Teacher Fired After Being a Victim of Domestic Violence and Her Ex Husband's behavior

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Most employers are "at will", the Catholic School likely is too, public schools, not so much. I'd say a leave of absence is reasonable with a "one and done" policy after that. Any more incidents and you are out. Which seems like what they did.

You make some very reasonable points-- and especially in the case of a school, I somewhat agree with the logic. Especially in light of all the school shootings in recent years.

However, I have issue with the way you phrased this last line. You make it sound almost like it's the victim's fault.


"Okay, we've talked about this before, and if you allow one more incident of abuse and harassment which you likely have no control over, you're fired."





Unfortunately, this is nothing new, nor is it exclusive to cases of abuse, or institutions like schools. I have heard of people getting fired because their significant other refused to stop calling their workplace-- let alone this crap. But it's an infuriating situation for the person being harrassed, as they feel helpless to stop it. Even worse when you call the cops and they tell you they can't help, because there is no proof of a crime having been committed. So not only have you been abused or mistreated by some jerk, but now that same jerk gets to throw your life even further into disarray by harassing you so bad your employer has "no choice," but to fire you.


Now, I would think that if it were so bad the school felt people were at risk, that it should then be a matter worthy of police. I mean, the guy shows up drunk harassing her once-- and what happens? The cops should have been called, and he should have been arrested for trespassing that time, at the least. Then if that happens a second time, you get a restraining order, and the problem has been solved for you-- unless the creep truly is on a mission to end up in jail.


It just seems like one more BS element of our system where the victim has to lose, the abuser has the power, and the business could care less as long as the money is flowing in (again, in the case of a school safety is an issue, but I've seen this type of thing happen to someone working in a department store, or an office, etc...)


One of the worst parts about this, is that some of the abusers understand the way this kind of thing tends to go down-- and it becomes one more tool for them to control and mess up the life of their victim.

Originally posted by captaintyinknotsevery conversation into a gun debate.

It's not a gun debate...right?

Right? Or is it? I hope not.

Why does keeping children safe mean guns in the class room? Why is having a gun in the class reasonable to some people but removing the person who is tangentially putting the kids in danger is not?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


You have explained it?

X has a threat coming from Y that endangers Z. To protect Z we subtract X. In theory Y follows X. Z is safe.

If X=teacher this works for you but if X=student this wouldnt work?

Makes no sense to me.

If the statement is true it doesnt matter what X happens to be as long as Y is an external threat and Z needs to be protected.

reply to post by iwilliam


You're right, it's harsh. I don't like it. But it's reality.

It's my observation, from the employees I had who dealt with this, that the abusers do know they are squeezing the victim between a rock and a hard place. It's sadistic.

But how is the employer to know what is a twisted, abusive mind game and what may turn to a crime scene? They can't and so they must act accordingly to protect their other employees and the public.

As for the scenario laid out in the OP, I, personally, would allow more leeway in almost any other sort of job, but not teaching school aged kids. .

Originally posted by kosmicjack

Originally posted by captaintyinknotsevery conversation into a gun debate.

It's not a gun debate...right?

Right? Or is it?

I hope not.

Why does keeping children safe mean guns in the class room? Why is having a gun in the class reasonable to some people but removing the person who is tangentially putting the kids in danger is not?

edit on 6/14/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)

its is an interesting paradigm, isnt it?

I dont want to stray too far into it, a)because I think the gun debate is overplayed these day, and b)it isnt the topic of this thread, but I will say this:

I think there is something to be said for guns in the hands of certain individuals within schools. I think, if a teacher wants to take all the necessary training courses, I have no problem with them carrying. I would personally create a higher level of certification that someone must achieve before they are allowed to carry on school grounds, and at that point, I would welcome them.

But I dont think that they would solve a single safety issue in our schools. It would be the type of thing that, from time to time, may avert or stop short an active violence scenario, but for the most part, they wouldnt change a thing.

Remember, there were armed security officers at Columbine.

Originally posted by kosmicjack

Why does keeping children safe mean guns in the class room? Why is having a gun in the class reasonable to some people but removing the person who is tangentially putting the kids in danger is not?

edit on 6/14/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)

If Iran wants to nuke Israel do we just remove Israel to make the region safe? I suppose we could.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

You have explained it?

X has a threat coming from Y that endangers Z. To protect Z we subtract X. In theory Y follows X. Z is safe.

If X=teacher this works for you but if X=student this wouldnt work?

Makes no sense to me.

If the statement is true it doesnt matter what X happens to be as long as Y is an external threat and Z needs to be protected.

Its not that simple, and I find it to be a bit dishonest that you try to make it so. You are still claiming there is no difference between student and teacher.

There is a HUGE difference. the same as there is a huge difference between parent and child.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


There are a lot of differences. I dont see how those differences matter here. And yes, it is that simple.

She was fired because an outside threat posed a danger to the students.

The same reasoning should stand if it's a student, a teacher, a janitor, an administrator or the class goldfish.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


That's like comparing apples to oranges. Not relative at all, IMHO. Others may agree with you though...

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

There are a lot of differences. I dont see how those differences matter here. And yes, it is that simple.

She was fired because an outside threat posed a danger to the students.

The same reasoning should stand if it's a student, a teacher, a janitor, an administrator or the class goldfish.

Teacher, janitor, administrator, yes. As they all have a job requirement that centers first and foremost of the safety of large numbers of children that they interact with daily.

its part of their job requirement. The reason they are paid. The reason they are there.

Let me ask, what is the purpose of school?

reply to post by kosmicjack


It's the same behavior it's just macro'd up a bit. Regardless of scale it has the sames pro's and con's.

We can either support the target teacher / Israel or remove the target teacher / Israel or (just because it is an option) side with the threat against the target teacher / Israel.

Whichever choice we make lives will be affected and the threat may or may not be reduced assuming the threat was ever really there in the first place. That's the problem with fear and threats. They only exist in theory until acted upon and quite often reactions to fears and threats are simple reactions to non-existent specters. Yet, phantom or not the lives affected are very real.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Let me ask, what is the purpose of school?

Depends. Some say education. Others say babysitting. Others still say indoctrinating/training.

The purpose and even the place is irrelevant if the statement remains true.

Could be a carnival, supermarket or library. If X is threatened by Y and it puts Z at risk then X must be removed, no?

Saying "unless X is a child" is ludicrous. The structure of the statement doesnt care what X is.

And if the statement isnt true then why was the teacher fired?

As far as a job requirement goes it absolutely is not. Most people will instinctively risk all to protect a child but it is no way a requirement to do so.

An interesting thought just popped into my head.

The most interesting part of this conversation, to me, and the one that nobody wants to talk about, is UNIONS.

For the last 12 years or so unions have been portrayed in a very bad light, Teacher strikes have been used as an example of why unions are so awful.

But if this lady worked in public schools, and was part of a union, she would not have been fired. Guaranteed.

Hows that for irony?

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

But if she has a threat to her own personal safety, then those in her immediate vicinity are also unsafe, in this case, children, who have been entrusted to her care and who look to her to protect them. How can she reasonably do that if she is also afraid enough to alert the school administrators to the possibility of him showing up and also file a restraining order against him?

Kosmicjack, I dearly love you, but I have to disagree.

I once had a parent threaten to kill me after I reported him for abuse (mandated reporting is supposed to be anonymous, but he figured it out). He threatened to come to school and "shoot the place up."

According to the logic I've seen in this thread, my prescience posed a danger to the kids. Should I have lost my job? It's the same thing, IMO.

This is a tough decision, everyone obviously wants the best for the children.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
This is really tough. As a school, the number one concern has got to be the safety of ALL of the children in their charge. This means, if someone is (even unintentionally) causing an unsafe environment for the kids, they have to be removed.

If this were a public school, there would be a lot of ways around this, i.e., a temporary office job. But being a private school, it is likely that there isnt another position to move her too.

I feel bad for the lady, its not her fault, and I hope the guy gets locked up. But I lean towards being behind the school on this decision...

On the other hand, if we treated abusive partners as they should be treated, legally, this would never have been an issue, so theres that....

edit on 13-6-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

I think you've got the right of it in a nutshell. I feel very sorry for her, having had sisters in similar situations albeit not for long once I found out about it. The guy should be locked up for six months the first time he violates a restraining order, and a year the next time.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
I see a lawsuit brewing. Her termination wasn't work related, the school had no right to fire her.

I am curious, do lawful termination laws apply the same in both public and private school environments?

I do not know, but it might play a factor.

God Bless,

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Depends. Some say education. Others say babysitting. Others still say indoctrinating/training.

With all of those things, there is one constant: the student. The point of school is the student. Period.

The purpose and even the place is irrelevant if the statement remains true.

Not true whatsoever.

Could be a carnival, supermarket or library. If X is threatened by Y and it puts Z at risk then X must be removed, no?

Not parallel in any way. The entire job description of a teacher starts and ends with the students.

Saying "unless X is a child" is ludicrous. The structure of the statement doesnt care what X is.

No, its not. The job description of a teacher flat out requires that the children be their utmost priority. Thats why breaking it down into such simplistic terms doesnt work.

And if the statement isnt true then why was the teacher fired? As far as a job requirement goes it absolutely is not. Most people will instinctively risk all to protect a child but it is no way a requirement to do so.

Not true. Now, I am not saying that it was required that the teachers run at the gunman. Im saying that years and years and years of training teaches teachers that the wellbeing of a student ALWAYS comes before their own.

Kind of like the time I was slashed with a shiv made out of a pair of headphones by a student in a fit of rage. Did I want to put the kid down? You bet. But my job was to ensure HIS well being, not my own. So I got him in an approved scissor hold until help came.

Had it not been about the kids safety, I would have simply popped him in the mouth as he made his move for me, and there would be no scar on my stomach.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


That is interesting. I cant help but wonder if unions would be feeling the heat if it got out that a targeted individual was allowed to remain in her position.

Though the union most likely would have tried to save face with everyone and put her on some administrative leave or something,

Also, her lawyer does plan to sue, according to an interview she did, so time will tell what ultimately comes of this for her.

This is a tough one.

Posters have made some good points on both sides of the spectrum, so what should the correct action have been ?

Maybe this school should have done the humane thing and given her a PAID leave of absence, and time to somehow straighten out her personal affairs with this joker, if possible, with the option to have her job back once that was accomplished... instead of outright firing this woman and re-victimizing her ?

Unless her job performance was failing, I see no grounds for permanent termination.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

That is interesting. I cant help but wonder if unions would be feeling the heat if it got out that a targeted individual was allowed to remain in her position.

Its possible. Or if, god forbid, the guy DID do something violent because she stayed.

Though the union most likely would have tried to save face with everyone and put her on some administrative leave or something,

In my experience (and Id like to point out that these types of things are really not all that rare in schools), they would have moved her to a central office job of some sort, for the time being, out of the school population.

Also, her lawyer does plan to sue, according to an interview she did, so time will tell what ultimately comes of this for her.

I dont doubt that she'll win, and I hope, if the school has any type of decency, they will reinstate her as soon as the thread subsides. That would be the RIGHT thing to do.