http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/02/texas-teacher-resa-woodward-sacked-after-whistleblower-reveals-porn-past-report
I'm not sure why her being an ex porn star is legal reason to be fired from her current teaching job. Thoughts?
(PS--I've yet to look up her films, but I will.)
Seems pretty shitty to me. Yeah.
Being actively involved in adult films? Sure.
12+ years ago, and she denounces the business? No.
From a parents perspective: One the one hand stop being a prude, on the other morals and what not. Plus it'd be hard to be an authority figure to kids once they've all looked up your videos on line?
But i'm not a parent so... null vote?
I'm with Hilarious.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2017, 01:35:04 PM
Being actively involved in adult films? Sure.
12+ years ago, and she denounces the business? No.
Is it that important that she denounces the business?
Btw, interesting first couple of paragraphs. :lol:
QuoteLong before Resa Woodward landed a job teaching at an all-girls academy in Texas, the 38-year-old frequented a very different all-girl environment.
Woodward featured in more than a dozen all-girl sex scenes during her pornography days.
Quote from: HVC on February 02, 2017, 01:35:27 PM
Plus it'd be hard to be an authority figure to kids once they've all looked up your videos on line?
Well that's her problem.
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2017, 01:51:20 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 02, 2017, 01:35:27 PM
Plus it'd be hard to be an authority figure to kids once they've all looked up your videos on line?
Well that's her problem.
But then it effects her efficiency as a teacher.
But I don't want to discourage people from getting into porn, cause more boobies is good boobies.
Quote from: The Larch on February 02, 2017, 01:47:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2017, 01:35:04 PM
Being actively involved in adult films? Sure.
12+ years ago, and she denounces the business? No.
Is it that important that she denounces the business?
Well the school is relying on a "good character" clause in her contract to terminate her. Certainly her current attitude towards porn is more important than her actions a decade ago. As a parent I'd be much MORE upset about a teacher who goes "pornography is awesome! You should totally try and get into the business", than one who had made some movies in the early oughts but now talks about the failings of porn.
Quote
Btw, interesting first couple of paragraphs. :lol:
QuoteLong before Resa Woodward landed a job teaching at an all-girls academy in Texas, the 38-year-old frequented a very different all-girl environment.
Woodward featured in more than a dozen all-girl sex scenes during her pornography days.
Ah, the Sun chain. Never change, Sun chain. :hug:
Quote from: HVC on February 02, 2017, 01:53:48 PM
But then it effects her efficiency as a teacher.
Maybe she is really good and it doesn't faze her. Who knows?
Quotethan one who had made some movies in the early oughts but now talks about the failings of porn.
There you go. Maybe a teachable moment.
Don't become a slave to some evil industry. Make your own at home and post it on pornhub.
I used to read the sun. it was more convenient to read on the subway (the star is too "foldy" and ungainly). But then they put in wifi so I read stuff on my phone.
No. It's a stupid knee-jerk decision.
There is exactly zero evidence provided in the article that her former career impacted her abilities as a teacher in any way. Rather, she was "outed" by some busybody to the school board, apparently in revenge for her "outing" of a drunk driver to the cops.
In short, she is being "punished" via internet troll shaming for displaying civic mindedness and supporting the work of the police. A wonderful message for the kids!
No
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 01:58:10 PM
No. It's a stupid knee-jerk decision.
There is exactly zero evidence provided in the article that her former career impacted her abilities as a teacher in any way. Rather, she was "outed" by some busybody to the school board, apparently in revenge for her "outing" of a drunk driver to the cops.
In short, she is being "punished" via internet troll shaming for displaying civic mindedness and supporting the work of the police. A wonderful message for the kids!
That's not the argument being made. Rather that, now that she has been outed, it will impact her performance.
Quote from: HVC on February 02, 2017, 01:57:12 PM
I used to read the sun. it was more convenient to read on the subway (the star is too "foldy" and ungainly). But then they put in wifi so I read stuff on my phone.
I used to work for the Winnipeg Sun. My dad got me a job - total nepotism. :shifty:
And they put in WiFi on your subway? I am officially jealous. :mad: My commute is half-underground, and half-aboveground, so I have to pull out my phone only when I'm halfway home.
Quote from: Josephus on February 02, 2017, 01:32:41 PM
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/02/texas-teacher-resa-woodward-sacked-after-whistleblower-reveals-porn-past-report
I'm not sure why her being an ex porn star is legal reason to be fired from her current teaching job. Thoughts?
(PS--I've yet to look up her films, but I will.)
No she should not be fired for something non criminal that happenned before her years as teacher.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2017, 02:07:12 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 02, 2017, 01:57:12 PM
I used to read the sun. it was more convenient to read on the subway (the star is too "foldy" and ungainly). But then they put in wifi so I read stuff on my phone.
I used to work for the Winnipeg Sun. My dad got me a job - total nepotism. :shifty:
And they put in WiFi on your subway? I am officially jealous. :mad: My commute is half-underground, and half-aboveground, so I have to pull out my phone only when I'm halfway home.
Yeah, most stations have it now, but only stations so you have to time it to load your pages at the stops to read in the tunnels :D. Better than nothing though.
Quote from: HVC on February 02, 2017, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2017, 02:07:12 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 02, 2017, 01:57:12 PM
I used to read the sun. it was more convenient to read on the subway (the star is too "foldy" and ungainly). But then they put in wifi so I read stuff on my phone.
I used to work for the Winnipeg Sun. My dad got me a job - total nepotism. :shifty:
And they put in WiFi on your subway? I am officially jealous. :mad: My commute is half-underground, and half-aboveground, so I have to pull out my phone only when I'm halfway home.
Yeah, most stations have it now, but only stations so you have to time it to load your pages at the stops to read in the tunnels :D. Better than nothing though.
Ah - we have that then. I find it less that effective though.
Quote from: HVC on February 02, 2017, 01:35:27 PM
Plus it'd be hard to be an authority figure to kids once they've all looked up your videos on line?
I don't see why. Kids look at all kind of nasty stuff by themselves, much worst than fake lesbians making out in front of a camera.
If the subject comes, she can chose to discss about it, share her experience, talk of the downside of doing porn. It might be a warning to young girls who could otherwise be tempted by prostitution or pornography as a way to make some easy money. Better it comes from the horse mouth than from an old nun who never met a man.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2017, 02:05:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 01:58:10 PM
No. It's a stupid knee-jerk decision.
There is exactly zero evidence provided in the article that her former career impacted her abilities as a teacher in any way. Rather, she was "outed" by some busybody to the school board, apparently in revenge for her "outing" of a drunk driver to the cops.
In short, she is being "punished" via internet troll shaming for displaying civic mindedness and supporting the work of the police. A wonderful message for the kids!
That's not the argument being made. Rather that, now that she has been outed, it will impact her performance.
It's hard to tell from a tabloid article, but they specifically cite a "good character" clause.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2017, 02:05:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 01:58:10 PM
No. It's a stupid knee-jerk decision.
There is exactly zero evidence provided in the article that her former career impacted her abilities as a teacher in any way. Rather, she was "outed" by some busybody to the school board, apparently in revenge for her "outing" of a drunk driver to the cops.
In short, she is being "punished" via internet troll shaming for displaying civic mindedness and supporting the work of the police. A wonderful message for the kids!
That's not the argument being made. Rather that, now that she has been outed, it will impact her performance.
There is no evidence provided that it will impact her ability to teach in the future. Only supposition. Moreover, supposition based on some busybody making her former career generally known - given that she was only "outed" to the School Board. That the School Board then fired her and touted her porn star past as a reason of course made it generally known, but they didn't have to do that.
In short, the allegation is that someone will take the time to tell the kids in her classes that she was a former porn star, and that because of this, she will no longer be capable of being an effective teacher. Neither of these events were certain to happen. It seems very silly to assert this as a reason for pre-emptively firing her.
The alleged reason for her termination is a "good character" clause. It is just ironic that she is in this situation for, basically, showing good character *now*.
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 02:16:42 PM
There is no evidence provided that it will impact her ability to teach in the future. Only supposition. Moreover, supposition based on some busybody making her former career generally known - given that she was only "outed" to the School Board. That the School Board then fired her and touted her porn star past as a reason of course made it generally known, but they didn't have to do that.
In short, the allegation is that someone will take the time to tell the kids in her classes that she was a former porn star, and that because of this, she will no longer be capable of being an effective teacher. Neither of these events were certain to happen. It seems very silly to assert this as a reason for pre-emptively firing her.
The alleged reason for her termination is a "good character" clause. It is just ironic that she is in this situation for, basically, showing good character *now*.
Of course there's no evidence provided. She hasn't taught in the future yet.
she doesn't need to take the time to tell her students. her students will know now that it's public. how it affects her performance is students not respecting her. it's more difficult for a student to learn from a teacher she doesn't respect
Just like the similar situation a couple years ago, I feel bad for her but she can't be as effective as a teacher with this hanging over her head. Perhaps a more progressive school district in California would hire her.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 02, 2017, 02:30:27 PM
she doesn't need to take the time to tell her students. her students will know now that it's public. how it affects her performance is students not respecting her. it's more difficult for a student to learn from a teacher she doesn't respect
I don't know about that. In high school there were teachers we didn't respect - but they were still teachers. Maybe you snigger behind their back, but you still did what they told because they could still give you detention or give you a low grade.
You respect the position, not the person.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2017, 02:42:42 PMI don't know about that. In high school there were teachers we didn't respect - but they were still teachers. Maybe you snigger behind their back, but you still did what they told because they could still give you detention or give you a low grade.
You respect the position, not the person.
I'm willing to change it to "for some students, it's difficult for her to learn from a teacher she doesn't respect." but, I think it's true that for at least the vast majority of people, it's in some measure more difficult to learn from someone they don't respect.
Look, if a teacher is ineffective because they are just not a very good teacher, or because they nobody respects them because they keep going on about how awesome Trump is, that is fine.
If there is a possibility that someone might not respect a woman because of something to do with sex, but only if the people responsible for firing her actually make that knowledge public, then clearly she needs to be fired, and said information made public as justification for the firing.
I didn't respect any of my teachers, and none of them did porn. :P
see barrister, berkut doesn't learn from people he doesn't respect. exhibit A :ccr
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 02, 2017, 02:57:28 PM
I didn't respect any of my teachers, and none of them did porn. :P
... as far as you know.
I'm all for the "the past is the past," but society isn't all for that -- see felons getting screwed. being a part of society is expecting to (or at least dealing with) lose out on opportunities by doing certain things that society condemns
I watched a documentary recently about former porn stars. (After Porn). There were a couple of them quite upset that no matter what they do, their past always haunts them and they can't get past it.
It's easy to sit here and say that the school should keep her because she's reformed, and that is certainly my view.
But you can see the school's point of view too. They will undoubtedly get calls and complaints from parents, especially in Texas, who don't want a porn star, reformed or not, to teach their children.
Tough call in the end. I guess it depends exactly on the wording of the behaviour clause.
I don't buy the idea that there is the "schools point of view" in this case.
The *only* reason she was outed was because THEY outed her!
They can't claim that they are firing her for a perception that only exists because they fired her!
If they had any integrity, they would have quietly dismissed the information out of hand, and refused to comment on it on the grounds that it was protected and confidential information.
Then if someone else outed her, she could simply refuse to comment, and nobody would even really know that is was necessarily her at all.
And if particular parents find out and decide to send their kids to some other school, so be it. Some parents have irrational hang ups, and don't want their kids taught or around all kinds of people. I don't think a school, unless it is specifically sold on some attribute, should cater to irrational prejudices of any potential parents.
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2017, 01:55:20 PM
Well the school is relying on a "good character" clause in her contract to terminate her. Certainly her current attitude towards porn is more important than her actions a decade ago. As a parent I'd be much MORE upset about a teacher who goes "pornography is awesome! You should totally try and get into the business", than one who had made some movies in the early oughts but now talks about the failings of porn.
Umm, there's surely middle ground between denouncing porn and extolling the virtues of porn. I don't think she should be saying anything about porn to students.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2017, 02:19:13 PM
Of course there's no evidence provided. She hasn't taught in the future yet.
So maybe people should not be fired for possible events that may happen in the future.
[Typical Languish response]
I depends how good the porn was.
[/Typical Languish response]
:P
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 03:41:39 PM
So maybe people should not be fired for possible events that may happen in the future.
Such as a very stoned train operator who hasn't crashed yet?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2017, 03:48:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 03:41:39 PM
So maybe people should not be fired for possible events that may happen in the future.
Such as a very stoned train operator who hasn't crashed yet?
A stoned train operator is doing something worthy of being fired for *right now*. Namely, being stoned while operating a train.
Not a very good analogy.
Nice one marti
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2017, 03:48:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 03:41:39 PM
So maybe people should not be fired for possible events that may happen in the future.
Such as a very stoned train operator who hasn't crashed yet?
People rarely die for having slightly less respect for their teacher so probably not a real applicable comparison.
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 03:53:11 PM
A stoned train operator is doing something worthy of being fired for *right now*. Namely, being stoned while operating a train.
Not a very good analogy.
And the teacher is in violation of her morals clause *right now.*
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2017, 03:58:57 PM
And the teacher is in violation of her morals clause *right now.*
As you are a person for sure to be terminated if a morals clause was ever introduced to your employment I guess I have to defer to you in this case.
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2017, 04:08:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2017, 03:58:57 PM
And the teacher is in violation of her morals clause *right now.*
As you are a person for sure to be terminated if a morals clause was ever introduced to your employment I guess I have to defer to you in this case.
Meow!
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2017, 04:11:24 PM
Meow!
What? He knows it. There are croutons less square than me. So if he knows that this should get somebody fired who am I to argue?
Dang Valmy :o
Was that wrong? Should I have not done that?
Quote from: Josephus on February 02, 2017, 03:02:03 PM
I watched a documentary recently about former porn stars. (After Porn). There were a couple of them quite upset that no matter what they do, their past always haunts them and they can't get past it.
It's easy to sit here and say that the school should keep her because she's reformed, and that is certainly my view.
Oh Jesus fucking Christ.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 02, 2017, 05:16:12 PM
Quote from: Josephus on February 02, 2017, 03:02:03 PM
I watched a documentary recently about former porn stars. (After Porn). There were a couple of them quite upset that no matter what they do, their past always haunts them and they can't get past it.
It's easy to sit here and say that the school should keep her because she's reformed, and that is certainly my view.
Oh Jesus fucking Christ.
JOSEPHUS!
Quote from: garbon on February 02, 2017, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2017, 01:55:20 PM
Well the school is relying on a "good character" clause in her contract to terminate her. Certainly her current attitude towards porn is more important than her actions a decade ago. As a parent I'd be much MORE upset about a teacher who goes "pornography is awesome! You should totally try and get into the business", than one who had made some movies in the early oughts but now talks about the failings of porn.
Umm, there's surely middle ground between denouncing porn and extolling the virtues of porn. I don't think she should be saying anything about porn to students.
Yeah, while I'm sure there are many other issues that deserve discussion, it seems like the major downside to doing porn, after you're out, is all the people who are committed to making damned well and sure there will be a downside to doing porn.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 02, 2017, 05:16:12 PM
Quote from: Josephus on February 02, 2017, 03:02:03 PM
I watched a documentary recently about former porn stars. (After Porn). There were a couple of them quite upset that no matter what they do, their past always haunts them and they can't get past it.
It's easy to sit here and say that the school should keep her because she's reformed, and that is certainly my view.
Oh Jesus fucking Christ.
:hmm:
So, em, I've heard all her movies are on the streaming site AEBN
She wasn't a drug dealer or a for hire assassin. She is not reformed, she never needed it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2017, 03:58:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 03:53:11 PM
A stoned train operator is doing something worthy of being fired for *right now*. Namely, being stoned while operating a train.
Not a very good analogy.
And the teacher is in violation of her morals clause *right now.*
But that's not what you said the argument was. If I recall, it was "Rather that, now that she has been outed, it will impact her performance."
However, assuming you are now advancing an alternative argument, I disagree with it.
I don't agree that 'having once done porn' is likely to be a violation of her morals clause, for two reasons.
The first, that such clauses tend to be drafted to be prospective, not retrospective - as in "you can't do anything that would put your character in doubt, *after* signing this contract', rather than 'you hereby agree we can fire you if we find you have done anything *before* signing this contract that puts your character in doubt". They *can* be drafted to be retrospective, depending on state laws, but it is more unusual.
For example, in the entertainment industry: http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/keep-your-pants-on-the-morals-clause-in-performer-contracts
Note that only the third example is "retrospective" (and, interestingly enough, deals specifically with having performed in porn!).
The second, that even assuming such a clause is drafted so as to be retrospective, doing porn, assuming it is legal porn, doesn't put your character in doubt under a broadly-worded morals clause, any more than using porn does. If using porn puts one's character in doubt, then a goodly percentage of the teaching staff would be vulnerable to being fired after a search of their Internet histories.
Of course it is only possible to do a complete analysis with the actual language of the clause in question. I very much doubt it is a narrowly-worded clause that specifically states that having done porn is verboten, as in the article:
QuoteThere are two even more expansive ways to approach morals clauses. One is to expand the clause by identifying particular infringements – I'm just going to lift this language from Drew's post, since it so nicely illustrates the concept:
"Artist shall never (a) provide services in an 'adult-themed' film or video program or perform onscreen services for any film or video program that is pornographic, involves nudity or graphic violence or contains material derogatory of any race, nationality, ethnic identity, gender or sexual orientation; (b) perform in any sexually explicit plays, musicals or stage shows (including strip tease acts); or (c) pose as a model for any pornographic or sexually suggestive publication; furthermore, Artist represents and warrants that Artist has never participated or been a part of any activity that would fall within the scope of (a), (b) or (c)."
That's nice and clear: you get involved in any "adult entertainment" activities, and you're out – and we're not going to debate whether such activities constitute a "scandal" or are "shocking".
This is the sort of language the school board would need, not to have a legal fight on its hands: clearly retrospective and clearly identifies having done porn as prohibited, with the employee "representing and warranting" they have never done porn. My guess is that it is unlikely they have it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2017, 03:58:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 03:53:11 PM
A stoned train operator is doing something worthy of being fired for *right now*. Namely, being stoned while operating a train.
Not a very good analogy.
And the teacher is in violation of her morals clause *right now.*
Which morals clause is that? I don't think you are reading it correctly, but go ahead and link me up.
I mean, you wouldn't pull something like this out of your ass, would you?
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2017, 04:14:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 02, 2017, 04:11:24 PM
Meow!
What? He knows it. There are croutons less square than me. So if he knows that this should get somebody fired who am I to argue?
He is saying that he has read her contract, and that the moral clause in it forbids her from being a teacher for more than 14 years if she has ever appeared without clothing as an actress in a movie.
That's the standard clause, so his contention is certainly tenable.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 02, 2017, 07:09:04 PM
She wasn't a drug dealer or a for hire assassin. She is not reformed, she never needed it.
she was a porn star...I stand by my usage of the word.
I dunno...it may have been a long time ago, and completely unrelated to her ability to teach...but it compromises her ability to be an authority figure in the classroom.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 02, 2017, 08:19:11 PM
I dunno...it may have been a long time ago, and completely unrelated to her ability to teach...but it compromises her ability to be an authority figure in the classroom.
Stop. :lol:
Quote from: Josephus on February 02, 2017, 07:57:46 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 02, 2017, 07:09:04 PM
She wasn't a drug dealer or a for hire assassin. She is not reformed, she never needed it.
she was a porn star...I stand by my usage of the word.
That's okay. There are a lot of people who think that one needs to be "reformed" if one has ever been involved with anything that involved sex. I don't think it is hangup from which reform is possible.
Sure, why not.
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 02:16:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2017, 02:05:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 01:58:10 PM
No. It's a stupid knee-jerk decision.
There is exactly zero evidence provided in the article that her former career impacted her abilities as a teacher in any way. Rather, she was "outed" by some busybody to the school board, apparently in revenge for her "outing" of a drunk driver to the cops.
In short, she is being "punished" via internet troll shaming for displaying civic mindedness and supporting the work of the police. A wonderful message for the kids!
That's not the argument being made. Rather that, now that she has been outed, it will impact her performance.
There is no evidence provided that it will impact her ability to teach in the future. Only supposition. Moreover, supposition based on some busybody making her former career generally known - given that she was only "outed" to the School Board. That the School Board then fired her and touted her porn star past as a reason of course made it generally known, but they didn't have to do that.
In short, the allegation is that someone will take the time to tell the kids in her classes that she was a former porn star, and that because of this, she will no longer be capable of being an effective teacher. Neither of these events were certain to happen. It seems very silly to assert this as a reason for pre-emptively firing her.
The alleged reason for her termination is a "good character" clause. It is just ironic that she is in this situation for, basically, showing good character *now*.
Agreed.
Probably paid for her college.
Just did some homework. The article sounded to me like she just did lesbo porn, but she did straight scenes as well. You're welcome people.
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2017, 09:31:20 PM
Just did some homework. The article sounded to me like she just did lesbo porn, but she did straight scenes as well. You're welcome people.
She's a sinner
A soiled dove.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 02, 2017, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 02, 2017, 08:19:11 PM
I dunno...it may have been a long time ago, and completely unrelated to her ability to teach...but it compromises her ability to be an authority figure in the classroom.
Stop. :lol:
How do you expect her to take control of those disruptive girls? To maintain strict discipline over her students? She would be at their mercy.
I don't see a reason for her to be fired. I wouldn't have had a problem with someone with a former porn life teaching my kids unless they did specifically teen porn or something. It's not illegal, she broke no laws, and it's from over a decade ago.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 02, 2017, 10:19:42 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 02, 2017, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 02, 2017, 08:19:11 PM
I dunno...it may have been a long time ago, and completely unrelated to her ability to teach...but it compromises her ability to be an authority figure in the classroom.
Stop. :lol:
How do you expect her to take control of those disruptive girls? To maintain strict discipline over her students? She would be at their mercy.
See Mery's post.
I don't think the fact that she now denounces porn should have any bearing on her employment status. Of course she would denounce it when faced with job loss. There needs to be proof that she was seeking forgiveness before the whole thing blew up in her face.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 02, 2017, 10:36:48 PM
See Mery's post.
Mery has magnificent ta-tas that would be at the mercy of disruptive schoolgirls.
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2017, 10:39:42 PM
I don't think the fact that she now denounces porn should have any bearing on her employment status. Of course she would denounce it when faced with job loss. There needs to be proof that she was seeking forgiveness before the whole thing blew up in her face.
Why would that matter?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 02, 2017, 10:40:04 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 02, 2017, 10:36:48 PM
See Mery's post.
Mery has magnificent ta-tas that would be at the mercy of disruptive schoolgirls.
There would be no disruptive schoolgirls in my classroom. :mad:
Quote from: merithyn on February 02, 2017, 10:45:57 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 02, 2017, 10:40:04 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 02, 2017, 10:36:48 PM
See Mery's post.
Mery has magnificent ta-tas that would be at the mercy of disruptive schoolgirls.
There would be no disruptive schoolgirls in my classroom. :mad:
BRB
A difficult situation for the school to be put in. A better response might have been a suspension to see if it would be feasible to bring her back at some point later (assuming they actually wanted to keep her around and weren't considering getting rid of her before this).
Quote from: 11B4V on February 02, 2017, 10:40:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2017, 10:39:42 PM
I don't think the fact that she now denounces porn should have any bearing on her employment status. Of course she would denounce it when faced with job loss. There needs to be proof that she was seeking forgiveness before the whole thing blew up in her face.
Why would that matter?
It's easy to confess, apologize, and ask forgiveness
after you've been caught at something. It can make it simple for people to assume that you're really only sorry that you got caught. I'm not saying that such apologizes are necessarily insincere, just that they can have that appearance.
I don't think that she should have been fired, but the school was probably within its rights to do so.
Apologize for what, exactly?
For being a dirty wanton whore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 02, 2017, 11:48:53 PM
For being a dirty wanton whore.
Ah, religious prueds. Explains all.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 02, 2017, 10:40:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2017, 10:39:42 PM
I don't think the fact that she now denounces porn should have any bearing on her employment status. Of course she would denounce it when faced with job loss. There needs to be proof that she was seeking forgiveness before the whole thing blew up in her face.
Why would that matter?
I don't know, ask someone who believes the stupid shit I wrote.
QuoteShe revealed on Facebook last year that she called cops on an alleged drunk driver.
A stranger took issue with Woodward's vigilantism and chronicled her porno past on social media – which eventually led to an unidentified whistleblower notifying the district.
Now, even with the ocean of information out there on teh intrawebs, it would still take substantial time and effort to connect the dots between a teacher in Texas and her lesbian porn identity under a different name well over a decade ago. I just don't see how you can spend all that time and effort to uncover a woman's porno past and get her fired.
I mean, without blackmailing her first.
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder545/68988545.jpg)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 02, 2017, 11:48:53 PM
For being a dirty wanton whore.
Somebody has to be teachers. :P
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2017, 10:39:42 PM
I don't think the fact that she now denounces porn should have any bearing on her employment status. Of course she would denounce it when faced with job loss. There needs to be proof that she was seeking forgiveness before the whole thing blew up in her face.
Seedy does satire much better than you.
grumbler's school found out he had done porn, but they gambled nobody would bother turning the hand crank to watch it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 03, 2017, 07:49:15 AM
grumbler's school found out he had done porn, but they gambled nobody would bother turning the hand crank to watch it.
It was in black and black, because the color white hadn't been invented yet.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2017, 07:50:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 03, 2017, 07:49:15 AM
grumbler's school found out he had done porn, but they gambled nobody would bother turning the hand crank to watch it.
It was in black and black, because the color white hadn't been invented yet.
racist
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2017, 07:34:36 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 02, 2017, 10:39:42 PM
I don't think the fact that she now denounces porn should have any bearing on her employment status. Of course she would denounce it when faced with job loss. There needs to be proof that she was seeking forgiveness before the whole thing blew up in her face.
Seedy does satire much better than you.
:( I was on chantix.
Quote from: Josephus on February 02, 2017, 03:02:03 PM
But you can see the school's point of view too. They will undoubtedly get calls and complaints from parents, especially in Texas, who don't want a porn star, reformed or not, to teach their children.
They would get calls and complaints from parents if she was a real lesbian too. Should they fire her then?
Parent protests is not a valid excuse for discrimination.
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 03:53:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2017, 03:48:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 03:41:39 PM
So maybe people should not be fired for possible events that may happen in the future.
Such as a very stoned train operator who hasn't crashed yet?
A stoned train operator is doing something worthy of being fired for *right now*. Namely, being stoned while operating a train.
Not a very good analogy.
depends. He could claim it's a disease (addiction) and then he could be protected against discrimination by the Charter of Rights of Liberties. The Montreal bus driver union is defending one of its members on this ground. he shouldn't have been fired because he was an alcoholic and it's a disease.
It's a Texas school board. Why are we treating this as though reason matters?
Quote from: Maximus on February 03, 2017, 09:58:49 AM
It's a Texas school board. Why are we treating this as though reason matters?
because not everyone in Texas is fucked up? We have a fine example of a normal human being here.
Of course the teacher should be fired. Just as if a teacher is outed as an octoroon and can no longer be an effective teacher in that country.
You're an octoroon.
Quote from: merithyn on February 02, 2017, 11:41:16 PM
Apologize for what, exactly?
Whatever it is that DGuller thought she needed to seek forgiveness for.
Quote from: viper37 on February 03, 2017, 09:23:56 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 03:53:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 02, 2017, 03:48:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 02, 2017, 03:41:39 PM
So maybe people should not be fired for possible events that may happen in the future.
Such as a very stoned train operator who hasn't crashed yet?
A stoned train operator is doing something worthy of being fired for *right now*. Namely, being stoned while operating a train.
Not a very good analogy.
depends. He could claim it's a disease (addiction) and then he could be protected against discrimination by the Charter of Rights of Liberties. The Montreal bus driver union is defending one of its members on this ground. he shouldn't have been fired because he was an alcoholic and it's a disease.
It's the US, not Canada, and I'm not sure that it's been thoroughly tested out in court, but as I understand it the prevail thought is that under the ADA, you can't fire someone for being an alcoholic, but you can fire them for drinking on the job or being under the influence on the job. Being an alcoholic is a disease, but being drunk at work is a behavior.
Quote from: dps on February 03, 2017, 06:38:48 PM
It's the US, not Canada, and I'm not sure that it's been thoroughly tested out in court, but as I understand it the prevail thought is that under the ADA, you can't fire someone for being an alcoholic, but you can fire them for drinking on the job or being under the influence on the job. Being an alcoholic is a disease, but being drunk at work is a behavior.
So US law treats a person with a disease and a person who does not the same - all that matters is whether they are under the influence on the job?
Here what would occur is the person would be told that they could not work until they underwent treatment to deal with the addiction so that they could return to the job once they were medically cleared to be able to do so. If they drink on the job after that then it is no longer a medical issue and they would be fired.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 03, 2017, 07:43:49 PM
So US law treats a person with a disease and a person who does not the same - all that matters is whether they are under the influence on the job?
I'm not sure what this means, but if you are asking whether, under US law, a person with a disease or disability is treated the same as a person without a disease or disability, the answer is no.
A person who is intoxicated on the job could almost certainly be fired (union rules or local contracts make this somewhat open), whether they are an alcoholic or not. If they are in a position where intoxication is specifically banned by contract (airline pilots, say, or heavy equipment operators) they almost certainly would be fired, alcoholic or not, for liability reasons.
QuoteHere what would occur is the person would be told that they could not work until they underwent treatment to deal with the addiction so that they could return to the job once they were medically cleared to be able to do so. If they drink on the job after that then it is no longer a medical issue and they would be fired.
US law does not require the employer to give multiple strikes to employees that violate their employment contracts, even if the employee is an alcoholic. Most employers will, of course, because it is cheaper to treat and retain than it is to replace, but greeters at Wal Mart are probably gone on the first offense.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2017, 07:56:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 03, 2017, 07:43:49 PM
So US law treats a person with a disease and a person who does not the same - all that matters is whether they are under the influence on the job?
I'm not sure what this means, but if you are asking whether, under US law, a person with a disease or disability is treated the same as a person without a disease or disability, the answer is no.
A person who is intoxicated on the job could almost certainly be fired (union rules or local contracts make this somewhat open), whether they are an alcoholic or not. If they are in a position where intoxication is specifically banned by contract (airline pilots, say, or heavy equipment operators) they almost certainly would be fired, alcoholic or not, for liability reasons.
Ok, so the answer is yes. US law treats a person with a disease and a person without a disease the same if they are found under the influence on the job. What is the rationale for the law not giving consideration to the existence of the disease in those circumstances?
QuoteUS law does not require the employer to give multiple strikes to employees that violate their employment contracts, even if the employee is an alcoholic. Most employers will, of course, because it is cheaper to treat and retain than it is to replace, but greeters at Wal Mart are probably gone on the first offense.
It is not a matter of giving an employee "strikes". It is not a game of baseball. Its like saying both the rich and poor are prohibited from sleeping under bridges. Most other jurisdictions abandoned the simplistic breach of contract analysis some time ago. Is it possible that this varies by state or is it Federal?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 03, 2017, 08:18:05 PM
Ok, so the answer is yes. US law treats a person with a disease and a person without a disease the same if they are found under the influence on the job. What is the rationale for the law not giving consideration to the existence of the disease in those circumstances?
Again, you have lost me. Your questions seem aimed at providing the answer you have pre-selected, but they make no real sense. What is "a disease" for the purposes of your question? What is "under the influence?" There certainly are scenarios imaginable in which an employer must make reasonable accommodations for employees who are "under the influence" of some drug or treatment.
Still, you seem to know the answer to the question you are not asking, so i won't pursue this.
QuoteIt is not a matter of giving an employee "strikes". It is not a game of baseball.
:huh: WTF does baseball have to do with this? It seems that your hidden question is more bizarre than i had thought.
QuoteIts like saying both the rich and poor are prohibited from sleeping under bridges. Most other jurisdictions abandoned the simplistic breach of contract analysis some time ago. Is it possible that this varies by state or is it Federal?
You've lost me, again. What does sleeping under bridges have to do with anything, even as a Martiesque analogy? I am unaware of any jurisdiction that dismisses breach of an employment contract cases out of hand or that, for instance, requires an airline to retain a pilot found intoxicated in the cockpit. Most US contract and employment law is state law.
I am sure that, sooner or later, you will reveal both the question and the desired answer that you are driving for here, but I'm afraid I still won't care.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 03, 2017, 08:18:05 PM
Ok, so the answer is yes. US law treats a person with a disease and a person without a disease the same if they are found under the influence on the job. What is the rationale for the law not giving consideration to the existence of the disease in those circumstances?
Well, as I said, there's not a lot of case law under ADA that I'm aware, but the rationale is that you are fired for inappropriate behavior. In general, it's not the employer's problem to figure out why you behaved inappropriately. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
I'm more confused by rationale behind the Canadian process of having the employee receive treatment and then being able to fire them if they drink again afterwards. You can't be cured of an addiction, so if the reasoning is that you can't be fired because of behavior that your addiction caused, why would there be any limit on the number of times you could behave inappropriately and still keep your job?
Quote from: dps on February 03, 2017, 06:13:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 02, 2017, 11:41:16 PM
Apologize for what, exactly?
Whatever it is that DGuller thought she needed to seek forgiveness for.
Thanks, Mr. Redundant. I'm asking what, exactly, DGuller thinks she needs to seek forgiveness for.
Her wicked ways.
Many alcoholics are never drunk at work. You're generally not fired for being an alcoholic, but for being drunk at work.
Quote from: merithyn on February 04, 2017, 08:15:51 PM
Thanks, Mr. Redundant. I'm asking what, exactly, DGuller thinks she needs to seek forgiveness for.
:secret: Guller was being sarcastic.