Was The Termination Fair Or Unfair

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 14, 2013 17:25:58 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jun 14, 2013 15:46:38 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

::The explaination was that despite it seeming like these women have a choice, psychologically they really don't. ::

Was the explanation really that women are just so weak-willed they are able to be controlled to the point that they really don't have a choice?  That doesn't seem very complimentary to women in general.  When's the last time you heard of a man killing his wife because that was the only way he could escape her physical abuse?

I haven't, yet I can find daily occurrences of men killing their wives, SOs, or girlfriends because the women left them. They have a choice too yet their mental map has convinced them they can't survive and move on without killing the offender in their opinion.

I don't think its necessarily weak-willed except programmed helplessness. And if you let it get to a certain point, they probably are right their choice is mostly get killed in the future at home or definitely get killed sooner by leaving. Those cases do have a real low probablity of a happy ending for the abused indiviual. Plus my guess is many of these women develop depression and other disorders that turn chemical making it even harder for them to extricate themselves. Its a lot like boiling water for frogs or lobsters. The best way to exit and be safe is to leave almost as soon as you realize something isn't right.

You guys are talking about it as though it's a rational phenomenon.

Wiki definitely portrays it as a full-blown psychosis, not unlike PTSD: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome

Read the symptomology.

[formerroomate99]

Probably nothing but try to get me counseling. I think all they really could do is tell me I was doing the right thing. And they were at first. Problems came when my parents brought a realtor to the house. They wanted me to start the process that day & start moving in with them. They were asking me to give up my home, get rid of my dogs, leave my job, and move in with them. I felt they were asking me to give up everything & it was too much. I said I wanted to stay & I was going to try to keep the house. My mom threw a hissy fit, they left in a big huff & didn't speak to me for a month. They were pushing too hard. I know they thought it was best, but they pushed too hard for a step I wasn't ready to take. My life was a jumbled mess & I didn't want to make a huge decision like that too quickly because I might regret it. It was too much to process with everything else I was already giong through. I think I absolutely made the right decision there - I still have the house, no longer underwater, I still have the dogs, my job is freaking fantastic - it would have been a huge mistake careerwise to leave, & I didn't have to try to live with my parents, which would have been a disaster.

Or, you could have ended up face down in a pool of your own blood and your children without a mother because you didn't move quickly enough.  Your friends and family patting you on the back wouldn't have kept your husband from killing you.  If they thought the situation was much more dangerous than it was that would explain why they pushed so hard.   

I'm glad everything worked out for you, though.  It would suck to give up everything like that. 

[Opti]

Jun 14, 2013 16:26:53 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

POM - Everything in your post really applies to men who are being abused also though.  I mean it can't just be women with no jobs and men who are highly successful with lots of money that are abused right?  If not, then that means all of htat applies to both sexes, which still raises the question of why this psychological control where murder is the only escape seems to apply so much more to women than men.

I think part of it is cultural and part of it is men typically make more than women so more
of the abused men can leave and support themselves. Culturally men aren't supposed to hit women and are supposed to be able to take it so they have a lot of pressure to put up with it or quietly solve the problem.

I don't know if it is happening more often or the media is just reporting it more often. I have noticed in recent years there are many more stories about crazed girlfriends or wives who kill or seriously injure their man. I almost posted one today in EE. A girlfriend apparently killed her BF via stiletto to his head multiple times. Men's shelters might become more available once society is willing to acknowledge that these men are is seriously physical danger. That it isn't just hen-pecking or verbal abuse but serious physical abuse.

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::" Men's shelters might become more available once society is willing to acknowledge that these men are is seriously physical danger. That it isn't just hen-pecking or verbal abuse but serious physical abuse.":::...

Also, when equal rights are such that a man can defend himself, without ending up the guilty party automatically just for having a johnson.  Violence is seldom the answer.  But bodily harm is not OK either.

I got through the first 4 pages.  One of the most honest statements, I think, came from Miss Tequila.  Something like "All I care is that MY child is out of danger".

This just seems like a no win situation, plain and simple, with each person acting in his/her own best interests.  If the teacher really did get paid for quite a few months, then that is certainly better than it could have been.

I feel bad for the school that has to choose who to cheese off.  I feel bad for the other parents who have to admit that they'd rather one human being get harmed than someone they care about more.  I feel especially bad for the victim, who is guilty by association, on top of everything she already endured.

However, short of "the ex becomes a model citizen", there is no solution to this problem that doesn't leave SOMEBODY worse off.

[zibazinski]

It always makes me wonder if there are not fathers to these wives that are abused? I know if my father had still been alive, he'd have been in jail for killing my EX. If someone ever hurts my DD, ill be in jail because I will do the same. I have a friend who married into the MOB, of all things,  . Nevertheless, her father told him that if he ever hurt his daughter, he'd be sleeping with the fishes, which we all thought was very funny, at the time. Years later, my friend, who is still very happily married, said her father wasn't kidding at all. 

[Angel!]

Jun 14, 2013 17:35:40 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Or, you could have ended up face down in a pool of your own blood and your children without a mother because you didn't move quickly enough.  Your friends and family patting you on the back wouldn't have kept your husband from killing you.  If they thought the situation was much more dangerous than it was that would explain why they pushed so hard.   

I'm glad everything worked out for you, though.  It would suck to give up everything like that. 

I think part of the problem is that between Hollywood & the news everyone gets this idea that all abusers are vindictive psychopaths that will hunt someone to the ends of the earth to kill them. A few are that way, but really most aren't. Most are just people that never learned to control their anger or have a problem like alcoholism. Most guys don't break a restraining order repeatedly. Some do it once & then a few months in jail makes them realize it isn't worth it.

I knew my husband well enough to know he isn't vindictive, he wasn't going to buy a gun & hunt me down. He didn't want to hurt me. Sure, he may have hurt me or killed me in a fit of anger if I stayed, but that is why I knew I couldn't stay.

20 years of abuse doesnt mean this guy is going to shoot up a school. it might just mean he is a shitty husband. If they have been divorced for 2 years & this is the first time he has violated the restraining order, then that isnt much of a pattern to cause concern. Unless there was more that wasn't mentioned in the letter, then the termination seems completely overboard to me.

[zibazinski]

Wait until she has to give the asshole visitation, even if he doesn't pay CS.

[zibazinski]

Perfect example of how in THIS society, the rights of a criminal supersede the rights of their victims.

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"Perfect example of how in THIS society, the rights of a criminal supersede the rights of their victims.":::...

That is certainly true in some cases.  In other cases, once a person is accused, he endures almost the same damage even if he is innocent.  In other cases, (companies with zero tolerance and who are legal-risk-averse), BOTH parties get shown the door.

[Deleted]

Jun 14, 2013 16:28:01 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Jun 14, 2013 15:31:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Take a ticket. Stand in line with the other 99 posters that think it's unconscionable and that there must be a better solution but have absolutely no clue what that is or how they'd sell it to concerned parents.

Well, if the parents are so concern, let them keep their children under a locked down at homes.  Bc every time their child leaves the house there is a chance that some maniac will start shooting at them in school, grocery store, youth center, post office, play ground, park, zoo, McD, doctor's office, day care - oh let's not get into what could happened at day care centers - I could go on and on and on.

Are we going to stop hiring anyone who was a DV victim?  Is it going to be a new question on an employment application?

Is my life any less valuable than of a child?   Using the logic that an abuser can follow his victim, should all DV victims be send off to a special place so none of us are in harms way ?

Solution?  Here is your solution.  Take DV seriously against THE ABUSER!   Instead of filling up jails with drug users,  put an asshole in the very.first.time for at least 30 days and make them go through a anger management and psych evaluation during that time.  that's just a start

you are talking about unknown threats....and parent face those daily. but since they are unknown, there is little to nothing can be done before hand....

in this case, we KNOW of a real threat. He has a 20+ year history of violence, and has already made an appearance at the school which caused a lockdown

so, we can choose to ignore the risk, and put all faculty and student into "possible" harms way, or we can diffuse the issue at least at "our school"

i think the admin made the right choice...it was an easy one

it sucks for the mom and her kids....and isnt fair to her.....but in this case safety trumps fair

[Angel!]

Jun 15, 2013 8:04:29 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Wait until she has to give the asshole visitation, even if he doesn't pay CS.

I am a little confused as to why she doesn't have full custody. Another reason I don't think this guy was a threat to shoot up the school. If you think he is actually a threat to your kids safety, then you get full custody & a full restraining order. Either she or the courts didn't think he was that much of a threat. My guess is they would have a better idea than the school of what he might do.

[Shooby]

Here is a good discussion on this with Megyn Kelly:

www.foxnews.com/on-air/america-live/index.html#http://video.foxnews.com/v/2480126483001/teacher-let-go-due-to-ex-husbands-abuse-at-school/?playlist_id=87651

[Virgil Showlion]

informing the school against a 1/1000000 chance the x is going todo something terrible, and the 100% probably that warning will send her into uunemployment likely ending her career

If the ex-husband persists, your probability is bunkum and a company still inherits a risk in bringing her on. If the ex-husband is released and Ms. Charlesworth is able to claim after several months that the problem has reached a resolution or a lengthy detente, a reasonable employer--somebody like you or me, but with their own interests at stake--would perceive the reduced risk and bring her on.

You're by no means an exceptionally compassionate or exceptionally risk-perspicacious person (statistically speaking, none of us are). If your analysis holds up even when it's your own fanny on the line, I see no reason to assume an employer won't be swayed by the same logic.

[Shooby]

How far should this type of thing reach?   There may be other employees with similar situations.  Or, children there with that type of home situation.  Where should the line be drawn?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 16, 2013 10:26:18 GMT -5 Shooby said:

How far should this type of thing reach?   There may be other employees with similar situations.  Or, children there with that type of home situation.  Where should the line be drawn?

It's drawn where ordinary people are exposed to a threat and reasonably elect to work through it for the sake of an employee.

mmhmm's workplace weighed the risks and consequences and decided to maintain her coworker's employment. The ex-husband ultimately turned up armed with a weapon, but was taken into custody without any harm done.

The San Diego diocese weighed Mrs. Charleswood's livelihood against their duty of care to staff and students, researched the risk, and elected to terminate her employment.

Neither of these decisions by the stakeholders was inhumane or unreasonable. The whole premise of a free society is that men may choose which risks to engage in. The system does not work if a group of armchair philosophers (i.e. YMOT) dictates that men must engage a risk despite their reasonable desire not to.

[Deleted]

Jun 16, 2013 11:11:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 16, 2013 10:26:18 GMT -5 Shooby said:

How far should this type of thing reach?   There may be other employees with similar situations.  Or, children there with that type of home situation.  Where should the line be drawn?

It's drawn where ordinary people are exposed to a threat and reasonably elect to work through it for the sake of an employee.

mmhmm's workplace weighed the risks and consequences and decided to maintain her coworker's employment. The ex-husband ultimately turned up armed with a weapon, but was taken into custody without any harm done.

The San Diego diocese weighed Mrs. Charleswood's livelihood against their duty of care to staff and students, researched the risk, and elected to terminate her employment.

Neither of these decisions by the stakeholders was inhumane or unreasonable. The whole premise of a free society is that men may choose which risks to engage in. The system does not work if a group of armchair philosophers (i.e. YMOT) dictates that men must engage a risk despite their reasonable desire not to.

And I also believe everyone re-action to the actual situation would be different if it was:
- their business on the line
- their kids on the line
- their life on the line

It is easy to be noble and compassionate when you have nothing to lose and no skin in the game.

[deantrip]

I do understand the safety concerns, it is frustrating, but I do understand them.  I wonder if we will start seeing more increased background checks by employers, not just of the potential employee, but of family members as well to determine employment eligibility.  I know the government definitely looks at family before hiring to some positions, but will this become the standard?  I think this could continue to be a problem for all parties involved until we as Society stands up to take a harder line approach on violent offenders.

[Deleted]

Imagine this is Dark business : Toy store that caters to parents...

He has a part time employee that have an ex like in the OP. After a bad weekend she goes to him and tell him about the weekend and to be on the look out for her husband.

He shows up in the parking and Dark close down the store, have a conversation with the guy Etc.

Unfortunate some customers get wind of it and Dark find out more about the guy.
- the customers will not go to that store as long as the girl works there because they don't know when crazy ex will show up.
- besides losing customers and sales; Dark has a valid concern about his customers safety and their kids.

So should he keep her on board anyway with the possibility of:
- losing good/ repeat customers
- bad publicity that will spread like wild fire so forget getting new customers
- the boyfriend coming back

Or just let her go because if not he might as well close down shop because no customers or a good number will come back:
- so fire the other employees he have
- lose his livelihood.

What should he do? Decisions...decisions!!'

[milee]

Jun 16, 2013 11:11:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 16, 2013 10:26:18 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Neither of these decisions by the stakeholders was inhumane or unreasonable. The whole premise of a free society is that men may choose which risks to engage in. The system does not work if a group of armchair philosophers (i.e. YMOT) dictates that men must engage a risk despite their reasonable desire not to.

Exactly my issue with universal healthcare or universal health insurance.

And I'm OK with the corollary that for society to be truly free, government would need to stop providing free healthcare in the form of Medicaid/forcing ERs to provide care to those who choose to take the risk.  Although I'd privately donate money to healthcare initiatives, I do not want government taking that money and making those choices.

[Angel!]

FWIW, he has to wear a GPS monitor when released. touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-76314890/

Seems like that would further decrease the school risk because he will know he will absolutely get caught trying to approach the school.

And if it were my kids, my business, or whatever, I would feel the same way. If there were evidence the school couldn't take care of the situation or if there actual evidence this guy.would shoot up the school, then I might feel different.

As far as dark's business - why is word getting around? The store is closed maybe an hour one afternoon, so unless dark sends out a press release, I don't see it being a big issue. Then the guy was taken to jail, so it becomes a non-issue for 6 months.

But maybe it is just because when I was going through shit my boss said, "if you ever feel unsafe & need somewhere to stay, call us no matter why time it is" instead of "if you ever fell unsafe, then we will have to fire you".

And while I think any employer should have kept her employed, I think it is am embarrassment that a church would take this step. Talk about not practicing what you preach. My employer is super religious & he often makes decisions on what is the loving thing to do. Firing this woman when she was going through this was definitely not the loving thing to do.

[NastyWoman]

Jun 15, 2013 23:27:12 GMT -5 @tbird said:

We keep talking about this woman.

Imo, she did the right thing, went to the principal to inform of a potential problem, they were able to then defuse the situation immediately.

You all keep saying the school did the right thing, but now the next one in this situation is going to have to weigh informing the school against a 1/1000000 chance the x is going todo something terrible, and the 100% probably that warning will send her into uunemployment likely ending her career.

I think that is not the right direction, and not going to improve safety for anyone.

Rukh makes a good point here that no one has addressed.  What happens when next abused woman is in a similar position?  Let's call her mrs. Jones.  Do you really expect that mrs. Jones will come forward and warn the school that something might be up? Give the school the chance to prepare just in case if she knows that the result of her (correct) actions will be that she gets fired? Mrs. Jones will likely think about her ability to take care of her own children first and just roll the dice.  And then if something does happen we will all just shake our heads and wonder why mrs. Jones did not warn the school, and why the police did not lock the A*hole up, etc, etc, etc. While all the gut reactions I have read here are understandable, the result could easily be less safe schools rather than the opposite.  Or do you all really believe this teacher and her abuser ex are the only ones out there?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 16, 2013 22:35:03 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Jun 15, 2013 23:27:12 GMT -5 @tbird said:

We keep talking about this woman.

Imo, she did the right thing, went to the principal to inform of a potential problem, they were able to then defuse the situation immediately.

You all keep saying the school did the right thing, but now the next one in this situation is going to have to weigh informing the school against a 1/1000000 chance the x is going todo something terrible, and the 100% probably that warning will send her into uunemployment likely ending her career.

I think that is not the right direction, and not going to improve safety for anyone.

Rukh makes a good point here that no one has addressed.  What happens when next abused woman is in a similar position?  Let's call her mrs. Jones.  Do you really expect that mrs. Jones will come forward and warn the school that something might be up? Give the school the chance to prepare just in case if she knows that the result of her (correct) actions will be that she gets fired? Mrs. Jones will likely think about her ability to take care of her own children first and just roll the dice.  And then if something does happen we will all just shake our heads and wonder why mrs. Jones did not warn the school, and why the police did not lock the A*hole up, etc, etc, etc. While all the gut reactions I have read here are understandable, the result could easily be less safe schools rather than the opposite.  Or do you all really believe this teacher and her abuser ex are the only ones out there?

Because if Mrs. Jones' case mirrors Mrs. Charlesworth's, her ex-husband will show up at the school regardless of whether Mrs. Jones informs them to be on the lookout for him. The school did not fire her in response to her notifying them. They stated clearly in their letter to her that his showing up at the school proved his disregard for restraining orders and that it factored into their decision.

[Angel!]

Jun 16, 2013 23:08:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 16, 2013 22:35:03 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Rukh makes a good point here that no one has addressed.  What happens when next abused woman is in a similar position?  Let's call her mrs. Jones.  Do you really expect that mrs. Jones will come forward and warn the school that something might be up? Give the school the chance to prepare just in case if she knows that the result of her (correct) actions will be that she gets fired? Mrs. Jones will likely think about her ability to take care of her own children first and just roll the dice.  And then if something does happen we will all just shake our heads and wonder why mrs. Jones did not warn the school, and why the police did not lock the A*hole up, etc, etc, etc. While all the gut reactions I have read here are understandable, the result could easily be less safe schools rather than the opposite.  Or do you all really believe this teacher and her abuser ex are the only ones out there?

Because if Mrs. Jones' case mirrors Mrs. Charlesworth's, her ex-husband will show up at the school regardless of whether Mrs. Jones informs them to be on the lookout for him. The school did not fire her in response to her notifying them. They stated clearly in their letter to her that his showing up at the school proved his disregard for restraining orders and that it factored into their decision.

Yes, but they had extra security & were aware of the situation & able to lockdown the school. If we are concerned abusers are going to show up & shoot up the place, then don't we want the school to be aware of the situation & able to take precautions before someone walks through the door with a gun?

[justme]

Exactly. If she hadn't warned the school how far inside would he have made it? Who would have stopped a husband (because the staff wasn't alerted to his ex status and picture) of a teacher on campus? Especially if he mentioned some emergency or "oh I'm here to pick up Jimmy for his Dr appointment". They responded fast to the situation because they knew of the possibility of the situation, instead of being ignorant of the situation and only having the option of locking the school down after he started causing mayhem.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 17, 2013 0:12:09 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jun 16, 2013 23:08:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Because if Mrs. Jones' case mirrors Mrs. Charlesworth's, her ex-husband will show up at the school regardless of whether Mrs. Jones informs them to be on the lookout for him. The school did not fire her in response to her notifying them. They stated clearly in their letter to her that his showing up at the school proved his disregard for restraining orders and that it factored into their decision.

Yes, but they had extra security & were aware of the situation & able to lockdown the school. If we are concerned abusers are going to show up & shoot up the place, then don't we want the school to be aware of the situation & able to take precautions before someone walks through the door with a gun?

Of course we do, and Ms. Charlesworth absolutely did the right thing in notifying them of the threat.

She wasn't fired because she warned them he might show up but because he did show up. They locked down the school and placated the parents, putting Ms. Charlesworth on a leave of absence. But the incident convinced them that Mr. Charlesworth (the ex-husband) didn't respect restraining orders. They researched his past, found out he had a long history and was escalating, and they got spooked. They decided that keeping Ms. Charlesworth on wasn't worth the risk.

Posters have pointed out that by doing this they didn't fix the underlying problem, and that they made Ms. Charlesworth's life all the harder. Nobody within ten light years of this message board is disputing this. But i) it isn't their duty to fix the problem, ii) it is their duty to keep their students and staff safe, and iii) short of killing Mr. Charlesworth, nobody here has any idea how the diocese could fix the problem or maintain Ms. Charlesworth's employment without violating their duty of care to students and staff.

The difference between this outcome and the outcome had Ms. Charlesworth not notified them of her ex-husband: at best, nothing; at worst, rather than the school being preemptively locked down, Charlesworth is able to be his inglorious abusive self for a while and then the school is locked down.

[The Captain]

So folks here think that putting a bunch of children at risk is more in line with Christ's teachings than terminating the lady's employment (with a decent amount of severance)?

Really ?

[Angel!]

Jun 17, 2013 6:21:43 GMT -5 The Captain said:

So folks here think that putting a bunch of children at risk is more in line with Christ's teachings than terminating the lady's employment (with a decent amount of severance)?

Really ?

And are you really arguing that there is absolutely no possible way to help this woman without putting others at risk?

Seems un-christlike to me to not find a solution that does both, but rather to just fire her in a CYA move.

[Pants]

Whoever said noone else was able to suggest another course of action - actually I suggested 2.
1) They keep her on staff in a non-child facing or offsite capacity.
2) They help facilitate move her to another diocese.

[Angel!]

Virgil- you are right she did get fired because he showed up. But she would not have been fired if he did the exact same thing & not been caught because she didn't notify the school to watch for him. We don't know if his action would have been different if the school wasn't on the lookout. But we do know if his actions had been the same, she wouldn't have lost her job, he would have gone to jail, he wouldn't be forced to wear an ankle bracelet, and everyone would actually be at much greater risk.

If I am the next woman, I don't tell the school because I know if he does something as small as drive through the lot putting no children in danger, then I lose my job. I have a much greater risk of losing my job simply by making them aware of the situation. So I wouldn't tell anyone & you can bet I am not the only woman that would choose to keep quiet knowing how the school would handle the situation. This precedent forces women to handle the situation in a way that actual puts everyone more at risk because schools won't be on the lookout & the guy could easily enter.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Are we going to stop hiring anyone who was a DV victim? Is it going to be a new question on an employment application

Honestly, I don't think so at least not for secular employers.

People need to keep in mind this is a PRIVATE employer.  Private employers can fire you for quite a few things that a secular employer can't.  I could have been fired for a breach of my morality clause at Creighton and what is considered a breach is pretty subjective.  Private employers play by a different set of rules than everyone else.

Southernsusana had a post back on page one explaining tenure and how this would have benefited the victim.  Private schools don't have that.
 
You take a lot of chances working for a private employer.  It's unfortunate this was what got her contract terminated but the school was well within it's rights to do so.