Texas Reporter is suing for her right to strip.

[Bocefish]

I hope she gets millions and sets a precedent for other overly uptight macaroons. Great legs BB :mrgreen:

Sarah Tressler, 30, filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging she was fired because she had not told the Houston Chronicle that she worked part time as a stripper on her job application.

She was outed in March by a rival newspaper and dismissed shortly after.

"I was very upset that I was fired because I had been told by many editors I was doing a good job," she said at a press conference with her lawyer, Gloria Allred, on Thursday. "There was no question on the form that covered my dancing and I answered the questions on the form honestly."

The NYU journalism school graduate worked as a society reporter for the newspaper from January until she was fired in March, according to the Associated Press.

On the side, she worked occasionally as a stripper and kept a blog about her exploits, titled "Diary of An Angry Stripper".

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... z1uaYTWJQ8

 

[VioletJune]

I hope she gets millions and sets a precedent for other overly uptight macaroons. Great legs BB :mrgreen:

Sarah Tressler, 30, filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging she was fired because she had not told the Houston Chronicle that she worked part time as a stripper on her job application.

She was outed in March by a rival newspaper and dismissed shortly after.

"I was very upset that I was fired because I had been told by many editors I was doing a good job," she said at a press conference with her lawyer, Gloria Allred, on Thursday. "There was no question on the form that covered my dancing and I answered the questions on the form honestly."

The NYU journalism school graduate worked as a society reporter for the newspaper from January until she was fired in March, according to the Associated Press.

On the side, she worked occasionally as a stripper and kept a blog about her exploits, titled "Diary of An Angry Stripper".

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... z1uaYTWJQ8

WOW I used to read her blog a LOT when I was considering trying stripping before I heard of mfc. I hope she wins the lawsuit! Good for her for taking a stand.

 

[MadisonLeigh]

Good for her! I loved her blog.

 

[SatanJonez]

Wow, I read her blog on and off for the last year. I hope she wins.

 

[Rose]

Good for her!

 

[bud9752]

Hmmmmmm, I wonder if any of her MALE counterparts were FIRED for visiting any Strip Clubs, equal opportunity employment at her former place of employment seems to be a bit shady/biased against women. If she can do the job why the double standard?

 

[eclipse76]

Hmmmmmm, I wonder if any of her MALE counterparts were FIRED for visiting any Strip Clubs, equal opportunity employment at her former place of employment seems to be a bit shady/biased against women. If she can do the job why the double standard?

Maybe because no male counterpart publicly proclaimed they visited a strip club? The newspaper could probably countersue for loss of reputation.

 

[SoTxBob]

Stripper reporter Sarah Tressler picks up work with 'Good Morning America' after being fired from Houston Chronicle
Tressler briefly covered tornadoes in Texas for ABC News
Thursday, April 5, 2012, 5:18 PM
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... z1ubINBWSY

 

[Evvie]

I looked up her blog, and it looks like the vast majority of articles and pages have been deleted. Everything I click brings up a 404 error.

 

[eclipse76]

I looked up her blog, and it looks like the vast majority of articles and pages have been deleted. Everything I click brings up a 404 error.

Internet never forgets... well at least the Web Archive tries to.
Take a look, maybe you'll find what you're missing: http://web.archive.org/web/20101101094823/http://diaryofanangrystripper.com/

 

[Just Me]

Sadly, she is just wasting her time. The newspaper is private entity and can fire her for any reason they want as long as it is not for discriminatory reasons. This is just the usual ploy of hoping for a settlement if the employer does not want to fight it in the court of public opinion. I don't agree with her being fired but many people have been fired for lesser reasons.

 

[katie_christ]

in Alabama you can be fired for no reason at all. i'm not sure of Texas's laws, but if it's a right-to-work state, then i'd assume it's the same. but if the point of her suit is that they fired her because of the nature of her part time job, then it's actually pretty important that she's decided to at least pursue it, no matter the outcome. she's pointing out a form of discrimination. i hope this gets publicity. too many women are punished for taking advantage of job opportunities designed for their sex. i hope this doesn't come off sexist - i'm drunk. ok, so i'm a bit sexist-ish. whatever.

 

[SoTxBob]

... if the point of her suit is that they fired her because of the nature of her part time job, then it's actually pretty important that she's decided to at least pursue it, no matter the outcome. she's pointing out a form of discrimination. i hope this gets publicity. too many women are punished for taking advantage of job opportunities designed for their sex.

Publicity? Did you see her lawyer?
Gloria Allred = publicity.... :lol:

 

[Jupiter551]

Sadly, she is just wasting her time. The newspaper is private entity and can fire her for any reason they want as long as it is not for discriminatory reasons. This is just the usual ploy of hoping for a settlement if the employer does not want to fight it in the court of public opinion. I don't agree with her being fired but many people have been fired for lesser reasons.

She's not wasting her time. She might not win but that doesn't mean her time is being wasted; people taking a stand like this is exactly how laws change. For sure if people didn't take a stand women wouldn't have a vote, get maternity leave etc.

People may scoff at the so-called "court of public opinion", but woe betide anyone who gets in its way.

 

[Mirra]

When it comes to private business, I don't know that Right-to-Work statutes need to change. The whole idea behind the statutes is as Katie touched on. Employers in right-to-work states can fire an employee for no reason or any reason except for the wrong reason. They are still barred from most types of discrimination. If you look at the types of discrimination covered, they tend to focus on the things that the employee does not have a choice in. Race, gender, sexual orientation, having a handicap, and stuff like that. They also cover not being able to terminate a pregnant woman because she takes maternity leave. The policy does leave the door wide open for someone to be fired for one of those reasons as long as there's no way for the employee to prove why they were fired. For a private business, I don't mind that. If I owned a business, I'd want to be able to have the employees I want and if someone turns out to not be who I thought they were, I would want to be able to terminate them without fear of them trying to bring a discrimination case against me. Especially if the business is a sole proprietorship in which case my personal finances are directly tied to the business if I am found liable in a civil trial.

From a commercial law perspective, she doesn't have a sexy pair of legs to stand on in my opinion.

 

[Jupiter551]

Right, but the point is she might be a damn good reporter, and what she does legally for a second job shouldn't really be any of the employer's business should it?

 

[Mirra]

She represents their paper any time her name is next to an article and every time she identifies herself as working for the paper to someone. It is their job to protect the reputation of their newspaper from what they deem to be a threat. In extremely conservative areas, a sexual job will get the religious right in quite a frenzy so I understand why they saw her other profession as a threat to their reputation. Their position is further supported by the fact that a competing paper outed her meaning that other paper saw her other profession as a liability.

Also as a note (and we've touched on this a little in another thread) my statements about Right to work statutes aren't completely accurate on their own volition. It is the right to work statutes in combination with the more wide-spread at-will doctrine that leads to the conditions I've mentioned.

 

[Nordling]

I think we're confused about right to work laws. It has to do with unions, not how people are fired. In a right to work [for less] state, employers have various ways to prevent unions from organizing their employees.

There are states that allow employers to fire without cause but are not right to work [for less] states..

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Personal opinion but I believe people should be hired and fired based on their merit and performance as opposed to life choices even when those choices are legal. What's to stop a company from firing a woman when finding out she had an abortion after someone making it public because the company believes it shines a bad light on them as well? But that's just me being wacky. If every one got fired because they did something someone would frown upon no one would have a job.

 

[Nordling]

Personal opinion but I believe people should be hired and fired based on their merit and performance as opposed to life choices even when those choices are legal. What's to stop a company from firing a woman when finding out she had an abortion after someone making it public because the company believes it shines a bad light on them as well? But that's just me being wacky. If every one got fired because they did something someone would frown upon no one would have a job.

Not whacky at all, IMHO. I also dislike it when a company favors/disfavors someone for promotion because their religion, ethnicity or outside associations.

 

[Mirra]

I think we're confused about right to work laws. It has to do with unions, not how people are fired. In a right to work [for less] state, employers have various ways to prevent unions from organizing their employees.

There are states that allow employers to fire without cause but are not right to work [for less] states..

As I mentioned in the following:

Also as a note (and we've touched on this a little in another thread) my statements about Right to work statutes aren't completely accurate on their own volition. It is the right to work statutes in combination with the more wide-spread at-will doctrine that leads to the conditions I've mentioned.

The right to work statutes making unions optional and putting limits on contractual agreements and other such things combined with the at-will employment present in most states is a leading contributory factor in situations like this.

Also as mentioned there are discrimination laws in place for certain things though most are focused on things that aren't by choice. Ethnicity is definitely one of those. Religious belief happens to be one of the few characteristics protected that have a certain level of choice. I believe it being an exception is due in large part to the idea of beliefs being stronger than a simple preference decision.

Personal opinion but I believe people should be hired and fired based on their merit and performance as opposed to life choices even when those choices are legal. What's to stop a company from firing a woman when finding out she had an abortion after someone making it public because the company believes it shines a bad light on them as well? But that's just me being wacky. If every one got fired because they did something someone would frown upon no one would have a job.

And I would argue that, legally, it is the right of the private business to shoot themselves in the foot by firing someone who performs well as long as it's not for the wrong reason.

Not whacky at all, IMHO. I also dislike it when a company favors/disfavors someone for promotion because their religion, ethnicity or outside associations.

I'm really glad you mentioned that "outside associations" part since that brings in the Freedom of association. Anyone who is familiar with some of the controversy regarding how many libertarians interpret the freedom of association will surely be familiar with how it could apply to private business. Anyone who is not familiar with it should definitely read the Wikipedia article about freedom of association. It gives a rather succinct account of the concept.

 

[Jobs4Adults.com]

well, as a person "involved in Adult Industry", although more indirectly, as affiliate, book writer or webcam studio.....I do admit that is difficult to "make peace" between a company that uses Morality as one of the most important asset and a worker who had "adult related jobs"...

Anyway, the "good news" is that nowadays the workers who are involved in "Adult Biz" are less and less considered "guilty", in fact, they enjoy MORE AND MORE popularity+simpathy.....Which do make others to ask themselves why the society loves so much "the sex scandals"?

:mrgreen:

 

[Jessi]

Wow, I'm really glad I don't live there. :? Very rarely do you hear of stuff like that up here.

 

[MadisonLeigh]

No matter what the outcome of the case is, I still think it's great that she is standing up for sex worker rights.

 

[Jupiter551]

My god, can you imagine? Reading your news from someone who takes off their clothes and dances??! Outrageous!

 

[mynameisbob84]

Man, this kinda stuff makes me do poops of rage (figuratively, not literally). I just can't get my head 'round what makes people SO fucking intolerant of anything and everything to do with sex that firing someone who is perfectly competent at their job because they used to take their clothes off for a living can seem like the MORAL thing to do. What the fuck went wrong?

 

[Mirra]

First of all it's not a "used to take her clothes off" situation this time. She still stripped occasionally while working for the newspaper if my understanding of the story is correct. Not that it probably changes your opinion at all but I just wanted to clarify based on what I understood from it.

That said, I've grown up in the Bible belt. I am very used to the mentality of which you speak. While I myself am extremely skeptical of the extreme need to force morality on everyone that seems pervasive in the neo-conservatives that make up a large portion of the population, I still defend a private businesses right to hire and fire as they please so long as they are not breaking any discrimination laws/statutes. I can tell my opinion isn't very popular here but I don't really care. I personally think they did themselves a disservice if she truly was as adept at her job as the article infers. If criticizing and fireing because of a person's choice of alternate income (though legal) is discrimination, what is not? Are the only justifiable causes for termination of employment breaking laws or failure to perform your duties? We've fired people from our department because they "weren't a good fit" for the team. They performed their duties acceptably but brought a level of hostility to the department. Our CIO decided we had given the lady long enough adjust and decided we had to let her go. Did we discriminate against her personality? Maybe. We're a state and federally funded University so I feel the cause and documentation of termination should be stricter than that of a privately owned business and yet I feel it had to be done. It's a little different for sure but WHERE do you draw the line?

 

[SweepTheLeg]

I just think it's so easy for anyone to get on their high horse and preach their version of morality provided none of their skeletons get brought out of the closet. Did her bosses ever go into a strip club? Or is watching someone get naked more moral than the one getting naked? Did her taking off her clothes on occasion effect her job?

 

[Nordling]

First of all it's not a "used to take her clothes off" situation this time. She still stripped occasionally while working for the newspaper if my understanding of the story is correct. Not that it probably changes your opinion at all but I just wanted to clarify based on what I understood from it.

That said, I've grown up in the Bible belt. I am very used to the mentality of which you speak. While I myself am extremely skeptical of the extreme need to force morality on everyone that seems pervasive in the neo-conservatives that make up a large portion of the population, I still defend a private businesses right to hire and fire as they please so long as they are not breaking any discrimination laws/statutes. I can tell my opinion isn't very popular here but I don't really care. I personally think they did themselves a disservice if she truly was as adept at her job as the article infers. If criticizing and fireing because of a person's choice of alternate income (though legal) is discrimination, what is not? Are the only justifiable causes for termination of employment breaking laws or failure to perform your duties? We've fired people from our department because they "weren't a good fit" for the team. They performed their duties acceptably but brought a level of hostility to the department. Our CIO decided we had given the lady long enough adjust and decided we had to let her go. Did we discriminate against her personality? Maybe. We're a state and federally funded University so I feel the cause and documentation of termination should be stricter than that of a privately owned business and yet I feel it had to be done. It's a little different for sure but WHERE do you draw the line?

I'd say you just drew it. The example you used was one in which the productivity of an entire department or group was brought down by someone's ON THE JOB behavior. On the other side of the line is NOT firing someone for what they do when NOT at your company working but working at an alternate LEGAL job. Newspapers are not churches, and of all businesses should show even more acceptance and tolerance than other jobs. Journalism is supposed to be about not taking sides.

 

[Mirra]

I'd say you just drew it. The example you used was one in which the productivity of an entire department or group was brought down by someone's ON THE JOB behavior. On the other side of the line is NOT firing someone for what they do when NOT at your company working but working at an alternate LEGAL job. Newspapers are not churches, and of all businesses should show even more acceptance and tolerance than other jobs. Journalism is supposed to be about not taking sides.

We're talking about a state where anti-gay marriage laws have been implemented. Acceptance? Tolerance? I've tried talking to some of these nut jobs around my area and reason doesn't phase them. They regurgitate the bullshit they've been fed like well trained parrots.

I stand by the fact that by the legal letter of the law, they are within their rights even if I don't agree that it's such a big deal. They perceive it as damaging to their reputation and they took the completely legal action they felt was necessary.