Fired due to abusive ex

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226
Fired due to abusive ex

Teacher fired because school fears her abusive ex-husband

After reading the article what are your thoughts?

Do you agree with her and feel she is being punished for someone else's actions?

Do you agree with the school concerned with safety and disruptions?

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

This is a hard one. I do agree that there seems to be "blaming the victim" mentality going on. That being said, if it was happening at Robbie's school I would probably want the teacher gone unless the guy was in jail for a long time. The safety of the children I think has to take precedence.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Agreed. I feel bad for her, she's lived this crappy life with this jerk, gets out and loses her job because she can get rid of him but, like you, I would not want her there in my child's school if he's following her and the kids.

If that was my job and my husband or ex husband caused disturbances like this I would be let go and I don't even work at a school.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I can't believe you guys can side for one hot second on the side of the SCHOOL!!!! Do you know how many parents are in this situation? Do you not want their children attending school? My goodness! The catholic school. of all places, worrying about an outside threat when the biggest threat has endemically been within its walls. Oh the what the WHAT.

This woman has done NOTHING wrong and you want her to be unemployable? That is horrendous! This is what law enforcement is for! It is SICK to think that her JAILED ex is able to have this control over her life because of your precious snowflakes.

No way. Not fair. I would welcome this woman to be my childs teacher, even if meant that I personally had to contribute to school security or a defense fund to keep her ex in jail. This is victim punishing at the highest level. NOT okay.

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

"Potter75" wrote:

because of your precious snowflakes.

After having a total of 14 m/c trying to have a baby you can bet that my child is more important to me then a teacher's job. If the ex could be kept in jail I would have no issue with her teaching but my child should not be put in danger.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I didn't say I sided with the school. I said how I felt about it if my child was there. The school can make their own decision. I just said I understood their concern for safety.

Again, if my husband was a violent threat at my work, I could be terminated. It is a reality. Does it make it fair or right? No.

I feel bad for her and I said that.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"mom2robbie" wrote:

After having a total of 14 m/c trying to have a baby you can bet that my child is more important to me then a teacher's job. If the ex could be kept in jail I would have no issue with her teaching but my child should not be put in danger.

I'm very sorry that you had miscarriages but that fact does not allow you to trump human rights. There is a very good chance that many of your children's teachers have ex's who are in jail ~ because you have had losses do you research all of your teachers boy friends histories?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

He is IN JAIL. How is he a danger to anyones children?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

ITA with Melis. The school is WRONG in punishing the victim for the actions of her ex. The school should be working with her and with local authorities to try to make sure that this man is not a threat to anyone on school property, not making it impossible for her to support her family because of HIS actions. And I'm pretty sure that's what my employer would do.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"mom2robbie" wrote:

After having a total of 14 m/c trying to have a baby you can bet that my child is more important to me then a teacher's job. If the ex could be kept in jail I would have no issue with her teaching but my child should not be put in danger.

Are you really saying that your child is more important than any other child here whose parents were, essentially, just lucky to not struggle with infertility or miscarriages? How selfish.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

If someone is proven to have abused someone else.. and not just an out of word of mouth restraining order.. They should NEVER be let back into society.
He should again be banned from society now that he violated it.. Not sure why some judge or society saw fit to release him in the first place.

ange84's picture
Joined: 12/28/09
Posts: 6564

I feel so sorry for her, she has been a victim of domestic violence it seems and now re victimised by her employer because of her ex husbands actions not her own. I know Catholic schools operate under their own rulings and schools are different there to here, but how is that fair. Are those same people who fired her for the actions of another going to jump up and down when they see her receiving welfare payments because they made her unemployable and telling her she should get off her butt and work and stop being a dole bludger. I find this disgusting, if she had appropriate orders out, including no contact and he violated them how can she be responsible.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

I don't think it's even close to reasonable that she be fired. But I do think the kids at school deserve to be protected from the potential violence this guy brings. Like Rivergallery, I really don't see how the legal system can justify releasing him at all. He's not going to let up.

It's a tough one. They are wrong to fire her, but they are not wrong to want to protect the students & faculty from a dangerous violent man. And steeping up security would be great, but that costs money.

Are there other options? Can they work directly with the police to keep this guy away and make it clear that the consequences for him would be dire?

Can they help place her somewhere else?

I have nothing but sympathy for this woman and her children and they deserve to be protected, not shunned and denied the means to earn a living and get an education.

Firing her is completely unfair, and the whole situation is unfair to everybody involved.

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

"Spacers" wrote:

Are you really saying that your child is more important than any other child here whose parents were, essentially, just lucky to not struggle with infertility or miscarriages? How selfish.

No, my child is not more important then the other children (other then to me). I would be concerned for any child. This guy showed up at the school, that put children in danger.... if any child was injured because of this guy there would be lawsuits like crazy. The school knew of the potential danger and if they did nothing they would be liable. No it is not fair that the teacher was fired but life is not fair. And it is not fair to have the school pay for extra security.

My child is important to ME, but I am concerned about all the children in his school. And I can tell you now that in every job I have had, I would have been fired if an abusive ex showed up at my employment as it puts others in danger that should not be in danger.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

Honestly I cannot imagine being fired if this happened to me. I haven't worked anywhere where it would be grounds for dismissal (even though you can fire at will in my state). None of my employers would fire me for this.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"mom2robbie" wrote:

No, my child is not more important then the other children (other then to me). I would be concerned for any child. This guy showed up at the school, that put children in danger.... if any child was injured because of this guy there would be lawsuits like crazy. The school knew of the potential danger and if they did nothing they would be liable. No it is not fair that the teacher was fired but life is not fair. And it is not fair to have the school pay for extra security.

My child is important to ME, but I am concerned about all the children in his school. And I can tell you now that in every job I have had, I would have been fired if an abusive ex showed up at my employment as it puts others in danger that should not be in danger.

I'd like the other Canadian's to chime in on this one, because I'm honestly curious, would you be fired for this? Because that is HORRIBLE!

And I'm sorry, but whipping out the miscarriage card is just a legit debate standard, IMO. While I am truly terribly sorry that you have suffered losses, that does not make your living child, or your opinion, any more valid. It should not even enter into the debate, frankly.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"Potter75" wrote:

I'd like the other Canadian's to chime in on this one, because I'm honestly curious, would you be fired for this? Because that is HORRIBLE!

She lives in Alberta which has the absolute worst labour laws in the country. But no, it would be very difficult to fire a normal employee. A teacher though? This would not be possible. The Alberta Teacher's Association would not let it happen. The absolute worst that could happen is she would be transferred to an administrative position outside of a school - and that would be after a long protracted legal fight.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

It's just crazy to me...she has a restraining order against him and he is currently in jail. If this had just be some random stalker that saw her at the food court at the mall and became obsessed, would she have been fired?

Sometimes custody issues can get messy. Court orders and restraining orders don't always keep a parent/grandparent from trying to access a child at school. The parent/grandparent could theoritically pose a general risk to others at the school. Is that enough for them to kick the child out of school? What kind of backlash would they face?

Firing her doesn't guarantee their safety. He can still show up there looking for her and get mad/violent when he's told she isn't there. (If he gets out of prison that is.)

FLSunshineMom's picture
Joined: 06/07/06
Posts: 3859

Totally unfair to that woman. The guy didn't even go inside the school if I read that article correctly. I am sure the school meant well and were concerned for the safety of the students, but we need to stand up for women like that, to defend them against those types of criminals (because really, that's what they are). I mean c'mon, call the police if he shows up. They deal with criminals, no? That doesn't cost the school anything, right? And they let her go before the guy even had a CHANCE of getting out of jail early?

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

"blather" wrote:

She lives in Alberta which has the absolute worst labour laws in the country. But no, it would be very difficult to fire a normal employee. A teacher though? This would not be possible. The Alberta Teacher's Association would not let it happen. The absolute worst that could happen is she would be transferred to an administrative position outside of a school - and that would be after a long protracted legal fight.

Actually my job was with the federal government so Alberta Labour laws do not come into effect. I would however would have lost my security clearance and therefore my job.

Also, here we do not have the big worry of nut jobs coming to our schools with guns and killing a bunch of people.

And for what it is worth, most of my working days have been in Ontario, where yes, I would have lost jobs.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

Can I ask how you guys know that you'd get fired for something like this?

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Can I ask how you guys know that you'd get fired for something like this?

For me it is a question of security clearance, lose that and I would have lost my job. For my level of security I am not the only person investigated, my family and anyone I am close to are as well. Anyone with a criminal record in my background and I lose my level of clearance. In some cases it could be possible to work on unclassified stuff but not in the job I was doing. And the theory behind checking others in my background is that they could pressure me into releasing information which could be harmful to Canada or other Nations (although in my case my files were all Canadian stuff but you never know).

While I no longer work that job I still technically have my clearance but if I went back they would do another check as I have left public service. If I had just left for maternity leave of a year my clearance would have stayed fully intact but at the time I took maternity of leave I did not work for the feds I worked in private industry.

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

"Potter75" wrote:

And I'm sorry, but whipping out the miscarriage card is just a legit debate standard, IMO. While I am truly terribly sorry that you have suffered losses, that does not make your living child, or your opinion, any more valid. It should not even enter into the debate, frankly.

I "whipped out the miscarriage card" due to this comment

"Potter75" wrote:

This woman has done NOTHING wrong and you want her to be unemployable? That is horrendous! This is what law enforcement is for! It is SICK to think that her JAILED ex is able to have this control over her life because of your precious snowflakes.
.

which I replied by saying

After having a total of 14 m/c trying to have a baby you can bet that my child is more important to me then a teacher's job. If the ex could be kept in jail I would have no issue with her teaching but my child should not be put in danger.

and I stand by my comment still. My child is more important to ME then anyone else's job. If my child is going to be put into danger then I AM going to be upset by that.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"mom2robbie" wrote:

I "whipped out the miscarriage card" due to this comment

which I replied by saying

and I stand by my comment still. My child is more important to ME then anyone else's job. If my child is going to be put into danger then I AM going to be upset by that.

Yes, I'm sure you would be unusual if your child were not more important than someone else's job. I'm sure we all agree as mothers. The point is, in mentioning your miscarriages, you imply that your child is more important or more precious than MY child just because you had losses, and that, my friend, is incorrect. Further, you are setting this up as a false argument ~ Your child or her job. Do you have proof that any child was or ever could be actually threatened by this jailed men? No. So when you make these overblown emotional statements like "my childs life is more important than her job" yes they sound lovely but they have no basis in fact. Unless you know the family history of EVERY CHILD in your childs school, daycare, soccer team etc your child is technically as "at risk" every day as he was from this woman being employed at the school. Its easy to be cavalier about throwing her rights out the window, until it happens to you or someone you like. You really stand behind a precedant like that?

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"mom2robbie" wrote:

Also, here we do not have the big worry of nut jobs coming to our schools with guns and killing a bunch of people.

W. R. Myers High School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, I worked for the federal government in a number of positions and I cannot imagine one for which I would be fired for having a violent ex. Actually a colleague of mine was walked to and from his car every night by the RCMP (who worked in our building) after his ex-wife tried to set him on fire, and it's not like PSAC was involved with getting him that, it was just common sense. The primary purpose of investigating family members for security clearance is to see whether you or a family member are a risk for blackmail.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"mom2robbie" wrote:

For me it is a question of security clearance, lose that and I would have lost my job. For my level of security I am not the only person investigated, my family and anyone I am close to are as well. Anyone with a criminal record in my background and I lose my level of clearance. In some cases it could be possible to work on unclassified stuff but not in the job I was doing. And the theory behind checking others in my background is that they could pressure me into releasing information which could be harmful to Canada or other Nations (although in my case my files were all Canadian stuff but you never know).

While I no longer work that job I still technically have my clearance but if I went back they would do another check as I have left public service. If I had just left for maternity leave of a year my clearance would have stayed fully intact but at the time I took maternity of leave I did not work for the feds I worked in private industry.

This surprises me. My husband has pretty high security clearance and wouldn't lose it due to this. Once he got it and was employed they look at the circumstances as well. As well, working for the federal government, it is practically impossible for him to get fired.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"mom2robbie" wrote:

For me it is a question of security clearance, lose that and I would have lost my job. For my level of security I am not the only person investigated, my family and anyone I am close to are as well. Anyone with a criminal record in my background and I lose my level of clearance. In some cases it could be possible to work on unclassified stuff but not in the job I was doing. And the theory behind checking others in my background is that they could pressure me into releasing information which could be harmful to Canada or other Nations (although in my case my files were all Canadian stuff but you never know).

While I no longer work that job I still technically have my clearance but if I went back they would do another check as I have left public service. If I had just left for maternity leave of a year my clearance would have stayed fully intact but at the time I took maternity of leave I did not work for the feds I worked in private industry.

Even if you are the victim of that crime? I understand the purpose of security clearance and background checks but it sounds like if Uncle Joe is serving 25 years for molesting me when I was 7, he's now preventing me from employment opportunities as well. Just doesn't seem right.

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

"blather" wrote:

W. R. Myers High School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, I worked for the federal government in a number of positions and I cannot imagine one for which I would be fired for having a violent ex. Actually a colleague of mine was walked to and from his car every night by the RCMP (who worked in our building) after his ex-wife tried to set him on fire, and it's not like PSAC was involved with getting him that, it was just common sense. The primary purpose of investigating family members for security clearance is to see whether you or a family member are a risk for blackmail.

One child was killed, yes that was horrific but look at Newton, has anything like that happened here...no. Marc Lepine killed 8 women, and that was 20 years ago, when has that happened again in Canada.

And my clearance documents are very clear.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"mom2robbie" wrote:

One child was killed, yes that was horrific but look at Newton, has anything like that happened here...no. Marc Lepine killed 8 women, and that was 20 years ago, when has that happened again in Canada.

And my clearance documents are very clear.

I'm so confused by your point. So Canadian schools are so much safer? So what are you so paranoid about that you want to start stripping VICTIMS of their rights? Adam Lanza didn't have any arrest record- what at all does newton have to do with this debate? Just taking a poke at Americans?

My husband has his secret clearance and would not lose his job for this. Now- he could concievably lose his clearance or raise eyebrows for posting very intimate information all over a very public forum, using his real name, family location, and talking about his job etc. it's so interesting to me that you are so sure that you would lose your job if someone committed a crime against you due to the super secret nature of your job but you write very intimate details of your cervical mucous and your family and whatnot without any worries of recourse. It's strange to me.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

If I was an administrator at Newton, and I could see into the future, I would let go of the shooter's mother if she worked there. I know it would be unfair to her, but the life of each of the precious snowflakes in that school are more important than someone's job.

mom2robbie's picture
Joined: 01/20/07
Posts: 2541

"Potter75" wrote:

My husband has his secret clearance and would not lose his job for this. Now- he could concievably lose his clearance or raise eyebrows for posting very intimate information all over a very public forum, using his real name, family location, and talking about his job etc. it's so interesting to me that you are so sure that you would lose your job if someone committed a crime against you due to the super secret nature of your job but you write very intimate details of your cervical mucous and your family and whatnot without any worries of recourse. It's strange to me.

Since I no longer work for the feds or plan to, plus I never said anything about what my job is I have no worries. I know what my security documents say and I know what I have disclosed. But that does not matter.

and it does not really matter. I will not be replying on this post again, not because you made me upset, you do not have that power but due to other circumstances in my life

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

If I was an administrator at Newton, and I could see into the future, I would let go of the shooter's mother if she worked there. I know it would be unfair to her, but the life of each of the precious snowflakes in that school are more important than someone's job.

Yea, but if we could see into the future the guy would have been in jail and she would have no trouble keeping her job. The facts are that we have no way of knowing which teachers, coaches, babysitters our kids are left with have family members that are going to lose it one day. Might as well keep your kids at home and never go out....oh, except it could be your neighbors or ......

Minx_Kristi's picture
Joined: 01/02/09
Posts: 1261

I think it is terrible that she got fired, however I do understand where the school are coming from.

Surely there was another way around this?

xx

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

If I was an administrator at Newton, and I could see into the future, I would let go of the shooter's mother if she worked there. I know it would be unfair to her, but the life of each of the precious snowflakes in that school are more important than someone's job.

But thats the whole point. The person who shot up Newton had ZERO connection to the school. That is why I am so totally confused at the debators point in even bringing it up. I mean, if we are playing the "If I Could see into the future" game, okay, I guess. I've never played that game as a debate tactic, though. Using Newton as an argument would only make sense if one was arguing that one should never ever let their children leave the home (or be near Daddy, really), or actually, the home is like the third leading cause of childhood deaths and accidents ~~~~~ so where DO you stash the children? Newton is an argument about how SENSELESS things happen, as it was SENSELESS. It has nothing to do with what administrators did or did not do right or wrong. Again, you are trying to mock me using the words "precious snowflakes" but you debate point is 100% emotional and 0% rational. So yes, the precious snowflakes would, alas, not have been saved in your future reality by firing Nancy Lanzy, as she did not work there.

Now, if you want to play, lets imagine the future AND ALTER THE PRESENT, thats just too wacky of a game, I don't want to play.

The Wall Street Journal first cast doubt on Lanza's connection to the school. "No one has heard of her," Lillian Bittman, a former school board official, told the Journal. "Teachers don’t know her." "Relatives" told ABC News she may have volunteered there, but she wasn't a teacher. A parent told the Associated Press Lanza was a substitute, but they couldn't verify that with any records at the school. The Stanford Advocate reported the same thing. So, which is it?
RELATED: How the Internet Got the Wrong Lanza
The Newtown area superintendant said Lanza was not a teacher at the school and was not in their database at all on the Today show Saturday morning. It would appear she has no major connection to the school at all.
RELATED: Adam Lanza: What We Think We Know About the Apparent Newtown Shooter
So why Lanza targeted the school remains unclear. NBC News' Pete Williams reported Lanza was in an altercation recently with three school officials, but it wasn't known over what. The Hartford Courant's Dave Altimari reports Lanza focused on two classrooms but there's no known connection between Lanza and any of the teachers or students in the classes.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Potter75" wrote:

But thats the whole point. The person who shot up Newton had ZERO connection to the school. That is why I am so totally confused at the debators point in even bringing it up. I mean, if we are playing the "If I Could see into the future" game, okay, I guess. I've never played that game as a debate tactic, though. Using Newton as an argument would only make sense if one was arguing that one should never ever let their children leave the home (or be near Daddy, really), or actually, the home is like the third leading cause of childhood deaths and accidents ~~~~~ so where DO you stash the children? Newton is an argument about how SENSELESS things happen, as it was SENSELESS. It has nothing to do with what administrators did or did not do right or wrong. Again, you are trying to mock me using the words "precious snowflakes" but you debate point is 100% emotional and 0% rational. So yes, the precious snowflakes would, alas, not have been saved in your future reality by firing Nancy Lanzy, as she did not work there.

Now, if you want to play, lets imagine the future AND ALTER THE PRESENT, thats just too wacky of a game, I don't want to play.

I am confused.. from the links ----

"As for the rest of his family, we know his mother taught kindergarten at Sandy Hook Elementary. NBC News is reporting that her body was found in the home they shared, which appears to be located at this Newtown address listed to a Nancy J. Lanza. (The Associated Press reports Nancy as the mother's name as well.) The two had an "argument" this morning, sources say, after which Lanza reportedly killed his mother and drove her car to the school, along with three guns purchased by and registered to Nancy. His father, is Peter Lanza, a vice president of taxes for GE Energy Financial Services who lives in Stamford, Connecticut, according to The Stamford Advocate. Peter does not appear to have had recent contact with Adam, and neither he nor his brother were connected to the incident. Adam does appear to have had a girlfriend who the AP says has gone missing, along with a friend of his. Stay tuned to our live blog for more updates." Adam Lanza: What We Think We Know About the Apparent Newtown Shooter - Rebecca Greenfield - The Atlantic Wire

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I am confused.. from the links ----

"As for the rest of his family, we know his mother taught kindergarten at Sandy Hook Elementary. NBC News is reporting that her body was found in the home they shared, which appears to be located at this Newtown address listed to a Nancy J. Lanza. (The Associated Press reports Nancy as the mother's name as well.) The two had an "argument" this morning, sources say, after which Lanza reportedly killed his mother and drove her car to the school, along with three guns purchased by and registered to Nancy. His father, is Peter Lanza, a vice president of taxes for GE Energy Financial Services who lives in Stamford, Connecticut, according to The Stamford Advocate. Peter does not appear to have had recent contact with Adam, and neither he nor his brother were connected to the incident. Adam does appear to have had a girlfriend who the AP says has gone missing, along with a friend of his. Stay tuned to our live blog for more updates." Adam Lanza: What We Think We Know About the Apparent Newtown Shooter - Rebecca Greenfield - The Atlantic Wire

That was false information. The media had it wrong.

Nancy Lanza Reportedly Wasn't a Teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Rivergallery" wrote:

I am confused.. from the links ----

"As for the rest of his family, we know his mother taught kindergarten at Sandy Hook Elementary. NBC News is reporting that her body was found in the home they shared, which appears to be located at this Newtown address listed to a Nancy J. Lanza. (The Associated Press reports Nancy as the mother's name as well.) The two had an "argument" this morning, sources say, after which Lanza reportedly killed his mother and drove her car to the school, along with three guns purchased by and registered to Nancy. His father, is Peter Lanza, a vice president of taxes for GE Energy Financial Services who lives in Stamford, Connecticut, according to The Stamford Advocate. Peter does not appear to have had recent contact with Adam, and neither he nor his brother were connected to the incident. Adam does appear to have had a girlfriend who the AP says has gone missing, along with a friend of his. Stay tuned to our live blog for more updates." Adam Lanza: What We Think We Know About the Apparent Newtown Shooter - Rebecca Greenfield - The Atlantic Wire

She didn't work there. Ever. She didn't volunteer there. She had no connection to the school. As Gloria stated, the Media was wrong. I have no idea why Newton even entered this debate, really. I'd love it if someone would explain it to me.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

She didn't work there. Ever. She didn't volunteer there. She had no connection to the school. As Gloria stated, the Media was wrong. I have no idea why Newton even entered this debate, really. I'd love it if someone would explain it to me.

I don't see how it is irrelevant to the debate when that is kind of the reason they fired her is because they were afraid something like Newtown would happen. Just because it turned out that that the shooter's mother didn't work at the school in that case doesn't mean that there haven't been other shootings that did happen at the place where someone worked.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I don't see how it is irrelevant to the debate when that is kind of the reason they fired her is because they were afraid something like Newtown would happen. Just because it turned out that that the shooter's mother didn't work at the school in that case doesn't mean that there haven't been other shootings that did happen at the place where someone worked.

But when you say "something like Newtown" you imply that Newtown was about a stalking ex. It wasnt. You know? Thats what I don't get.

I can't think of a case where a man behind bars hurt school children. Can anyone?

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

The US has some pretty effed up laws, IMO. I can't believe people can just be cut loose like that with nothing more than a "sorry 'bout that". "Cause" by the legal definition means the employee has done something illegal or has violated a code of ethics or explicit term of a contract or something like that - something that gives the employer the ability to fire an employee on the spot with no pay owing. "Cause" does NOT mean, as in this case "Well, we were worried about her violent ex so in the interest of the kids decided to fire her".) Doesn't work that way and I say hellz ya she should sue. I'm not a fan of the highly letigious nature of the U.S. - seems like everyone has a reason to sue, or so they think (general "you", and not every single person, obviously), but holy moly this woman would most definitely have a valid claim in Canada. Employees are protected here. Maybe she doesn't have a human rights kind of claim, but man - where are the employment standards?????

Sure, any employer can terminate any employee - but there are RULES and stipulations. I would LOVE to read her contract. I highly doubt anyone in their right mind would sign a contract that states that they can get canned for any reason at any time, with no pay in lieu of notice and no severance terms laid out in writing.

I cannot feel anything for the school board. They did the wrong thing. I don't care whose best interest they claim they were serving.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

But when you say "something like Newtown" you imply that Newtown was about a stalking ex. It wasnt. You know? Thats what I don't get.

I can't think of a case where a man behind bars hurt school children. Can anyone?

I don't think it necessarily implies that is what happened at Newtown was a stalking ex to bring it up as relevant to this debate as why these school administrators where concerned. There are multiple cases where a stalking ex DID come and shoot people at the ex-wife's place of employment. I'm not sure they made the right decision but it is certainly relevant to the debate.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

I highly doubt anyone in their right mind would sign a contract that states that they can get canned for any reason at any time, with no pay in lieu of notice and no severance terms laid out in writing.

I agree with your sentiments, but all work here is "at will" so we can all get canned for any reason at any time.

Most companies don't do that, as they are concerned about lawsuits. In fact, it can be painfully difficult to fire someone who actually sucks at their job, but ridiculously easy to get rid of somebody for no reason at all.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I agree with your sentiments, but all work here is "at will" so we can all get canned for any reason at any time.

Most companies don't do that, as they are concerned about lawsuits. In fact, it can be painfully difficult to fire someone who actually sucks at their job, but ridiculously easy to get rid of somebody for no reason at all.

I thought work was 'at necessity'. I mean, I work because I have to, even when I have no will. Smile Really? It's "at will"? That sucks Americans have to be faced with potential termination at somebody's whim and have nothing in terms of compensation. Makes me sick. Here even the kid at McDonald's or in the Sev gets pay in lieu of notice if he gets terminated for (i.e.) habitual tardiness, or even if the company just can't keep him on anymore. I agree about the sucking at your job thing. Here it seems that the ones who suck at their jobs the most are unionized and they can't ever be gotten rid of without a fight. My FIL was one of them.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

I thought work was 'at necessity'. I mean, I work because I have to, even when I have no will. Smile Really? It's "at will"? That sucks Americans have to be faced with potential termination at somebody's whim and have nothing in terms of compensation. Makes me sick. Here even the kid at McDonald's or in the Sev gets pay in lieu of notice if he gets terminated for (i.e.) habitual tardiness, or even if the company just can't keep him on anymore. I agree about the sucking at your job thing. Here it seems that the ones who suck at their jobs the most are unionized and they can't ever be gotten rid of without a fight. My FIL was one of them.

Well it's a double-edged sword. Seems like great people can be fired for no reason and sucky people can't be....at least that's how it often seems to me. Most places will provide some sort of severance, though.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

I used to work as a store manager and we owned a business. It is very hard to fire people. I actually had a case with an assistant manager that had a boyfriend that was abusive, he would come in and just sit and watch her work. If she spoke to a male customer he would break hangers and throw things. I had to call the police several times, but they wouldnt do anything unless she pressed charges, which she refused. I couldnt fire her, even when she missed shifts on a regular basis. The company was afraid of a lawsuit since she wasnt the one breaking hangers.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

"mom3girls" wrote:

I used to work as a store manager and we owned a business. I is very hard to fire people. I actually had a case with an assistant manager that had a boyfriend that was abusive, he would come in and just sit and watch her work. If she spoke to a male customer he would break hangers and throw things. I had to call the police several times, but they wouldnt do anything unless she pressed charges, which she refused. I couldnt fire her, even when she missed shifts on a regular basis. The company was afraid of a lawsuit since she wasnt the one breaking hangers.

Very frustrating. In that case, why couldn't the store owner press charges because he was causing problems and refusing to leave? Sometimes the legal system seems really messed up.

I still think this woman shouldn't have to lose her job and suffer even MORE because of the situation.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

I thought work was 'at necessity'. I mean, I work because I have to, even when I have no will. Smile Really? It's "at will"? That sucks Americans have to be faced with potential termination at somebody's whim and have nothing in terms of compensation. Makes me sick. Here even the kid at McDonald's or in the Sev gets pay in lieu of notice if he gets terminated for (i.e.) habitual tardiness, or even if the company just can't keep him on anymore. I agree about the sucking at your job thing. Here it seems that the ones who suck at their jobs the most are unionized and they can't ever be gotten rid of without a fight. My FIL was one of them.

I'll be honest, were I a business owner, I would be LIVID at the thought that I had to pay someone who sucked at their job simply to fire them. Any company I ever worked at offered severance packages if layoffs were taking place, generally two weeks for each year of employment, sometimes more. Those were corporate positions, however, not hourly type jobs.

It is nice, though, that after firing her and rendering her almost unhirable, they have stated that they are going to pray for her. I'm sure that will help her pay her bills ;/. And when she is homeless it will probably make her a lot easier to stalk. Really awesome.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Potter75" wrote:

I'll be honest, were I a business owner, I would be LIVID at the thought that I had to pay someone who sucked at their job simply to fire them. Any company I ever worked at offered severance packages if layoffs were taking place, generally two weeks for each year of employment, sometimes more. Those were corporate positions, however, not hourly type jobs.

It is nice, though, that after firing her and rendering her almost unhirable, they have stated that they are going to pray for her. I'm sure that will help her pay her bills ;/. And when she is homeless it will probably make her a lot easier to stalk. Really awesome.

This country is VERY pro-employee. Most, if not all provinces, require 2 weeks' notice from an employee should they resign (even at a low income type job though I'm sure many kids and McD's simply just don't show up when they've had enough instead of giving proper notice). So on the flip side of that if an employee is supposed to give 2 weeks' notice than the employer has an equal obligation to pay those 2 weeks if they want to simply fire the employee. In places where only one week's notice is required than only one week's pay is owing.

In my several years in the employment law dept I have seen some pretty jaw-dropping stuff. There have been many times where I actually feel bad for the employer - having to pay out what they are required to by statute. Then again, you see stuff like the female postal workers who finally won their wrongful termination suits not long ago after 30 YEARS in the courts and they got millions. It was beautiful. Smile

I digress. Smile

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

In my industry we would resign and provide our two weeks notice, hand in our door key, calculator and other work property, and generally be escorted to the door, but be paid for our two weeks, even though we would not be working (as generally one was moving on to work for a competitor and there was no reason to give you continued access to the client base/proprietary info etc). I still can't imagine paying an hourly sort of employee who one was firing for poor performance. Boggles my mind.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

"Potter75" wrote:

In my industry we would resign and provide our two weeks notice, hand in our door key, calculator and other work property, and generally be escorted to the door, but be paid for our two weeks, even though we would not be working (as generally one was moving on to work for a competitor and there was no reason to give you continued access to the client base/proprietary info etc). I still can't imagine paying an hourly sort of employee who one was firing for poor performance. Boggles my mind.

A few years ago I had a HORRIBLE person on my team who was lazy and even said things in front of HR that I thought were grounds for firing on the spot, and it still took us months to get rid of him, not to mention endless conversations, notes, and meetings with HR. Drove me nuts. The guy even said inf front of our HR person, "Oh, I didn't write those articles I said I would because they really take a lot out of me." Seriously.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

To add to the 'bad employee' stories.

We had a RCMP officer here who was still on his 6 month training at 2 years (this shows how great he was at his job to begin with), who walked into his bosses office and informed them that he was a drug addict and heavily in debt to the local drug dealers. He was sent away for rehab, and then came back!!!!!! Not only was he a horrible employee who nobody wanted to work with (he pointed his gun at fellow officers, by accident, on multiple occasions), but he was also a huge security risk due to his ties to crime in our town. Eventually, due to the other officers complaints and refusals to work with him, he was transferred to a desk job in a very sought after detachment. It was absolutely ridiculous, but apparently they cant fire the guy??? So stupid!

Pages