• Arayvenn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    How can they fire her for this? Are they not opening themselves up for a wrongful termination suit since she didn’t do anything illegal or violate the employment agreement?

    • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think this does open them up to a wrongful termination suit. But I also highly suspect the employment agreement listed something vague about ‘a public image that positively reflects on the employer’ or some shit like that. It almost always does for teachers and other workers in schools. Might not hold up in court, but I bet it was in the employment agreement in some form.

  • sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think the following should be discounted:

    She suspects a TikTok video of her in a schoolgirl outfit may have been a particular problem for the district.

    Sexualizing schoolkids by someone that has power in school is a bad look.

    I don’t think we’d be okay with a male teacher/EA sexualizing school uniforms.

      • sbv@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem isn’t (necessarily) the content, the problem is the power differential. A teacher/EA sexualizing students is not ok.

        If she’d avoided school related content, I think this would be a harder conversation.

        As I mentioned elsewhere, EA pay seems to be the root of the issue in this case. She said she’s selling on OnlyFans because she isn’t paid enough. EAs should be paid better.