• jkrtn
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      7 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      That’s fucked up. There’s nothing about that video that was remotely inappropriate for work. Everyone needs to join a union, holy hell.

    • RampantParanoia2365
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      7 months ago
      edit-2
      7 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      So she was essentially fired for being a comedic actor. Imagine if the restaurant industry had the same policy.

      • Captain AggravatedEnglish
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        7 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        It’s potentially worse, and stupider, than that.

        The bank didn’t fire her specifically because she posted the video where she made a couple faces after trying kombucha. They fired her because her face started to get used for the meme. Completely out of her control, because people started posting “thing I don’t like, thing I like” memes with this format, often times with various political messages. Basically someone else used her face in a “this brings joy, this does not bring joy” meme and she got canned because of the bank’s “image. As if it was actually her saying these things.

        • TropicalDingdong
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          I mean, I hope she got a hell of a lawsuit out of that, because damn. Also its a bank so you know they have at least some money.

          • abraxas
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            At Will employment. “In a meme” is not a protected class, and a reasonable bank employee could see her meme-attachment having a detrimental effect on business (you don’t have to be in your reasons for firing someone as long as those reasons aren’t protected or being used to hide that you’re firing them for a protected reason). I’d guess she’d have no case in almost any state in the US with their lack of employee protections.

            • chiliedogg
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              7 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              And to be clear - she probably got unemployment. “At-Will” isn’t a magic spell.

              Terminating an employee without cause requires them to pay unemployment.

              • abraxas
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                0
                ·
                7 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                She was terminated “for cause”. To get unemployment, she’s likely to have to fight for it. She’s likely to win, but it’s not a free thing.

                • chiliedogg
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  0
                  ·
                  7 months ago
                  link
                  fedilink

                  It’s super duper easy. The unemployment office LOVES forcing companies to pay up.

                  • abraxas
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    0
                    ·
                    7 months ago
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago
                    link
                    fedilink

                    You’re not wrong, but I’ve also worked at companies that successfully contested unemployment claims. It can depend by state, but “it was entirely this person’s fault” is a bad start. Employers win about 30% of contested claims, and then about 15-20% of appeals (#1 cause for an employer losing a contested claim or an appeal appears to be withdrawing or not showing up for it). (Some numbers)

                    And the main reason employers lose when they show up is lack of preparation. In a case like the above, if they can show a policy (preferably one signed by her) that directly forbids her onlyfans account, they probably have a pretty good case to shut her down.

                    That said, they’re very unlikely to waste their time and money to fight it. Ultimately (as my current employer’s HR put it) “it’s just a cost of doing business” and a waste of money to pursue.

            • Gabu
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              7 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              Gross. Here in Brazil the employers would be bending over backwards to beg her not to sue them for all they’re worth.

              • Ann Archy
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                0
                ·
                7 months ago
                edit-2
                7 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                Here in Sweden this wouldn’t be a problem whatsoever, and she’d have worker rights. Well, the conservatives driven by American cock sucking ideals are dismantling all that, but so far, she’d be ok.

                ed: i get political when I’m drunk, sorry

      • TropicalDingdong
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        restaurant industry

        Isn’t that where fired comedic actors go after they are fired?