the company logo and advertisement. So one day this company realized it would be cheaper for them to buy they own trucks, and abruptly ceased the service given by the former truckers. The truckers sued the company and won it.

 

So even if there were employment at will here, civil and commercial laws would limit the "at will" clauses, even when labor laws were too permissive. Ad, in any case, it seems to me that both parties from a contract should have the right to challenge the claims made by one part as a reason to terminate it. It's hard for me to believe that the employment at will doesn't follow not even those principles.

 

I guess I am losing something here, and I know this exceeds the forum purpose, it's just I'd like to understand what's going on.

 

Thanks.

[Chicup 38]

 

For example, I know of a case where a big food company hired individual truckers for more than 30 years to make their product delivery. The original contract, signed up at the beginin (for those truckers who had one) already expired. They were doing delivery exclusivelly for this company, and the trucks had to wear the company logo and advertisement. So one day this company realized it would be cheaper for them to buy they own trucks, and abruptly ceased the service given by the former truckers. The truckers sued the company and won it.

 

Boy glad I live in the US when it comes to run a bussiness. People working without a contract at greater expense to the company are able to sue and because the company found a better way to run their bussiness?

 

At will is just that, at will. It means you don't have to give any reason at all. A job is not a 'right' in this country. If you can prove you were fired for discriminatory reasons you can sue, but otherwise you are out of luck. With your system the only way it would be fair is if the company could counter sue the truck driver, without a contract, who decided to go work for someone else because he could make more money. Hell maybe they can, I don't know, but there is a reason that despite some silliness the US has the strongest economy on the planet.

[JnCC 24]

Yes, but I'm not suggesting that she on a Title VII basis, meaning because she's a member of a protected class she falls under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protection: what I'm suggesting is a pure Constitutional claim.

 

The government may not violate your First Amendment rights (even if your employer is an at-will employer) and this is the argument I'd pursue.

 

Athena

An excellent point! As I understand the rules governing "at-will" employment, had her employer said to her "we're letting you go, because we've found someone who we think can do a better job than you" she might NOT have had a cause for action. But in stating why he was terminating her, he gave her a number of avenues under which to pursue legal action.

 

At the very least, her boss did a piss-poor job of handling her termination, and exposed his district (quite unneccessarily) to a lawsuit.

 

My follow-up question, "Ms. Almost-a-Lawyer," is this; As I understand it, one of the early steps in bringing a legal action is the process of discovery...which is, in part, getting to ask your opponent all sorts of potentially embarrassing and self-incriminating questions. How far into her bosses and co-workers personal sexual histories would her attorney be permitted to go as part of that process? We already know that her co-worker also made a habit of accessing the allegedly "immoral, obscene, pornographic" website. Would her attorney be permitted to question her boss as to whether or not he had ever seen the site, or had ever participated in any of the activities which she was soliciting? And how did her co-worker learn of the site, and why did she go there, knowing it was "pornographic" in nature? What steps did the boss take against the co-worker, after learning that she too, had accessed the site?

 

This isn't as simple a case as the waitress from a few months ago, who was fired after having the threesome with her boss. I agree...this girl needs to talk to a good civil-rights attorney.

[LOL_OMG 130]

Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 don't mean squat, because working for any government entity (large or small) almost always has a HUGE handbook. All employees get these, and I have looked at the OP's employers site...and yes, there is a handbook.

 

As a government employee you are always drilled on acceptable behavior (sexual harrasment, discrimination and codes of ethics and conduct). You sign a document saying that you've read and understand this. I signed and initialed the document every year (I believe it was in June) every year for 16 years.

 

JnCC said:

As I understand it, one of the early steps in bringing a legal action is the process of discovery...which is, in part, getting to ask your opponent all sorts of potentially embarrassing and self-incriminating questions.

If it's not relevant, it doesn't count! The employer, the boss or co-worker is not in question here. The human race is not in question here. It's the employee in question. Did they do something that is in contrary to behavior accepted in the employee handbook or guidelines that the employee agreed to as a condition of their employment? I'm thinking yeah.

 

No I'm not a lawyer...but the OP said no lawyer would take the case "pro-bono" which means for free. If I were a lawyer I wouldn't either. If the OP talked to a lawyer and they thought she had a case....don't you think they would have offered to represent on a contingency?

[JnCC 24]

Did they do something that is in contrary to behavior accepted in the employee handbook or guidelines that the employee agreed to as a condition of their employment? I'm thinkin yeah.

You've read the handbook. Did she? Is she governed by a morals clause as a condition of her employment, and does it specifically address sexual behavior conducted in private away from the workplace?

 

This would be another question for an attorney, but can an employer require that their employees forfeit their constitutional rights, when that forfeiture has no bearing on the nature or performance of their job? Her boss fred her because he didn't approve of her sexual activities. Could he have fired her simply because she was married to a black man, or because she voted in a local election?

 

It seems to me that some church lost a big case involving those very issues a while back. Hopefully, "Constitutional Law" is still fresh enough in Athena's mind to enlighten us. I'd ask my daughter, but now that she's landed a high-zoot position with big law firm, she doesn't return my calls.

 

If it's not relevant, it doesn't count! The employer, the boss or co-worker is not in question here. The human race is not in question here. It's the employee in question.

No, but the definition of what constitutes "morality, obscenity, and pornography" IS. It would seem that if you could show that he, along with other employees, were as "immoral" as she allegedly was , she would be in a better position to negotiate a $ettlement with the school board.

[LOL_OMG 130]

Is she governed by a morals clause as a condition of her employment, and does it specifically address sexual behavior conducted in private away from the workplace?

LOL you think any government branch is going to deal with specifics? I once had a union sister admonished because she used the word "shit" in the workplace. I promptly drew up a grievance asking for a list of every word that a person is NOT allowed to say. And I told them to be specific because every word that was not on the list would be said daily and often. They dropped it. They don't like specifics....it binds their hands.

 

I'd ask my daughter, but now that she's landed a high-zoot position with big law firm, she doesn't return my calls.

Don't feel bad, just yesterday I received my mother's day card....