Company denies man lost job over Playgirl spread
Source: AP-Excite
By PAT EATON-ROBB
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A company that helps businesses handle personnel issues denies it forced one if its employees out of his job after it was discovered he had posed nude in Playgirl magazine.
Daniel Sawka filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in May 2013 against Roseland, New Jersey-based ADP Inc. alleging sexual harassment. The company responded in a court filing Monday.
Sawka worked as a regional sales manager for ADP, which offers workforce management services, including payroll services and human resources management, for other companies and says it has more than 610,000 clients around the world.
Sawka, who worked for ADP in Windsor and later in Milford, alleges he was subjected to constant jokes and ridicule at work after a woman in his office discovered he had posed nude in the early 1990s in a lumberjack-themed spread for Playgirl and found the photos online.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20141103/us-odd--naked_photos_lawsuit-ddb141d732.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
send the link around the office? If so, she should have been fired, too -- as did anyone who downloaded the picture at work.
rocktivity
Last edited Tue Nov 4, 2014, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)
is certainly grounds for being fired.
rocktivity
Remember the rule of employment is "At Will" and thus an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason UNLESS it is an illegal reason (Sex discrimination is an illegal reason).
Now, to get unemployment, the action one is terminated for must NOT be for "Wilful misconduct" i.e. something that is NOT in the best interest of the employer. Harassing a fellow employee can be "Wilful Misconduct" but how is passing around a nude photo of a fellow employer against the best interest of the employer (and thus "Wilful Misconduct"
? Using that photo to harass a fellow employee MAY be "Wilful Misconduct" but just passing it around by itself is NOT (Just like passing around a photo of the employee walking his dog is NOT against the interest of the employer and thus NOT "Wilful Misconduct" but can be if the photo of walking the dog is being used to harass that employee).
Using Company property for something NOT for the interest of your employer can be "Wilful Misconduct", but if such communications, including spreading around photos, is permitted by the employer for it raises moral and enhanced communications it is NOT "Wilful Misconduct". The key is how does this harm the employer? In many cases such communication enhances interaction and thus makes the employees more comfortable with technology and thus NOT "Wilful Misconduct".
Now notice I mention that such communications is permitted by the employer. In many offices that is the case, and thus use of office equipment for that purpose is NOT Willful Misconduct if it can be shown it is common practice and thus permitted by the employer even if the employer technically has a rule against such use of company equipment.
I do a lot of Unemployment law and such misuse of company equipment comes up a lot of time, and often the employee can show it may not be permitted, but the employer did nothing to stop employees from using such company equipment. i.e it was permitted by the employer even through it technically was against the rules (and often use of Company equipment for non company purposes is permitted provided it does NOTharm the employer). In such cases, such use of Company Equipment is NOT Wilful misconduct and thus the employer gets unemployment (unless the employer hires the employees back, which does occur every so often, for such a ruling affects the unemployment insurance tax the employer pays).
Thus spreading the Photo around may NOT be wilful misconduct for spreading such photos around may be common practice in that Company. Thus the woman could be fired, but if fired will get unemployment (and the company will see its unemployment tax rate goes up).
For that reason I suspect this woman was NOT terminated for what she did was either permitted or approved of by management and thus NOT wilful misconduct.
As to the charge of Sexual Discrimination, spreading of the photos by itself is NOT Sexual harassment and thus Sexual discrimination. The Key is HOW where those photos used and by whom? How and by whom determines if the photos were being used for harassment purposes and thus illegal sexual discrimination. That a female employee found the photos and spread them to her co-workers may NOT be harassment. You need that extra step of actually using the photo to harass someone for it to reach the issue of illegal sexual discrimination.
