Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Internet Profiles Oregon

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Internet Profiles Oregon

    Okay hear is another something. I had a former employee who had been on a website open to the public. (searching for friends, etc) The pictures that were posted appeared that the employee was naked. Though no body parts actually were showing a lot of cleavage was siteful, as well as a side view of her butt cheeks. Is this something that I can incorporate into our polices as being not allowed. Keep in mind these sites can be set to private. However many of my clients happen to see the site and were very unhappy and even pulled their child because of it.

    Let me know

  • #2
    I don't know what the legal answer may be but I will tell you about a similar situation at an employer I had. I worked for a critical care ambulance company whose biggest contract was a childrens hospital ran by the catholic diocese. One of my coworkers appeared on VH1 swingers. The word got around and the company fired him because of the threat of the catholic diocese to drop the contract with my company. Greg sued them and won. I don't know what doctrine he may have used but he not only got unemployment for a while but he sued them and won. It was not a voluntary settlement either.

    Comment


    • #3
      Internet Profiles

      Originally posted by Stridor View Post
      I don't know what the legal answer may be but I will tell you about a similar situation at an employer I had. I worked for a critical care ambulance company whose biggest contract was a childrens hospital ran by the catholic diocese. One of my coworkers appeared on VH1 swingers. The word got around and the company fired him because of the threat of the catholic diocese to drop the contract with my company. Greg sued them and won. I don't know what doctrine he may have used but he not only got unemployment for a while but he sued them and won. It was not a voluntary settlement either.
      What if there was a policy and a contract that was signed by the employee? Wouldn't this change the situation?

      Let me know

      Comment


      • #4
        Unless I know differently, being naked on the internet is not a protected class.

        If this were an embarrassment to my company, I would term the employee.

        I would very much like to know the statute under which an employee that threatens a contract with a large customer cannot be termed.

        Swinging is not protected. Now, if the program in question pointed out, say, that the employee was gay and the church said that no gay person could work with them... then that is actionable.

        However, posting nude pictures of yourself on the internet is still not protected.
        Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

        I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

        Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

        Comment


        • #5
          Certainly not a protected class, I agree with cyjeff. One would almost think that common sense would dictate that this is not appropriate especially for an employee in an educational enviornment. Working for a public school in Georgia I can guarantee you it would not be tollerated for one second. Having it in policy certainly wouldn't hurt anything. Pretty sad that it even needs to be addressed when we are talikng about the adults and not the children they are charged with educating.

          Comment


          • #6
            internet profiles

            Originally posted by BnThrDnTht View Post
            Certainly not a protected class, I agree with cyjeff. One would almost think that common sense would dictate that this is not appropriate especially for an employee in an educational enviornment. Working for a public school in Georgia I can guarantee you it would not be tollerated for one second. Having it in policy certainly wouldn't hurt anything. Pretty sad that it even needs to be addressed when we are talikng about the adults and not the children they are charged with educating.
            I have found that common sense is something you are born with, or your not. I have had some very educated people in my school, who would need to be reminded to look both ways before they cross the street. They couldn't process what the next step would be if we were out of chalk. You don't have chalk then use your dry erase board during class today.

            I had an employee tell me that she would not be able to wear a uniform 3 days a week, because she had only purchased two at the present time. I let her know that my suggestion would be to wear on and wash one.

            Thanks for the info and your thoughts it is so appreciated.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by amrie View Post
              I have found that common sense is something you are born with, or your not. I have had some very educated people in my school, who would need to be reminded to look both ways before they cross the street. They couldn't process what the next step would be if we were out of chalk. You don't have chalk then use your dry erase board during class today.

              I had an employee tell me that she would not be able to wear a uniform 3 days a week, because she had only purchased two at the present time. I let her know that my suggestion would be to wear on and wash one.

              Thanks for the info and your thoughts it is so appreciated.
              Thats a funny one! We only have 2 uniformed tops at our work, and I can guarantee you, if we went without it, we would be written up for it. Did the employee take your advice and wear one, and wash one lol!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by turbowray View Post
                Thats a funny one! We only have 2 uniformed tops at our work, and I can guarantee you, if we went without it, we would be written up for it. Did the employee take your advice and wear one, and wash one lol!
                Beleive it or not, I had to write her up because on the third day she showed up wearing a shirt that actually was dirty and I sent her home. She was outraged and she came in the next week and gave her 2 weeks notice. I allowed her to not work the 2 weeks "because she was going to move to another state".

                Like I said, some people are born with common sense and others just aren't!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by amrie View Post
                  Beleive it or not, I had to write her up because on the third day she showed up wearing a shirt that actually was dirty and I sent her home. She was outraged and she came in the next week and gave her 2 weeks notice. I allowed her to not work the 2 weeks "because she was going to move to another state".

                  Like I said, some people are born with common sense and others just aren't!!!
                  Yup, that we all can agree on lol!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cyjeff View Post
                    Unless I know differently, being naked on the internet is not a protected class.

                    If this were an embarrassment to my company, I would term the employee.

                    I would very much like to know the statute under which an employee that threatens a contract with a large customer cannot be termed.

                    Swinging is not protected. Now, if the program in question pointed out, say, that the employee was gay and the church said that no gay person could work with them... then that is actionable.

                    However, posting nude pictures of yourself on the internet is still not protected.
                    There was some Bisexual activity there, so that may have been it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Stridor View Post
                      There was some Bisexual activity there, so that may have been it.
                      Hmm, I think sexual orientation is a protected class, but they didn't fire him/her because he/she was bi, they fired him/her because he/she were on a site that all could see, with his/her butt and stuff showing. I could personally still see this as a legal firing. If he/she just said, I am bi, and got fired, that would be one thing, posting nudes on the internet is totally different.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by amrie View Post
                        I have found that common sense is something you are born with, or your not. I have had some very educated people in my school, who would need to be reminded to look both ways before they cross the street. They couldn't process what the next step would be if we were out of chalk. You don't have chalk then use your dry erase board during class today.

                        I had an employee tell me that she would not be able to wear a uniform 3 days a week, because she had only purchased two at the present time. I let her know that my suggestion would be to wear on and wash one.

                        Thanks for the info and your thoughts it is so appreciated.
                        OMG, do they not learn anything while they are in school to be certified to teach children? Okay I agree you can't learn common sense but surely it dosen't take much common sense to figure out if you are out of chalk you use an alternative. A kindergartener should have been able to figure that one out. Sure hope this particular teacher never finds no tissue in a reastroom one day.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by turbowray View Post
                          Hmm, I think sexual orientation is a protected class, but they didn't fire him/her because he/she was bi, they fired him/her because he/she were on a site that all could see, with his/her butt and stuff showing. I could personally still see this as a legal firing. If he/she just said, I am bi, and got fired, that would be one thing, posting nudes on the internet is totally different.
                          Just to clarify, sexual orientation is not a protected clause as defined under Title VII. Very few states have added legislation protecting sexual orientation. One state that comes to mind is Maryland.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            internet profiles

                            Originally posted by robb71 View Post
                            Just to clarify, sexual orientation is not a protected clause as defined under Title VII. Very few states have added legislation protecting sexual orientation. One state that comes to mind is Maryland.
                            My situation has nothing to do with sexual orientation at all. It has only to do with online nudity.

                            However I was made aware that on a certain site a person in my city working at a newspaper, had written on their site how much they hated a certain race, they mention they don't really know why they just do. The newspaper was alerted of this by a person and that person change their site to private but was not fired by the newspaper. I think if I saw something like that regarding one of my employees I would have been so very concerned. But I guess they werent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              For the record, sexual orientation is protected in 17 states. Oregon, however, is not one of them.
                              The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X