Since what she wrote specifically refers to sexual harassment ("Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964". "[It] constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment", "The harasser can be ... a non-employee." - EEOC's "Facts about Sexual Harassment"), it's almost certainly a protected action under Title VII.
If so, then while it may not be acceptable to you and various others, it's illegal for her company to fire her because of that action. Assuming I understand the law correctly.
To show I'm not just making this up, I'll quote from the judgement in Sumner v. United States Postal Service, 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990): In addition to protecting the filing of formal charges of discrimination, Sec. 704(a)'s opposition clause protects as well informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management, writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general, and expressing support of co-workers who have filed formal charges. See Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989), and Schlei & Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law, 548-49 (1983)."
See the part about "protesting against discrimination by industry"? Doesn't that describe this situation almost exactly?
Now, if she broke a law, or violated some employee policy in a way that has nothing to do with Title VII nor is some other illegal practice (eg, it's illegal to suddenly fire her for doing personal blogging during company time if her supervisors had long known about that practice and had never given a caution or warning that it was a fireable offense) then that's a different issue. But no one has suggested anything of this sort.
So, while you might be offended by what she did, that doesn't mean she "should have expected what she got" if that includes that she got fired from her job.
I looked, but found nothing in the laws prohibiting this form of "public humiliation". Defamation? Yes. Slander? Yes. But it appears to be a protected free speech right to post pictures that were taken in public places and to write truthful personal accounts of what happened. (And I found a lot of people who want to sue their landlord/ boss/ neighbor/ cashier/ etc. for public humiliation. I really don't think you want to open that can of worms.)
In fact, it appears (based on my limited reading of EEOC laws), that firing someone solely for making a claim about sexual discrimination may be illegal. Quoting from the EEOC compliance manual at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB :
> Public criticism of alleged discrimination may be a reasonable form of opposition. Courts have protected an employee's right to inform an employer's customers about the employer's alleged discrimination, as well as the right to engage in peaceful picketing to oppose allegedly discriminatory employment practices.
Picketing surely contains an element of public humiliation, no? I'm sure that the factory owners would love to fire the picketers because the picketers were causing the factory owners to be humiliated in public.
I then dug up the cited Circuit Court case, Sumner v. United States Postal Service, 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990). It says:
> To establish that his activity is protected under Title VII, a plaintiff need not prove the merit of his underlying discrimination complaint, but only that he was acting under a good faith, reasonable belief that a violation existed. Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989); Manoharan v. Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, 842 F.2d 590, 593 (2d Cir.1988). In addition to protecting the filing of formal charges of discrimination, Sec. 704(a)'s opposition clause protects as well informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management, writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general, and expressing support of co-workers who have filed formal charges. See Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989), and Schlei & Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law, 548-49 (1983).
So, Title VII protect employees who make "informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including ... writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general." Huh. That sounds like a pretty close description of this event, doesn't it?
It really reads like the various actions of Sanders are explicitly covered under Title VII protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If so, that means that firing her - if done because of those actions - illegal.
When you say the company was "right", do you mean that as a moral statement independent of what the law says? Or do you actually think that the this was a legal workplace action? If the latter, could you elaborate on how it avoids the seemingly relevant Title VII protections?
When doing so, please remember that select enforcement of employee rules is also illegal. For example, if you argue that it's acceptable to fire this employee because she took identifiable pictures of others in a public space, while on company time, then it can't be that others in the company have done the same and weren't fired. Similarly, if her supervisors have seen those sorts of pictures before and never gave a warning that they are against company policy, then they don't have much of a legal leg to stand on by suddenly enforcing it now.
If she would have been mature and confronted these men, as grown ups should, this all could have been avoided. The only reason I say she was the aggressor is the simple fact that these men didn't even know they were offending her. They were in the wrong, most definitely, but that does not make it right for her to act unprofessionally as well.
As far as I can tell, this company's choice was legal and in their best interest.
My observation is that there are certain standards which are illegal for a company to use as the basis for firing someone.
For example, a company may not fire someone based on marital status. Even if there is a company policy that only single people may be employed at a company. Nor may an accountant be fired for wearing a yarmulke at work; some workplace religious practices being another protected policy.
These don't even need to be Title VII violations. It is illegal for a company (at least in Colorado, which is where this company is located) to fire a janitor who, in off-hours, enjoys being a street mime, that being a 'lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours' and doesn't fit any of the exceptions to the law.
So just saying that something is unprofessional and against company policy, doesn't mean that that is lawful basis for firing someone, because acting on that policy can be illegal.
I think you agree with that. (I'm setting up for the next part.) Your view is instead that "the fact that she represented her company in an unprofessional manner that led to her being fired."
The problem is that the law doesn't appear to allow the company to use this form of unprofessional behavior as the basis for firing someone.
If it did, then any act that a company disagreed with, while done during company time, would be illegal. For example, under the NLRA a company may NOT "prohibit you from wearing union hats, buttons, t-shirts, and pins in the workplace except under special circumstances", even if you are on company time, representing the company, and the company policy says that wearing your union pin is "unprofessional."
The law is very clear that there are things that a company may not use as grounds for firing. Reporting sexual harassment is a protected action, public discussion of sexual discrimination in industry or at a workplace is also a protected action, public shaming of one's employer for allowing discriminatory practices is a protected action. This is well settled by the courts.
Now the Title VII protections only apply so long as every reasonable person would say that there was justification to believe there was discriminatory act, even if this belief ends up being false. The court cases I read are very careful to point out that employees aren't expected to know the law and that some actions, while apparently discriminatory on the surface, are actually not. Even in those cases, an incorrect claim of discrimination may not be used as the basis for firing someone.
Making false accusations is not covered by this law. An employee cannot make false claims about sexual harassment while at the workplace and expect to be protected under Title VII or similar laws. So it's not like this is a safe harbor for spreading lies and misinformation.
To conclude, where in all the laws and court cases that allow someone to make a private report of sexual harassment, without fear of reprisal through firing, does it say that making a public report of sexual harassment is not also protected? Because I can't find it even after several hours of research.
I listed several standards which are illegal. It is illegal to prohibit someone to wear a cross necklace while at work (unless it directly interferes with the job). It is illegal to have mandatory maternity leave rules. It is illegal to say that only woman can be cashiers and men can be stock the shelves. These have all gone to court, and been found to be discriminatory and illegal workplace standards.
In your view of reality, have you read any of the court cases involving Title VII violations? I listed several for you to review. Is your view of reality influenced by documents like the EEOC compliance manual?
"Public discussion of sexual discrimination is not what this woman did"
Even if this wasn't a "public discussion of sexual discrimination", it can still be a protected action. As I pointed out, the 2nd Circuit affirms that people may "write critical letters to customers." That's a protected action even if it isn't 'public discussion', so insisting on both "public" and "discussion" is too restrictive.
So you can't argue that since this didn't fall under your definition of public discussion, therefore it isn't protected. You have to show how what occurred wasn't a protected action under Title VII.
"Unless you think that these men were sexually discriminating against Adria when they were talking about the male speakers dongle."
The law doesn't require that the discriminatory behavior be directed towards the person making the complaint. Nor does the law exclude women from complaining about sexist jokes directed towards men. Your objections do not appear to valid exclusions under the law.
You say "This has nothing to do with sexual discrimination or harassment". The law doesn't require that the claims of sexual discrimination or harassment actually be true. Only that the person who made the claim was well-intentioned and that at least one reasonable person would make the same claim. If there a reasonable person can make the same claim, then the complaint is protected under Title VII - even if it was found to be non-discriminatory.
You can say that it's against some unspecified company policy, but the EEOC points out that that reasoning can't be used as pretext. Quoting from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB :
> Even if the respondent produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, a violation will still be found if this explanation is a pretext designed to hide the true retaliatory motive. Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that the respondent treated the complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the respondent's explanation for the adverse action is not believable. Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity\52.
Do you really think she would have been fired had there not been "heightened scrutiny"?
I do also acknowledge that I have not answered your questions. This is simply, as stated before, because I did not make this a legal statement and do not intend for it to be interpreted as such.
I am not sure why you feel that you need laws to tell you what is right and wrong. Personally, I have internalized my beliefs on morality. What this woman did, even if it wasn't legal justification for termination of employment, was not morally correct. If the laws told me I had to support bullying and public humiliation, I would not be a law abiding citizen.
Edited -To apply final statement.
I now understand that your view is that concepts of "right" and "wrong" are independent of the law, and that a company can and should do what is "right" even though it is illegal.
There's some justification for that view, but there are also penalties for those actions, should it come to court. There is also grave danger in that view, because not everyone has the same morality, and the different moralities may be in conflict. When there is a conflict, what happens? How is it resolved? Who decides?
Now that we're talking about morality, your view is that "What this woman did, even if it wasn't legal justification for termination of employment, was not morally correct." You have the right to this opinion. However, what Richards did was legal, and you'll easily see people who support those actions is being morally correct.
Does your moral view supersede her legal rights? No. Absolutely not, under the American system.
Question: What happens with two sets of people have different moralities? What happens when they come into conflict? What happens if the conflict cannot be settled by the two sets of people?
Answer: the law and the courts get involved.
Yes, the law is imperfect. But the system is not so fragile that a few imperfections send the entire system tumbling down, which is what you suppose. The law is not a set of axiomatic principles that must be self-consistent. Judges help resolve those internal conflicts. So do legislatures. And voters.
"People here get fired for looking at there boss incorrectly. I'm not sure my boss's view of reality is even influenced by the EEOC compliance manual."
A boss may fire someone for looking at them incorrectly. Most workplaces place have at-will employment, where an employee may be fired at the whim of the boss. However, as I've stressed, acting on some of those whims are illegal, and a legally defensible reason cannot be used as a pretext for an illegal reason.
I get the point now. You're a student. You're likely not a law student or a philosophy student, nor a student of some other field which requires you to examine your own moral views or help resolve conflicts between different people. That's why you think that your own views of morality take precedence.
But as you make your way in the world, please remember that just because you think something is right doesn't mean that it is right. If you can't explain your position other than "that's the way I believe" then you probably don't understand your own views.
"If the laws told me I had to support bullying and public humiliation, I would not be a law abiding citizen."
Nice strawman argument. The laws nor this situation require that you support bullying or public humiliation. Just like they don't require you to support a company which breaks employment law, though that is likely what you are doing. This is all part of your First Amendment right to free speech.
Since you want to open up can of anti-humiliation worms, then have you considered how you might define public humiliation? For examples culled from the web:
"Hi, I live in a condo and my dog pooped in the lobby. I cleaned it up and threw it in the trash can, and the next morning the HOA manager placed a poster in every floor(21),elevator, hall way and entrances of my fiance and my dog saying these people do not take care of the property and will be fined, telling us to be careful. My fiance feels so embarrassed she can't even walk into the condo and wants to move. What can I do?"
Do you think the HOA manager can be sued for public humiliation? (or that some other social response should take place?)
" went into a store the clerk told me that I was now banned from the store she accused me of stealing the last time I was in the store I then asked her to rewind the camras to prove the truth she said no she saw me she then called the police anyway it was a store full of people and I was completely humiliated I called the head office and soon the truth will come out"
Do you think the clerk or the store should be sued for public humiliation?
"My bf was pulled over after picking me up from work,for no front plate.( the police station is right next door.)The officer ran both our names said he had two warrants and i had one .Arrested him, said bc i had worked next door for 5 yrs he was giving me time to get taken care of.I thanked him and met them at the station to pay.When i come up w enough for the 2 he had they tell there is a 3rd for a lrg amt.so i ask for a list of bondsman.then come back and say its a lower amt.i start crying bc they keep coming and changing everything everytime im ready to pay.then the chief pops around a corner and is yelling that he is going to arrest me. he scared me so bad i lost my control and am now standing in my own urine.i walk out my bf calls and says they told him what i did.feels like allknow"
Can this person sue the police for public humiliation?
I really hope the answer to all of these questions is "yes", otherwise I will feel personally and publicly humiliated. (Or not. ;)
You see how difficult it is to say when something is "public humiliation"? You leave it up to the person being humiliated to define the severity, and the person with the most humiliation wins! Someone who is publicly humiliated by knock-knock jokes (due to an old door injury) can force everyone to stop telling them.
Do you really want that level of mandated civility? Where is the balance between 'public humility' and free speech? In the US, the balance is weighted very much toward free speech. Because that's the law, and because to do much otherwise leads into oppressive madness.
If you like fallacies look up argumentum verbosium.
But it seems that most of the people involved in the discussions I read want to have an emotional argument, unsupported by any explainable moral or legal framework.
And that annoys me to no end because our current legal framework seems to be a pretty good one for most parts of the discussion. Can someone be fired for telling a sexual joke at a conference? Yes. Most employment is at-will, telling sexual jokes is not a protected action, and there's nothing which implies that it's a pretext for some other protected action. Can someone take a picture of others at a Python conference, without their permission? Yes, excepting certain narrow legal limits.
Can someone 'name and shame'? Yes, truthful accounts are protected under the First Amendment. Is "name and shame" ethical? The law just says that it's legal, since there's no slander involved. But I don't want to get into the name-and-shame topic because a quick scan shows that there's no effective way to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable publish shaming and still have free speech rights. At least, I can't come up with one and no one has described one that looks the first bit achievable.
Is it okay to fire someone who files a report about sexual discrimination? Only if it's a false or spurious report, and the benefit of the doubt is given to the person who makes the report. Otherwise it's a protected action. Can someone be fired for not being "unprofessional"? Yes, unless it's a pretext for retaliation against a protected action, in which case the answer is no.
See, with the law in mind this discussion seems a whole lot easier. And with it in mind the questions are things like "what moral principles should guide changes to the law?", "how would changes to the law affect previous decisions?", and "what can we do to improve things without changing the law?"
But saying, eg, that it's acceptable to fire Richards for taking pictures of people at a conference without their permission is to ignore the law and society expectations entirely and to live in a fantasy world.
What do I do? I'm a self-employed person who writes software for the computational chemistry industry. I'm also a member of the PSF, which is the organization that sponsors PyCon. Over the last few years, we've been struggling with having a code of conduct for meetings like this. As such, I have a personal interest in understanding what went on, so that I might be involved in affecting change. Before last week, I had very little interest in this topic.
And as for argumentum verbosium, were it so easy. Then I would just ask to highlight the flaws in my fallacious logic and be done with it. But, no, I have a chronic case of logorrhoea. My Match.com profile was "intimidating" for its length, and I've been told I write very long and detailed emails.
Discussion over