Cheerleading Coach Fired for Posing in Playboy.

[CaffeineHat]

Before you comment, read the story and consider who alerted the adminstration. Then answer, is this fair? Should she have been fired and if so, why?

http://www.ktla.com/landing_topstories/?Cheerleading-Coach-Fired-over-Playboy-Pi=1&blockID=268202&feedID=1198

[Apatriot]

Before you comment, read the story and consider who alerted the adminstration. Then answer, is this fair? Should she have been fired and if so, why?

http://www.ktla.com/landing_topstories/?Cheerleading-Coach-Fired-over-Playboy-Pi=1&blockID=268202&feedID=1198

Who alerted the administration doesn't matter. In terms of the firing, at least in FL, a non-tenured teacher can be fired for any or no reason at all. They have no rights to continuing employment.

I think she has grounds for a law suit, however, based on the following:


Beck says she posed for Playboy before the district hired her and when asked about her modeling history, Beck says, "I was very honest about everything I participated in."


If they say they fired her for the pictures, then she has a leg to stand on. If they don't say why they fired her, she doesn't. It's one of those little details of ed law. Principals are taught not to give reason for firing untenured teachers.

[WorldWatcher]

Who alerted the administration doesn't matter. In terms of the firing, at least in FL, a non-tenured teacher can be fired for any or no reason at all. They have no rights to continuing employment.

I think she has grounds for a law suit, however, based on the following:



If they say they fired her for the pictures, then she has a leg to stand on. If they don't say why they fired her, she doesn't. It's one of those little details of ed law. Principals are taught not to give reason for firing untenured teachers.


The article refers to her as a "Coach" not a teacher. I wonder how it works in California?


Here in Virginia coaches do no have to be licensed teachers to hold a coaching position, non-teachers can be coaches, as such there don't fall even close to the "tenure" provisions applied to teachers.



>>>>

[AutoRacer55]

Thread is useless without pics.

[ChazBedlam]

Thread is useless without pics.

Understatement of the day. :lol:

[Safiel]

After a trivial amount of searching, found said pics.

She can privately tutor me any day. :)

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Dear Penthouse Letters,

It all started when we got a new cheerleading coach at the school where I teach...

[TCUFan]

As a teacher, this woman had no business applying for a teaching position, much less a cheerleading coaching position.

Before, you jump on my ass, I'm a teacher, and with the sort of kids we're teaching, there is no reason, from a liability standpoint, to hire a person who's done something like this.

First of all, it's a huge distraction. You say after some trifling searching, you've seen her layout. How dedicated do you think those little teenaged boys are going to be to get a good look at the new cheer coach without her clothes? Every boy will have a copy of it on his cell phone or taped to the inside of his locker.

Not only no, but hell no. If she told the admin who hired her about the spread, it's the admin's fault for hiring her in the first place. If she didn't, she damned well deserves to be canned.

We can argue sexual liberation all day long, but at the end of the day, its making our job that much harder. With the horrible reputation teaching is getting, we don't need to give people more ammo to shoot at us.

Want a job in public schools? Keep your nude pictures between you and your significant other. I'm not some puritan, she's a pretty girl. But, from the lawsuit avoidance perspective, don't do a Playboy shoot and expect public education to welcome you with open arms.

TCUFan

[johnrocks]

you tube or it didn't happen,lol.

[chris13]

I was under the impression that she was just the cheerleading coach and did not teach in the classroom.
If she did tell them about the photo shoot before she was hired, then they deserve to get sued for pure stupidity. They should not have hired her because they knew this would get out.
But shame on those snooty little witches that ratted her out in the first place. So now it's "get your feelings hurt or don't get something you want, dig up some dirt on the person who did it." It's kind of like kids calling (in my state) the Department of Children and Families to complain that they were punished.

[Wilhelm Scream]

As a teacher, this woman had no business applying for a teaching position, much less a cheerleading coaching position.


As a teacher, you must realize the misplaced modifier in that sentence.
Sorry, that's just my own "inner teacher" shining through.

All grammatical lessons aside, I'm not surprised that she was let go.

[Wake-Up]

She had a right to pose in Playboy.

School district should have the right to discharge her or any employee.

The problem is, if accurate, she disclosed that information prior to getting the position. If the district had an issue with her she should not have been hired.

To fire her after a parent complaint that was not performance related opens the door for a wrongful termination case. How much of her modeling history was disclosed will probably come down to he-said, she-said.

[PhantomPholly]

She had a right to pose in Playboy.

School district should have the right to discharge her or any employee.

The problem is, if accurate, she disclosed that information prior to getting the position. If the district had an issue with her she should not have been hired.

To fire her after a parent complaint that was not performance related opens the door for a wrongful termination case. How much of her modeling history was disclosed will probably come down to he-said, she-said.

Hope she had a tape recorder with her in her interview. To forever label someone as "unemployable" just because they once posed for pictures is right up there with "banishment" - it is punishment without a crime, and those performing it should be jailed for harassment.