Have you heard the story about the gal who was fired from her full-time job as a reporter because she didn't disclose to her employer that she was a part-time exotic dancer, er stripper?
She's filed a complaint with the EEOC and is suing her former employer for gender discrimination. When I first heard it on the news, my first thought was, “Good for her, I hope she kicks their ass and wins!” After all, she's a reporter, not a nun. She's earned a Master’s in Journalism and was paying off debt for her education — that ultimately benefits her employer.
Perhaps she was discovered by her stripper blog that had a photo and her real name on it. Or maybe someone she works with happened to see her while she was on the clock at her part-time gig.
Back to the case.
If her employer argues they had a “no moonlighting” policy and employees were obligated to disclose where they worked, I wonder if she would have been fired if she was working at a pizza joint or the local gym. I’m thinking they would have turned a blind eye provided it wasn’t affecting her work by day. The
general purpose of this policy is usually two-fold: employers want to make sure their employees aren't working for a competitor and they also don't want their employees' work to suffer if they're physically exhausted from working a second job.
But what really gets under my skin is something different.
The reason I want this gal to win this case is because a message needs to be sent to employers to get off their high, self-righteous horses and respect the private lives of their employees. No laws are being broken. Get out of the lives of people's Facebook pages, asking for social media passwords, political beliefs, religious beliefs, sexual orientation preferences and yes, part time jobs.
It's none of anyone's business.
If an employee fails to perform, then step in. Employees are people, just like you, and have a right to a life outside of work.
As an aside: This gal’s attorney, Gloria Allred says, “Most exotic dancers are female, and therefore to terminate an employee because they had previously been an exotic dancer would have an adverse impact on women, since it is a female-dominated occupation.”
I agree with that and I still want her to win.
Photo credit: iStockphoto
Related Posts
Comments are closed.
7 Comments
I agree. The irony is that she probably got identified because some man working for her company recognized him. So we punish the woman for making a choice to make a living and careless about the men consuming the product.
Hi Corey — would you believe that as I was writing this post, it did go off into the same direction that you’re pointing out but I decided to leave it alone. Excellent point and thanks for commenting!
Hi Kimberly
Yes completely agree! Companies complain so often these days about the lack of productivity and motivation they get from their staff – maybe a little more time spent correcting this and a little less time stalking their employees on Facebook would mean more productivity!
This is the first time I’ve heard of this and I too hope she wins the case. I think more and more employers are become to heavily involved in their employees private lives. Many offices these days check your history on your computer to keep an eye on what you’re doing.
I agree Tyler. Don’t you think companies should be spending their time and money on improving productivity and engagement vs. playing cop?
Thanks for your comment!
Bravo! One thing struck me as I got to the end….since most HR professionals are women, I wonder if we can use the adverse impact argument if we’re fired. Makes you wonder…
🙂
Hi Trish and thanks for commenting!
I just have this to say…there’s a reason the EEOC just added 300 people to their staff. Companies need not take disgruntled employees claims lightly.
Enough is enough.