Teacher Loses Job After Commenting About Students, Parents on Facebook

[CurveLight]

There's a serious misunderstanding of the First Amendment here.

Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want with no consequences whatsoever. Of course there are consequences for what we say. All free speech means is you cannot be prosecuted or muzzled by the government. Period.

When an employee is out disparaging their employer and/or clients in public, especially in writing on something like facebook, it harms the employer and destroys that person's credibility in their position. If an employee is harmful to the employer, the employer can fire them. Free speech has nothing to do with it. Nobody is prosecuting her for saying it, nobody sailed in and censored her facebook page, but she does has to accept the consequences for her actions.

Of course.



Anything else I can do for you this fine morning?

Lol.......you quoted different posts so it's a silly misunderstanding. it does raise questions regarding the 1st amendment and there have been court cases on that specific matter. I'm not saying the employer shouldn't be able to fire based solely on the 1st amendment. There are many laws regulating employment and anti-discrimination for various reasons. I'm not fixed on a position but am simply exploring the implications of being under Company Watch 24/7. I don't like the idea companies can fire people for off-time remarks or actions simply because the company disagrees. It's a borderline obscene invasion of privacy.

We can now add stalking to your list of failures you fucking useless whiny ****.

 

[hipeter924]

Moral of the story: Post something online and its public knowledge.

 

[del]

Lol.......you quoted different posts so it's a silly misunderstanding. it does raise questions regarding the 1st amendment and there have been court cases on that specific matter. I'm not saying the employer shouldn't be able to fire based solely on the 1st amendment. There are many laws regulating employment and anti-discrimination for various reasons. I'm not fixed on a position but am simply exploring the implications of being under Company Watch 24/7. I don't like the idea companies can fire people for off-time remarks or actions simply because the company disagrees. It's a borderline obscene invasion of privacy.

We can now add stalking to your list of failures you fucking useless whiny ****.

 

[ConHog]

if this administrator had done this at my school, I would have voted to fire them to. Without trust a school has nothing.

 

[ConHog]

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks?

Why shouldn't they?

Because an employer does not have an implicit right to fire people because they don't like what they say when they are not at work. That equates to 24/7 speech control.

an employer certainly has the right to fire an employee if the employee is talking shit about their customers in a public manner.

 

[manifold]

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks?

Why shouldn't they?

Because an employer does not have an implicit right to fire people because they don't like what they say when they are not at work. That equates to 24/7 speech control.

I don't follow.

What are you proposing? That by firing the stupid bint for what she posted, a law was broken?

 

[uscitizen]

Posting confidential work info outside of working hours will still get you fired.

 

[jillian]

Facebook Firing: Teacher Loses Job After Commenting About Students, Parents on Facebook - ABC News

Looses job for speaking the truth.

no... for being dumb as toast.

 

[jillian]

Why should an employer be allowed to fire an employee for off-time remarks?

Why shouldn't they?

Because an employer does not have an implicit right to fire people because they don't like what they say when they are not at work. That equates to 24/7 speech control.

actually, in most places people can be fired for any reason or no reason at all as long as it's not for an illegal reason.

you don't have the 'freedom' to say anything you want about your place of employment on the internet.

 

[Zona]

I think other enterprises are also holding their employees accountable for comments made on social websites such as Facebook. Employees spend lots of time on these pages, even during business hours, and it does affect the workplace environment.

On the one hand, this teacher was only being very candid on what she thought was a private environment. It's a matter of opinion whether or not her comments really caused any great embarrassment to the school district since it's very obvious that these were her personal thoughts and opinions. In other words, it's not the same as her going to the news media and sharing these comments.

It isn't a matter of free speech. She can say whatever she wishes. But she's also accountable for what she says. Seems that she fully understands and accepts the consequences of her actions and it's others who do not.

I agree with you.....no, wait!

 

[CurveLight]

Why shouldn't they?

Because an employer does not have an implicit right to fire people because they don't like what they say when they are not at work. That equates to 24/7 speech control.

actually, in most places people can be fired for any reason or no reason at all as long as it's not for an illegal reason.

you don't have the 'freedom' to say anything you want about your place of employment on the internet.

I'm well aware of that. What I am asking is if it should be permissible to fire people for off-duty comments/actions that are not illegal. I remember an older case where a nurse was fired from a hospital after it was revealed she had a hobby of posting nude pics of herself on the web. It was completely legal and had absolutely no connection to the hospital nor did she say she was a nurse or where she worked. Yet, the hospital was able to fire her. I'm not sure that is a sound doctrine because employers do not have the right to be the moral police for their employees.

 

[CurveLight]

Here's a case where a woman was fired from a bank for being too sexy.
Debrahlee Lorenzana (PICTURES) Fired for Being Too Sexy? - Crimesider - CBS News


(If I was a lawyer I'd gladly represent her pro-boner.)

 

[Toome]

Here's a case where a woman was fired from a bank for being too sexy.
Debrahlee Lorenzana (PICTURES) Fired for Being Too Sexy? - Crimesider - CBS News


(If I was a lawyer I'd gladly represent her pro-boner.)

I'll have to study the pictures a little more closely, during the late evening hours so that others don't disturb my concentration, before I could offer a more solid opinion.

 

[Samson]

LOL
Guts or stupidity?

Amazingly fine line there.......

 

[Samson]

You don't

No, I think you have a certain responsibility to your employer and your employer has the discretion to fire you if you fail to uphold that responsibility. She acknowledged herself that being fired was the appropriate result of her mistake.

You think people should not be allowed to voice their opinion. without fear of losing their job.

It sounds like the public servant feared KEEPING her job:

The comment about the parents stemmed from "political activity" between the teachers' union, the administrators, the school committee and parents, she said.

"It's caused a very stressful year for every administrator, not just me. And it's made it a very caustic place to work," Talvitie-Siple said. "[It's] a product of a lot of frustration and angst about whether I should leave or not."

If "political activity" in a school system causes you to think its a "very causic place," then you need to find another job.

 

[Toome]

Because an employer does not have an implicit right to fire people because they don't like what they say when they are not at work. That equates to 24/7 speech control.

actually, in most places people can be fired for any reason or no reason at all as long as it's not for an illegal reason.

you don't have the 'freedom' to say anything you want about your place of employment on the internet.

I'm well aware of that. What I am asking is if it should be permissible to fire people for off-duty comments/actions that are not illegal. I remember an older case where a nurse was fired from a hospital after it was revealed she had a hobby of posting nude pics of herself on the web. It was completely legal and had absolutely no connection to the hospital nor did she say she was a nurse or where she worked. Yet, the hospital was able to fire her. I'm not sure that is a sound doctrine because employers do not have the right to be the moral police for their employees.

This is certainly one of those slippery slope arguments. At the one end, you have the case when someone is disclosing proprietary or other similarly protected information over the internet. That one is a no-brainer: employees with access to that type of information usually have to either sign an acknowledgment or are given some sort of advisement that the information is protected and cannot be disclosed without proper authorization, etc.

On the other hand, you have the case of the individual who is on her own time, in the privacy of her own home, who is on a web page that she's paid for (in terms of internet service provider even if the web site is free), who "lets her hair down" by sharing her private thoughts. Is she still in the clear as long as she doesn't reveal where she actually works? (i.e. "I'm a school teacher" vs. "I'm a school teacher at Coahasset High School.") Or does the fact that someone else who accesses that website may recognize her have anything to do with it.

As for the comments themselves, not so sure they're that inflammatory. I mean, name any teacher across the country who doesn't at least have similar thoughts whether or not they admit them. I see these as typical teacher gripes, and it shouldn't be any great shock to anyone who reads them. Now if she was gossiping about which teachers are sleeping together, revealing what the principal really thinks about parents, etc., then perhaps, maybe, possibly this could be something along the lines of libel and slander.

However, some businesses do have a "catch-all" clause in their contracts that require employees to behave within certain limits that do not reflect negatively on the company. I don't know how valid these are; however, it's usually a matter of the employee's signature that make the contract binding even if it's something as nebulous as doing something someone else believes would embarrass or cast a negative image on the corporation/business/enterprise/company/organization.

It's not so much speech control as it is a matter of an employee agreeing to follow certain policies. As you point out, you are free to say anything you want. No law prevents that. However, there are always consequences to saying anything you want. I think she could probably sue the school district, but at what price? Perhaps, maybe she would win the lawsuit, but no other school districts in the state would probably hire her.

 

[Samson]

I think she could probably sue the school district, but at what price? Perhaps, maybe she would win the lawsuit, but no other school districts in the state would probably hire her.

She was asked to resign: Not Fired.

This is often the route school districts will follow because firing a teacher (or administrator) often involves a long, public, and expensive process, that might not end in their favor, in which case other bureaucratic heads will roll.

Most teachers, a rather naive group of mainly young men and women, don't realise this, immediately resign, and perpetuate the fait accompli. In reality, if they show the slightest backbone, and negotiate with the district, they could often walk away with a year's pay.

 

[Toome]

I think she could probably sue the school district, but at what price? Perhaps, maybe she would win the lawsuit, but no other school districts in the state would probably hire her.

She was asked to resign: Not Fired.

This is often the route school districts will follow because firing a teacher (or administrator) often involves a long, public, and expensive process, that might not end in their favor, in which case other bureaucratic heads will roll.

Most teachers, a rather naive group of mainly young men and women, don't realise this, immediately resign, and perpetuate the fait accompli. In reality, if they show the slightest backbone, and negotiate with the district, they could often walk away with a year's pay.

I think, given her age and tenure in the workforce, she could afford to quit. Who knows, maybe there's a book deal out there for her? But I agree with your assessment: teachers are generally rather naive about hard knocks.

 

[Conspiracist]

I see this as an honest mistake. If she truly believed she was making these remarks in the privacy of her circle of friends then it should be forgiven if she offers up an apology. If she is too stubborn to offer up apologies then she is not better than the people she described.

 

[Samson]

I think she could probably sue the school district, but at what price? Perhaps, maybe she would win the lawsuit, but no other school districts in the state would probably hire her.

She was asked to resign: Not Fired.

This is often the route school districts will follow because firing a teacher (or administrator) often involves a long, public, and expensive process, that might not end in their favor, in which case other bureaucratic heads will roll.

Most teachers, a rather naive group of mainly young men and women, don't realise this, immediately resign, and perpetuate the fait accompli. In reality, if they show the slightest backbone, and negotiate with the district, they could often walk away with a year's pay.

I think, given her age and tenure in the workforce, she could afford to quit. Who knows, maybe there's a book deal out there for her? But I agree with your assessment: teachers are generally rather naive about hard knocks.

She says something about her "Ruined Career."

Educators retirement packages vary from state to state: Whether or not she can afford to quit depends, as it does for most educators, on what their spouce is doing, or has done, and what their expenses will be. At 54, she's losing about 15 years of productivity.