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 her 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: alamy
Wow. I recently posted about someone who’d be fired for a decades old offense of shoplifting. I asked HR colleagues what they thought and a few posited the idea that she may not have been fired for the old, minor offense but for lying about it. While that may be true, inasmuch as the “no-moonlighting” clause in this case may technically be true, I just feel like they are tired old excuses that people pull out when they have no other reason but “you’re skeeving me out” or because they are genuinely hurt and/or surprised that trust has been breached. Which leads me to my next conclusion, why do the reaches of employers (and often employees) extend out so much further than common sense and the law provide? Why can’t employees just get their business done? Maybe Heather Bussing can answer that.
Personal anecdote: Once I was working for an international company with no presence in my state. They had zero issues with me working anything from poles to tables. However, I nabbed a marketing contract with an investment firm during the same time and at one point the CEO made it very clear that he did not want me taking any local contracts that would make me look “low rent”. One of his main motivations for hiring me was to have a marketing executive at the table for large clients and he did not want them seeing me around our (little big) town doing anything else, even though he couldn’t afford me full time. Do you think that perhaps simply the perception that you have to DO another job (which it seemed this woman enjoyed or at least was passionate about- blog, pics,etc) reflect poorly on the person who is signing your not-big-enough-to-cover-the-family-expenses paycheck?
I’m rambling…..back to work. Nice article and best blog post title of the WEEK!
Great questions Maren — and excellent points. There are so many variables with this issue and even the example you gave. if people spent more time doing their jobs and not worried about what society or everyone else thinks, the corporate world would be a much better place. And yes, to your example, maybe her day time employer didn’t want to look bad because they weren’t paying her enough to get by!
Thanks for visiting and commenting! (Yea, I liked the title too!)
“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.”
I want to agree with this statement but it is just not that simple.
Employers really need to take time to touch base with their HR departments and value their suggestions. This has red flags all over it. Unless you have an explicit policy against it, this is a termination you stay away from. You chalk it up to “my fault for not making my employee handbook more thorough” and gingerly wait for the next opportunity to amendment the handbook (In a non-discriminatory manner of course).
Great article, thanks for sharing. (sorry for the long comment)
Lord save us! Can common sense prevail, please, if only in HR. Short of criminal activity or national security issues, why do employers feel they have a right to monitor the private lives of employees?? Focus on job performance, please!
Nothing can be said better than what Ed Douherty said.. Well done