Teacher Fired for Being in Porn 10 Years Ago

[Spidey13]

http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=4859482

(PADUCAH, Ky.) -- A teacher in western Kentucky has been suspended and will not have her contract renewed after administrators found out she appeared in an adult movie more than a decade ago.

Tericka Dye, a science teacher and volleyball coach at Reidland High School in Paducah for the last two years, was suspended Wednesday and told she would not return to the classroom in the fall.

I mainly wanted to post this since this is where I went to high school! However, I'm sure some serious discussion could come out of it.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it in and of itself, athough I'm sure if the students know about it it could cause some disruption. Any thoughts?

[brodski]

http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=4859482



I mainly wanted to post this since this is where I went to high school! However, I'm sure some serious discussion could come out of it.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it in and of itself, athough I'm sure if the students know about it it could cause some disruption. Any thoughts?
I think this is absolutely outrageous, she did nothing illegal, it's non of her employers business what she did 10 years ago.

[Hagrok]

I think this is absolutely outrageous, she did nothing illegal, it's non of her employers business what she did 10 years ago.
Hell, security clearances don't even go that far back.

[scotth]

I suspect that it will cost PADUCAH a bunch of money to stay on this path.

[shemp]

Based on her picture, this must have been a really bad porn movie.

[uruk]

My wife and I are teachers. Most schools have a "morals" clause that would allow them to suspend or fire any teacher that has conducted themselves in a manner that is not appropriate as a rolemodel for children.

If her previous job became public, the children (and worse, the parents) would be sure to find out. It would embarrass the school district and undermine her authority in the students eyes. I'm sure she would have wound up quiting anyway due to the ridicule.

[HeyLeroy]

Yeah, and the 'perv' school administrator who has her old tape gets no punishment. I guess it's OK to look at porn but not to be in it. Friggin' hypocrites.

[scotth]

Based on her picture, this must have been a really bad porn movie.

Well, it was over a decade ago.....

[Spidey13]

Well, it was over a decade ago.....
And I'm sure most porn actresses aren't all that attractive without the caked-on make-up.

[Dogdoctor]

And I'm sure most porn actresses aren't all that attractive without the caked-on make-up.
Maybe I am getting old or something but take the glasses off and she would look fine to me. As far as the situation goes, hmmm difficult to say. It could be quite disruptive to class if students see the porn video and even if they just hear about it. They are probably worried about teaching kids the wrong message but it seems like not such a big deal to me. If you work in the porn industry then you may have to end up teaching brats like yourselves some day....not a bad message. I wouldn't have much problem with it other than the disruptive effect especially with male students.

[Achán hiNidráne]

My wife and I are teachers. Most schools have a "morals" clause that would allow them to suspend or fire any teacher that has conducted themselves in a manner that is not appropriate as a rolemodel for children.
Tell me, please, why are films featuring humans beings having sex innappropriate?

For this stupidty, we can thank the can the Judeo-Christian religions' stranglehold over Western sexual mores.

[cbish]

Based on her picture, this must have been a really bad porn movie.You've seen a good porn movie?!?

[TragicMonkey]

It could be quite disruptive to class if students see the porn video and even if they just hear about it.

Anything can be and is disruptive to a class of children. My algebra teacher had a hump, and that distracted the class plenty. My physics teacher had a ponytail despite being bald on top, and wore a braided "friendship bracelet". My world history teacher was in her fifties but wore dresses that looked designed for Little Orphan Annie. With ruffled socks. My geometry teacher was the fattest woman in the county, my trig teacher went to tanning salons so much her face was orange except for the outline of her goggles, my Spanish teacher was actually insane and talked to invisible people (after five months in an institution, he stopped talking to them out loud, which was a relief. I didn't mind him addressing invisible people half so much as the pause afterwards when he was listening to them reply), and my tenth grade English teacher had a different hairstyle every single day. All of those things were terrible distractions. But they taught through it, and we either learned or we didn't. Children have such short attention spans and school sucks so hard that considering something "distracting" as grounds for firing would denude all the schools of teachers except for the most boring ones, who are distracting in their very boredom.

[strathmeyer]

You've seen a good porn movie?!?

What? You don't have a video camera? I assure you I'm great.

[uruk]

Tell me, please, why are films featuring humans beings having sex innappropriate?

For this stupidty, we can thank the can the Judeo-Christian religions' stranglehold over Western sexual mores.

I have to agree. Here in the US we think nothing of letting our children view violence, suffering and cruelty, but may god strike us down if one of our kids should see a bare breast on TV. The hypocracy is truely astounding.

The whole point of her removal is that schoolboards are increasingly being run by MBA's and lawyers that are trying to make inroads into local politics. They are more concerned about not getting sued by parents and furthering thier political carreers than the education of our children.
Recently, my wife and I were accosted in a restraunt by a gentleman who was running for the schoolboard. He handed us a card that had a listing all of his crendentials. His history was in various forms of law and law-enforcement, and procurement for the schooldistrict. Nowhere on the list was anything having to with any experiance with education other than having been a student at one time. The same is pretty much that same for the rest of the board members.

[TragicMonkey]

The whole point of her removal is that schoolboards are increasingly being run by MBA's and lawyers that are trying to make inroads into local politics. They are more concerned about not getting sued by parents and furthering thier political carreers than the education of our children.

Then there are the education careerbuilders. We had a superintendent who earned a master's degree, then a PhD on public time and money (the district paid for it) so he could be a better superintendent. He applied for a better paid position based on his increased qualifications before the ink was wet on his diploma and left the district immediately when he got it. What did the next superintendent do? Enrolled in an advanced degree program on the public dime, of course.

[Dogdoctor]

Anything can be and is disruptive to a class of children. My algebra teacher had a hump, and that distracted the class plenty. My physics teacher had a ponytail despite being bald on top, and wore a braided "friendship bracelet". My world history teacher was in her fifties but wore dresses that looked designed for Little Orphan Annie. With ruffled socks. My geometry teacher was the fattest woman in the county, my trig teacher went to tanning salons so much her face was orange except for the outline of her goggles, my Spanish teacher was actually insane and talked to invisible people (after five months in an institution, he stopped talking to them out loud, which was a relief. I didn't mind him addressing invisible people half so much as the pause afterwards when he was listening to them reply), and my tenth grade English teacher had a different hairstyle every single day. All of those things were terrible distractions. But they taught through it, and we either learned or we didn't. Children have such short attention spans and school sucks so hard that considering something "distracting" as grounds for firing would denude all the schools of teachers except for the most boring ones, who are distracting in their very boredom.
Well TM, I bet that the porn thing would be a heck of a lot more distracting to young male students than any of that stuff. On the topic of distractions while I was attending University of Hawaii they banned bikinis in the classroom. It was not that lots of women were wearing them but that when they did it caused much distraction for for a few which then caused distraction for the rest. I sat in the front of the class so I wasn't ever distracted by them so I was unhappy about the change. However I could still slip into class in my surf shorts and teeshirt or even bare chested if I wanted.

[Polaris]

This is what I was talking about when I posted "that's all anyone ever does anymore" on another thread, in response to a (facetious) statement that said "think of the children!"

None of these people really care about the kids - it's all about religious or personal agendas. Some nut got a wild hair in his (or possibly her) culo and ruined an otherwise perfectly good teacher's career for what? I hope the kids at least learn from this episode that people are backstabbing, hypocritical, dirty-fighting thieves and liars, and that there are serious downsides to people who talk a big game about "morals" and "values". Those people tend to be brutal and will plumb new depths forcing their morals on other people - contradiction does not exist in their vocabulary.

I'm gonna go burn a Bible.

[Jon.]

Who told the superintendent she was in a porn movie? And how did they find out, hmmmm?

[hellaeon]

Tell me, please, why are films featuring humans beings having sex innappropriate?

For this stupidty, we can thank the can the Judeo-Christian religions' stranglehold over Western sexual mores.

Amen

[Kiless]

My wife and I are teachers. Most schools have a "morals" clause that would allow them to suspend or fire any teacher that has conducted themselves in a manner that is not appropriate as a rolemodel for children.

If her previous job became public, the children (and worse, the parents) would be sure to find out. It would embarrass the school district and undermine her authority in the students eyes. I'm sure she would have wound up quiting anyway due to the ridicule.

its something that has become more an more prevalent where I work.

We've even got a 'uniform code' on the cards now.

Anyone who doesn't recognise this growing trend towards judgemental 'moral standards in education' are just fooling themselves. i'd have expected maybe a while back a little more respect for this woman and her past; now it;s just another useful 'example' to others, I guess.

[uruk]

Over where my wife works they are forcing teachers to cover any visible tattoos.
They even cast a scorning eye upon pregnant teachers who are unwed. I think they are too afraid of the lawsuits to push it too far but they definitely give the expectant single-mother alot of grief.

[ma1ic3]

"She's not the person she was 10 years ago," Chilcoat said. "We've all done things that we regret, except hers is on tape."

That was the first thing that crossed my mind. I wonder who found out about the video and what was in their hand when they did.

[Kaylee]

I think the decision to keep or fire the teacher/coach should be based on how well she taught and coached the past two years at the school. And OK, since she is a teacher, based on whether she broke any major taboos over those past two years as well.

The article said that 10 years ago she was broke, homeless, had an untreated bipolar disorder, and no job skills (OK, I am making an educated guess that she had no job skills and no family either for that matter). Yet she managed to totally turn her life around. I don't know what that superintendant's problem is -- she sounds like a good role model to me. I don't think most people would be strong enough to accomplish what she did, considering her past circumstances.

[slight derail] I wonder if someone attempted to blackmail her? Why bring something like this up so many years later? [/slight derail]

[bpesta22]

Sounds like she wasn't unionized....

I'm a big fan of porn, but I think the school had every right to fire her. If that's the message the district wants to send, so be it.

Being fired for a bad reason-- if this even is one-- is not illegal.

[chance]

Anything can be and is disruptive to a class of children. My algebra teacher had a hump, and that distracted the class plenty. My physics teacher had a ponytail despite being bald on top, and wore a braided "friendship bracelet". My world history teacher was in her fifties but wore dresses that looked designed for Little Orphan Annie. With ruffled socks. My geometry teacher was the fattest woman in the county, my trig teacher went to tanning salons so much her face was orange except for the outline of her goggles, my Spanish teacher was actually insane and talked to invisible people (after five months in an institution, he stopped talking to them out loud, which was a relief. I didn't mind him addressing invisible people half so much as the pause afterwards when he was listening to them reply), and my tenth grade English teacher had a different hairstyle every single day. All of those things were terrible distractions. But they taught through it, and we either learned or we didn't. Children have such short attention spans and school sucks so hard that considering something "distracting" as grounds for firing would denude all the schools of teachers except for the most boring ones, who are distracting in their very boredom.

Strooth! Did you go to school in the twilight zone or something?

Seriously though, once the novelty wore off, I doubt the kids would care at all.

[Roadtoad]

Based on her picture, this must have been a really bad porn movie.

I don't know, Dude. Once you've gotten a look at lot lizards... :jaw-dropp

I'll tell you: there are some guys who will bang damned near anything.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Huh? Someone call me?

[Spidey13]

I think the decision to keep or fire the teacher/coach should be based on how well she taught and coached the past two years at the school. And OK, since she is a teacher, based on whether she broke any major taboos over those past two years as well.

The article said that 10 years ago she was broke, homeless, had an untreated bipolar disorder, and no job skills (OK, I am making an educated guess that she had no job skills and no family either for that matter). Yet she managed to totally turn her life around. I don't know what that superintendant's problem is -- she sounds like a good role model to me. I don't think most people would be strong enough to accomplish what she did, considering her past circumstances.


This is the main thing that bothers me. A woman works her butt off to get an education, turns her life around, uses that education to teach children, and then loses it all because of one thing she did ten years ago.

[Spidey13]

http://www.wpsdtv.com/articles/stories/public/200605/02/0qq5_local_news.html

It got out when students reportedly discovered the video.

[Flange Desire]

Tell me, please, why are films featuring humans beings having sex innappropriate?

For this stupidty, we can thank the can the Judeo-Christian religions' stranglehold over Western sexual mores.

Agreed.
We can thank religions for many similar stupidities.
I say to them - Your god has no place in my bed!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Sounds like she wasn't unionized....

I'm a big fan of porn, but I think the school had every right to fire her. If that's the message the district wants to send, so be it.

Being fired for a bad reason-- if this even is one-- is not illegal.

It should be.

[Strider1974]

Many criminals go onto respectable lives once they have served their time and society is expected to give them this opportunity

So this woman is being treated worse than many criminals

[Dogdoctor]

This is the main thing that bothers me. A woman works her butt off to get an education, turns her life around, uses that education to teach children, and then loses it all because of one thing she did ten years ago.
Yeah that sucks. It will likely follow her to the next job also. I wonder if she is an atheist also. Boy if they find out something like that and it gets published in the papers her career is over. People judge others based on stupid criteria. Hey but that's humans for you.

[Diamond]

Did they punish the students for watching pr0n?

I'm disgusted with the school board. This woman by all accounts is a good and popular teacher. I don't agree with the decision at all.

Would I have her teach my kid? Yes. I'm more worried by the religious fruitcakes who bend children's minds than I would ever be about this woman.

[Zep]

Perhaps someone can find the super's pr0n collection and out him with that??

Also, if this sort of backwards evolution keeps up, the only qualified people to teach children will be old nuns.

[The Fool]

.........old nuns.
i've seen that video too.....

[Ian Osborne]

The article said that 10 years ago she was broke, homeless, had an untreated bipolar disorder, and no job skills (OK, I am making an educated guess that she had no job skills and no family either for that matter). Yet she managed to totally turn her life around. I don't know what that superintendant's problem is -- she sounds like a good role model to me. I don't think most people would be strong enough to accomplish what she did, considering her past circumstances.
Agreed. I wonder if she would have grounds for unfair dismissal here?

[TragicMonkey]

Also, if this sort of backwards evolution keeps up, the only qualified people to teach children will be old nuns.

Nuns have pasts, too.

[brodski]

Agreed. I wonder if she would have grounds for unfair dismissal here?
does the US even have laws on unfair dismissal outside of a breach of contract?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Some random, but relevent thoughts:
* The disparaging treatment of a person, in a non-private forum, based upon a person's legal actions or occupation is shameful

* To discriminate against a person because of their past, or current, legal occupation, while at the same time using/enjoying/employee/etc the products of their occupation without repurcussion is hypocritical

* If an (legal) element exists in a public forum that is causing disruption; and it is not the intent of the element, or the introducer of the element to cause disruption; then those that are "being disrupted" need to be educated that is their behavior, not the existence of that element in the forum, that is inappropriate

[strathmeyer]

does the US even have laws on unfair dismissal outside of a breach of contract?

It differs state by state. I know North Carolina and Virginia are both 'right to work' states where they can fire you or you can quit for no reason.

[tsg]

It differs state by state. I know North Carolina and Virginia are both 'right to work' states where they can fire you or you can quit for no reason.

In New Jersey they call it "employment at will", but it means the same thing.

[Deus Ex Machina]

man I feel badly for this woman. First of all she didn't do anything illegal but tried to get by. She pulls herself up out of the mire by her bootstraps and then these pissants fire her for something that has nothing at all to do with them?

There are times this country astounds me.

[jj]

man I feel badly for this woman. First of all she didn't do anything illegal but tried to get by. She pulls herself up out of the mire by her bootstraps and then these pissants fire her for something that has nothing at all to do with them?

There are times this country astounds me.

Well, I suspect the real problem is that the powers-that-be in this case assume that she isn't as repressed as they want, and that perhaps she might teach her kids to think instead of regurgitate.

Based on some of my experiences from the 1960's, oh yeah, thinking was not permissible....

[Zbu]

man I feel badly for this woman. First of all she didn't do anything illegal but tried to get by. She pulls herself up out of the mire by her bootstraps and then these pissants fire her for something that has nothing at all to do with them?

There are times this country astounds me.

If only we could go ahead and figure out how someone found this out as well. Maybe the instigator should be dismissed as well for the same violation.

[Kaylee]

If only we could go ahead and figure out how someone found this out as well. Maybe the instigator should be dismissed as well for the same violation.


http://www.wpsdtv.com/articles/stori...ocal_news.html (http://www.wpsdtv.com/articles/stories/public/200605/02/0qq5_local_news.html)


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">It got out when students reportedly discovered the video. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- / message --><!-- DONKS ADDED -->

Good point Zbu.

Also, I'm skeptical about how her onetime porn video was discovered. Per one article she did film under a different name -- and most people's appearances change over 10 years plus most of us have probably met people who strongly resemble us physically. I bet there is more to the story.

[Euromutt]

My wife and I are teachers. Most schools have a "morals" clause that would allow them to suspend or fire any teacher that has conducted themselves in a manner that is not appropriate as a rolemodel for children.I'm inclined to think that's not unreasonable as it relates to the teacher's current conduct. I doubt I'd be very happy someone standing in loco parentis who has a drinking or gambling problem, frequently has unprotected sex with strangers, has a psychological disorder but refuses to seek treatment, or other behavior which is risky albeit not actually illegal.
But the operative word is current.
Punishing someone for something which occurred a decade ago, once, which was not illegal and has not been repeated, let alone become a regular occurrence, goes beyond the bounds of reasonable behavior.

Moreover, I did some searching, and found another news bit (http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=4857042&nav=3w6o), which states:It reportedly was students who discovered the movie.If so, I have to wonder... are the students in question being sanctioned for watching the porn in the first place? Their parents, for supervising them insufficiently? The production in question sounds like a two-bit run-of-the-mill piece of junk knocked out by the San Fernando Valley porn mills, and if it's eleven years old, it probably means those kids were watching a lot of porn. I mean, what are the chances of stumbling on the one flick in which your physics teacher has a bit part? Even if, by some amazing coincidence, that was the very first porn flick those kids watched, it strikes me that any "morals" code the school district has already failed in its function.

[Luciana]

Would parents, anywhere in the world, be sanctioned for allowing their children to see porn? Or at least not supervising them enough so as to avoid them seeing it? Because if that was the case, every kid with internet... I shudder to think.

Poor lady. She will be forced to change profession, because which school will want her now, especially with her notoriety??

[Pauliesonne]

You've seen a good porn movie?!?

I don't watch it for the entertainment.

I watch it when I'm horny and on my own.

[HeyLeroy]

Who told the superintendent she was in a porn movie? And how did they find out, hmmmm?

I've heard that the people who try to ban porn are the biggest collectors of porn. Y'know, they have to understand it. Thanks.

I'm not a big fan of porn, but hey, whatever puts the bounce in your bungee.

[HeyLeroy]

I don't watch it for the entertainment.

I watch it when I'm horny and on my own.

Good Christian, you are.

[Monty Python]
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm gets wasted,
God gets quite irate.
[/Monty Python]

[Pauliesonne]

Good Christian, you are.

[Monty Python]
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm gets wasted,
God gets quite irate.
[/Monty Python]

Who the f**k said I was a christian?!?

[Roadtoad]

Who the f**k said I was a christian?!?

Hey, don't look at me, bro! I'd never defame your character that way.

[LostAngeles]

You've seen a good porn movie?!?

There's a few out there that have decent fake plots and a few non-scary people with non-scary equipment doing things I like.

Though having more non-scary people with non-scary equipment is really what makes the deal for me.

[ZirconBlue]

There's a few out there that have decent fake plots and a few non-scary people with non-scary equipment doing things I like.

Though having more non-scary people with non-scary equipment is really what makes the deal for me.

Plots?!? Nothing ruins good porn like trying to include a plot.

[Piggy]

Two words: Moral terpitude.

[tsg]

Thank you Beulah Ballbricker.

[Roadtoad]

Two words: Moral terpitude.

One word: Horsesh**.

[rjh01]

Wonder what was on her resume for that period?

[The Painter]

does the US even have laws on unfair dismissal outside of a breach of contract?


There maybe laws in KY about this, but that’s not the important part. The civil lawsuit, that’s were the money is. There should be a civil suit here. You know what lawyers say “throw it against the wall and see what sticks”.

[brodski]

There maybe laws in KY about this, but that’s not the important part. The civil lawsuit, that’s were the money is. There should be a civil suit here. You know what lawyers say “throw it against the wall and see what sticks”. but if there is (as other posters have indicated) specific legislation to allow an employer to fire staff at will for no reason (let alone a good reason), how can the employer be civilly liable?
OK I am basing my knowledge on UK law, but I understood that in order for a successful civil case 3 things must be established
1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care
2) that duty was breached
3) that breach caused harm.
Given the "right to work" laws, I don't see how either 1 or 2 could be argued.
Am I missing something here?

[Deus Ex Machina]

There maybe laws in KY about this, but that’s not the important part. The civil lawsuit, that’s were the money is. There should be a civil suit here. You know what lawyers say “throw it against the wall and see what sticks”.

thats probably what happened in the movie...

[Deus Ex Machina]

but if there is (as other posters have indicated) specific legislation to allow an employer to fire staff at will for no reason (let alone a good reason), how can the employer be civilly liable?
OK I am basing my knowledge on UK law, but I understood that in order for a successful civil case 3 things must be established
1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care
2) that duty was breached
3) that breach caused harm.
Given the "right to work" laws, I don't see how either 1 or 2 could be argued.
Am I missing something here?

No. There are some specific instances where, even in a right to work state, a dismissed employee can sue but it has to do with either being fired because of one's race, gender or age. Tough to prove in most cases.

Manager doesn't like the way you part your hair? Too bad, you can be fired.

AS we say here in the west - we work in a 'right to be fired' state.

[Diamond]

I talked to an evangelical Christian friend of mine about this, and his remark was that one of the core values of Christianity is redemption.

I remarked that Pharisaic judgmentalism is still popular in fundamentalist circles and he said he had to agree.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong

[The Painter]

If she were fired illegally that would be in criminal court. However, civil court is a completely different animal. No crime has to be committed. Civil court is wide open compared to criminal court. Different rule of evidence and it doesn’t have to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”, just a preponderance of evidence. A good lawyer could work a jury with how she turned her life around, became a teacher, yada yada yada. She could win. Look at OJ Simpson. Not guilty in criminal court, guilty in civil court. He was guilty for millions in civil court. People have even sued because their coffee was too hot, AND WON. It’s a whacky system we have here.

[brodski]

If she were fired illegally that would be in criminal court. you have criminal employment law in the US? Criminal courts will here employment disputes? I would be very surprised if that where the case.


However, civil court is a completely different animal. No crime has to be committed. Civil court is wide open compared to criminal court. Different rule of evidence and it doesn’t have to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”, just a preponderance of evidence. . That is irrelevant if she has no grounds on which to sue, if you've no position to argue, it doesn't matter what standard your "evidence" is held to.


A good lawyer could work a jury with how she turned her life around, became a teacher, yada Ada yada. She could win. Look at OJ Simpson. Not guilty in criminal court, guilty in civil court. He was guilty for millions in civil court. . OJ was liable because he had a legal duty not to commit murder, there was a breach of duty which led to demonstrable harm, therefore there was a case. yes it does seem odd that there is this double standard, but it has nothing to do with the case in question.


People have even sued because their coffee was too hot, AND WON. It’s a whacky system we have here. I hope you're not referring to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit here, because that was about McDonalds selling product which was dangerous, and which resulted in substantial third degree burns. The case also showed that McDonalds knew that the coffee was dangerously hot, and unnecessarily so, and had been paying off burnt customers for years. There was still a duty which McDonalds braced here, again, what legal duty has this school breached?

I'm not saying that the schools actions are right (in fact I think they are very wrong), but given the states of US employment law, I can't see what case this woman has.

[tsg]

I hope you're not referring to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit here,

Can we please, please, please, for the love of all that is good and holy, not have that argument here? Please?

[The Painter]

OJ was liable because he had a legal duty not to commit murder

According to the court, he didn’t commit murder.

That is irrelevant if she has no grounds on which to sue, if you've no position to argue, it doesn't matter what standard your "evidence" is held to.


She has grounds. Financial damages, she was fired, no income. That is enough to file.


None of this means beyond a shadow of a doubt that she will win, but she can sue.

[brodski]

Can we please, please, please, for the love of all that is good and holy, not have that argument here? Please?
ok.
Sorry.

[brodski]

According to the court, he didn’t commit murder.
She has grounds. Financial damages, she was fired, no income. That is enough to file.
None of this means beyond a shadow of a doubt that she will win, but she can sue.
You can sue for anything, you cannot win unless you meet the 3 tests I outlined above, unless US law has departed dramatically from UK law in this regard.
If loss of income where enough, then every employee who had ever been demoted, fired, made redundant or had to otherwise lose pay or benefits would be in court.

[Jon.]

Here's a brief summary of employment law in common-law jurisdictions. It may not apply everywhere, and I have no knowledge of "right-to-work" jurisdictions. If there is specific legislation giving employers the right to fire people without compensation, then that takes those jurisdictions outside the common law.

An employer has the right to fire anyone, for any reason. However, (and it's a big however) if the employer doesn't have grounds for dismissal, the employer must give the employee reasonable notice of termination. Reasonable notice depends on length of time in the job, age, type of job, etc., etc. If the employer does not give reasonable notice, the employee can sue for breach of contract, and the damages are the amount the employee would have been paid had s/he been given reasonable notice. If the employer has grounds, or just cause, then no notice is owed and no damages are payable.

The principles of duty of care and standard of care, and to a lesser extent causation, don't enter into it. Those are concepts applicable to negligence law, not contracts.

The standard of proof in this, as in any civil case, would be on a balance of probabilities, and the onus is on the plaintiff (employee) except as to just cause, for which it would be on the defendant (employer).

And that McDonald's case? Damages drastically reduced on appeal.

ETA: Yes, I am a lawyer.

[uruk]

I'm inclined to think that's not unreasonable as it relates to the teacher's current conduct. I doubt I'd be very happy someone standing in loco parentis who has a drinking or gambling problem, frequently has unprotected sex with strangers, has a psychological disorder but refuses to seek treatment, or other behavior which is risky albeit not actually illegal.
But the operative word is current.
Punishing someone for something which occurred a decade ago, once, which was not illegal and has not been repeated, let alone become a regular occurrence, goes beyond the bounds of reasonable behavior.
It's not really a question of legality. The schoolboard of today is more concerned about getting sued by litigation happy parents. Also it's about getting re-elected to the school board.
On a more practical issue, it's about having authority and control in the class room. The teacher is an authority figure and maintains control and thus a learning atmosphere in the class room. With her sorrid past mistake known to the genreral highschool population she becomes an object of ridicule and disruption. It undermines her authority in the class room. If she cannot maintain authority and control in the class room she cannot teach. I've seen it happen. Besides, the taunting and remarks and ridicule would have forced her to quit anyway.
I really feel sorry for her and believe she got a raw deal. But the realities of adolecent minds are inescapable.

[chance]

It's not really a question of legality. The schoolboard of today is more concerned about getting sued by litigation happy parents. Also it's about getting re-elected to the school board.
On a more practical issue, it's about having authority and control in the class room. The teacher is an authority figure and maintains control and thus a learning atmosphere in the class room. With her sorrid past mistake known to the genreral highschool population she becomes an object of ridicule and disruption. It undermines her authority in the class room. If she cannot maintain authority and control in the class room she cannot teach. I've seen it happen. Besides, the taunting and remarks and ridicule would have forced her to quit anyway.
I really feel sorry for her and believe she got a raw deal. But the realities of adolecent minds are inescapable.

Spin, it appears, is the problem faced by the school! On one hand they may feel they can be sued by parents finding out the teacher ‘has a past’, countered with the teacher suing the school for an unfair dismissal.

Did the school ever think to see if the teacher can maintain discipline instead of assuming she would not be able?

[tsg]

If she cannot maintain authority and control in the class room she cannot teach.

Then I would think she should be fired when, and if, this situation presents itself and not because it might.

Besides, the taunting and remarks and ridicule would have forced her to quit anyway.

Maybe. Maybe not. But that should be up to her.

[Bob Klase]

According to the court, he didn’t commit murder.

No. The criminal court (and the jury) didn't say "he didn't commit the murder". They said that the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed murder.

I don't recall the name of the book, but one of the lawyers in the civil trial wrote a book about the civil trial and the evidence they showed. After reading the book (several years ago), I was convinced that the criminal 'not guilty' verdict was the result of incompetence by the prosecutors.

[Pauliesonne]

Is'nt the reason OJ won is because Cochrane used the Chewbacca defense?

[Spidey13]

Good points made that if they are concerned about her inability to maintain authority, then they should have waited to find out if this happens. I do think she probably would have quit eventually. If I were still in high school right now, you'd be damn sure I'd have a copy of that tape as soon as I could get my hands on it. (When I was in high school, my Spanish teacher's husband went on trial for murder. She testified and I had a video tape of her tesimony revealing all kinds personal details of her and her husband's sex lives, including multiple partners.)

Anyway, I read a comic book once (yes, I'm using a comic book for this point) where a woman got drunk or something and ended up having sex with a bunch of guys while it was being videotaped. The video became a highly successful movie and she later made a comment about how, when she's walking down the street, she'll notice men who have apparently seen the movie looking at her "with that look that says, 'I've seen you f**k.'"

Imagine being a woman and teaching a roomful of teenage boys who are looking at you with the "I've seen you f**k" look. I doubt she could have taken that for very long, though that's just my assumption.

[Deus Ex Machina]

If she were fired illegally that would be in criminal court.

Repeat after me - illegal does not necessarily mean criminal. Illegal merely means that something is against the law. In order to be criminal it has to be a breach of criminal law.

However, civil court is a completely different animal. No crime has to be committed.

No - the word in civil cases is Tort. In a civil case a "wrong" has to have happened for there to be any case at all

Civil court is wide open compared to criminal court. Different rule of evidence and it doesn’t have to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”, just a preponderance of evidence. A good lawyer could work a jury with how she turned her life around, became a teacher, yada yada yada. She could win.

You are incorrect. The school has the right to hire and fire and as long as they do not show a pattern of violating civil rights of minorities they are on very sure ground. It has nothing to do with the a lawyer getting up and making an impassioned plea - the case has to show that in firing this unfortunate lady the school was guilty of transgressing the law. In employment cases in Right to Work states there is an incredible hill to climb to try and even get in the door.

It is not a case of "fair" or who whines the loudest - in order to even get a civil case on the docket you have to show that you actually have a case.

Look at OJ Simpson. Not guilty in criminal court, guilty in civil court. He was guilty for millions in civil court.

You are right - but that was because the lawyers suing him had a civil law basis for the suit.

People have even sued because their coffee was too hot, AND WON. It’s a whacky system we have here.

I would agree on the whacky system but not for the reasons you state. The woman sued McDonalds because the coffee scalded her. She had a basis for her case - she had suffered harm because of a McDonald's product. Her lawyers were able to show that McDonalds was aware of the problem - so McDonalds lost the case because they had ignored a duty that any company has - to not knowingly sell their customers products that will hurt them.

[Overman]

I think its hot.

I don't feel tardy...

[Kaylee]

(When I was in high school, my Spanish teacher's husband went on trial for murder. She testified and I had a video tape of her tesimony revealing all kinds personal details of her and her husband's sex lives, including multiple partners.)

So ... did your Spanish teacher get fired, quit or continue teaching?

...

Imagine being a woman and teaching a roomful of teenage boys who are looking at you with the "I've seen you f**k" look. I doubt she could have taken that for very long, though that's just my assumption. I"m still stuck at how this even came out. 11 years ago is a long time and most people's appearances change over 11 years. In other words, I don't think that most people could be 100% positively IDed in an 11 year old movie.

As for her ability to maintain authority, I agree with the others who posted that she should be given the opportunity to try. She was in the army. So who knows, maybe she is really good at the "I'm gonna kill you"" look.

[Spidey13]

So ... did your Spanish teacher get fired, quit or continue teaching?
She left when the trial started, supposedly temporarily, but she never came back. I assumed she quit. To be honest, she was a pretty lousy teacher anyway, and her replacement did a much better job.


I"m still stuck at how this even came out. 11 years ago is a long time and most people's appearances change over 11 years. In other words, I don't think that most people could be 100% positively IDed in an 11 year old movie.

I don't know how it came out, except it was supposedly some students who found it. As far the ID, she has admitted to it.

http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=4858115&nav=menu51_2
Through the tears, a confession of what Tericka Dye calls the worst choice she's ever made. "I don't think I should pay eleven years later by losing the one career I found that I love and that I'm good at."

[Kaylee]

I don't know how it came out, except it was supposedly some students who found it.
I suspect that the real story is more complicated.

As far the ID, she has admitted to it.
http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=4858115&nav=menu51_2
And perhaps that is the real crime she is being punished for. Superintendents and other people like that probably expect employees to know when to lie. :sarcasm:

[uruk]

Spin, it appears, is the problem faced by the school! On one hand they may feel they can be sued by parents finding out the teacher ‘has a past’, countered with the teacher suing the school for an unfair dismissal.

Did the school ever think to see if the teacher can maintain discipline instead of assuming she would not be able?

That's why they have a "morals" clause in the teacher's contract. So the teacher cannot sue. The school usualy goes by a better-safe-than-sorry position. They can fire the teacher because of the morals clause without legal repercussions rather than wait for a bruhaha coming from parent.

[uruk]

Then I would think she should be fired when, and if, this situation presents itself and not because it might.[/qoute]
See may post above.


[quote]Maybe. Maybe not. But that should be up to her.
True. But the school won't give here a chance. They would rather not deal it.

[chance]

That's why they have a "morals" clause in the teacher's contract. So the teacher cannot sue. The school usualy goes by a better-safe-than-sorry position. They can fire the teacher because of the morals clause without legal repercussions rather than wait for a bruhaha coming from parent.

I see, thanks. Do you have an example on how such a clause is worded?

[cbish]

That's why they have a "morals" clause in the teacher's contract.??? No they don't. Where? In what century? I'm thumbing through my contract right now. There's no morals clause. Does your contract have a morals clause?

[ranson]

I know our locality doesn't have a clause, in so many words, but my closest teacher friend said that she would feel pressure to resign were she seen having a glass of wine with dinner while in public.

Ah, I love being in a region dominated by Baptists.

[cbish]

Now another Florida High School teacher is in hot water!

http://www.wptv.com/News/051006_WestBocaTeacherPoses.cfm

Wish I had gone to school in Florida!

[uruk]

I see, thanks. Do you have an example on how such a clause is worded?
I'll ask my wife. She works at a middle school and said the clause was on her contract.

[uruk]

??? No they don't. Where? In what century? I'm thumbing through my contract right now. There's no morals clause. Does your contract have a morals clause? I'll ask my wife how it was worded. We live in South Texas. The toe jam of the bible belt. My contract deos not specifically state a "morals clause", but then I teach at a community college.

[cbish]

Now, that doesn't mean you're immune in terms of behavior. We had a staff member about twenty years ago who kept getting DUI's. On the last one, he also had cocaine posession. He was adviced by our Superintendent to "get a lawyer". Well, the district gave him a break and he sobered up and they all lived happily ever after.

We also had a teacher who had the reputation for chasing the girls around. He mysteriously disappeared!

[Roadtoad]

Now another Florida High School teacher is in hot water!

http://www.wptv.com/News/051006_WestBocaTeacherPoses.cfm

Wish I had gone to school in Florida!

WTF?!?

Okay, she's making less than I do. Her school bills are probably somewhere between stratospheric and astronomical, and she needs to make some extra scratch in a way that allows her time to grade papers, handle extracurricular activities for the students, and prepare lesson plans. She models bikinis, and the school district, because of one whiny little drip opens an investigation.

And they're probably the same bunch who whine about not being able to find qualified teachers.

[rjh01]

Where I work you are not allowed to have a second job without permission, in case there is a conflict of interest.

[tsg]

Where I work you are not allowed to have a second job without permission, in case there is a conflict of interest.

That doesn't appear to be the case here.

The district dropped its investigation two days later, finding Chevillar did nothing wrong.

[American]

It would embarrass the school district and undermine her authority in the students eyes. I'm sure she would have wound up quiting anyway due to the ridicule.

She models bikinis, and the school district, because of one whiny little drip opens an investigation.

The underlying problem on both sides seems to be that nobody wants kids to see grown women for what they really are: either pretty and dumb, or ugly and annoying.

Someday they will replace human teachers with androids, and they will be built as sexless, non-arousing, uninspiring, useless bags of misinformation. Exactly like today's public school teachers.

[tsg]

I'm going to go hide in the Politics forum where it's safe until the coming flamage dies down.

[Roadtoad]

The underlying problem on both sides seems to be that nobody wants kids to see grown women for what they really are: either pretty and dumb, or ugly and annoying.

Someday they will replace human teachers with androids, and they will be built as sexless, non-arousing, uninspiring, useless bags of misinformation. Exactly like today's public school teachers.

Clearly, you haven't changed one bit.

Have you considered checking into a leper colony?

[Kaylee]

Where I work you are not allowed to have a second job without permission, in case there is a conflict of interest.
I find it hard to believe that this is actually legal.

[Ian Osborne]

The underlying problem on both sides seems to be that nobody wants kids to see grown women for what they really are: either pretty and dumb, or ugly and annoying.
One day, you'll lose your virginity and all that repressed anger will be gone.

Someday they will replace human teachers with androids, and they will be built as sexless, non-arousing, uninspiring, useless bags of misinformation. Exactly like today's public school teachers.
Especially your music teachers (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=15814)...

[Roadtoad]

One day, you'll lose your virginity and all that repressed anger will be gone.

I'm sorry, but that's just too damn funny!!!!:D :D :D

[slingblade]

One day, you'll lose your virginity and all that repressed anger will be gone.

Are there pools? Can you put me down for five against? Thanks.

[Roadtoad]

Make it ten. At the rate American's going, he'll be lucky if he even gets Frenched...

[Ian Osborne]

Make it ten. At the rate American's going, he'll be lucky if he even gets Frenched...
That would be a shame. He practices on the back of his hand every night...

[Roadtoad]

Dammit, Ian, you have to stop that! I'm going to need to replace my monitor before the day is out from all the coffee I'm spewing all over it.

[Euromutt]

It's not really a question of legality. The schoolboard of today is more concerned about getting sued by litigation happy parents. Also it's about getting re-elected to the school board.
On a more practical issue, it's about having authority and control in the class room. The teacher is an authority figure and maintains control and thus a learning atmosphere in the class room. With her sorrid past mistake known to the genreral highschool population she becomes an object of ridicule and disruption. It undermines her authority in the class room. If she cannot maintain authority and control in the class room she cannot teach.Not intended as slam against you, uruk, but it strikes me that the notion of "parents' rights" [ptooey!] resulting in litigation-happy parents and litigation-shy school districts presents a significantly larger threat to teachers' ability to maintain authority than any bit part in an obscure porn flick.

I mean, what are the potential torts here? That Dye's past might inspire some kid into a career path which the parents find undesirable? That seems a stretch, given the circumstances; Dye's no Jenna Jameson. Or that, due to Dye's presumed inability to maintain order in the classroom, some kid's education will be hampered? That's a bit more plausible. But in either case, the people who created the problem are 1) the parents of the kids who watched the porn flick in the first place, and 2) whoever went public with this information. Otherwise, there would be no problem, right? So those are the people who need to be sued, and the reasons why.

[TheBoyPaj]

I knew a porn actress who went into teaching (no names because she can be googled). Last I knew she was in a boy's school. Thing is, she still looks like she did in the videos (only, you know, more clothed).