Women fired over tasteless Boston Marathon bombing costume

In most states they can fire you for just about anything other than being a woman, old, or your religious views. Having bad taste in halloween costumes is not a protected right. Wearing the costume to work makes it doubly bad.And I would have to hazard a guess that she was a mediocre performer at work. If she was an all start, they would make an effort to keep (say crap like she was sent to sensitivity training) as this is the type of things that blows over in a couple of days.

Tasteless wrote:

It was in poor taste but I hope they have something else on her. If costumes were allowed at work and no guidelines in place they'll be forking out some money to her and her lawyers.

The costume was in poor taste but firing her over people being offended might be even worse taste.

joho wrote:

Odumbo wrote:

You've got to be kidding me. Three people died, numbnuts.

Are you offended every time you see someone dress up as a ghost or skeleton? If not, why not? Those represent someone that died.

I've seen kids dress up as wounded and maimed soldiers. As a veteran who has had friends wounded in war, it doesn't offend me one bit.

This is just an example of internet overreaction by a bunch of people looking to get offended. They probably all feel like heroes for 'showing her' what is right and wrong.

You're comparing dressing as a ghost or skeleton to a Boston bombing victim? Come on, man, you should know that that is a ludicrous comparison.

Anyway, I think a lot of people are rattled because the event is fresh in their minds -- one of those "too soon" moments.

little sheeples wrote:

12 black kids were shot by other black kids in Chicago last weekend. 4 times more deaths than Boston. Won't get 2 seconds coverage. The police state hypes up their false flags. STILL ZERO EVIDENCE THE 2 THEY SAID DID IT HAS BEEN SHOWN.

I suspect that the video they claimed they have showing the younger brother placing a bomb never existed.

False flag operation

Alex Jones? I should have know you'd stumble into this topic sooner or later. Didn't know you are a runner.

9/11 Twin Towers costumes win first place in a nightclub contest in England.

wow....just wow. how do some people get though life so clueless.

Curious. wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10429642/Anger-after-women-in-911-Twin-Towers-fancy-dress-win-Halloween-costume-contest.html

9/11 Twin Towers costumes win first place in a nightclub contest in England.

I'm guessing costumes were allowed or any would get her fired. So she's being singled out for her taste in a costume. If there were no guidelines in place from her employer she could argue that her freedom of speech was violated.

Tasteless wrote:

I'm guessing costumes were allowed or any would get her fired. So she's being singled out for her taste in a costume. If there were no guidelines in place from her employer she could argue that her freedom of speech was violated.

Did her employer promise her 'freedom of speech' when she was hired?

People need to research what freedom of speech means before they throw it around.

You also need to learn to read. I said if there were no guidelines and employees could wear costumes then she was fired because people didn't "like" hers. She had the right to express herself and pick any costume unless her employers stated otherwise.It's really not hard to get.

not the gov wrote:

Tasteless wrote:

I'm guessing costumes were allowed or any would get her fired. So she's being singled out for her taste in a costume. If there were no guidelines in place from her employer she could argue that her freedom of speech was violated.

Did her employer promise her 'freedom of speech' when she was hired?

People need to research what freedom of speech means before they throw it around.

Doclove wrote:

Racy pics?

Google her name...not too bad at all

Tasteless wrote:

You also need to learn to read. I said if there were no guidelines and employees could wear costumes then she was fired because people didn't "like" hers. She had the right to express herself and pick any costume unless her employers stated otherwise.

It's really not hard to get.

Wrong. The first amendment applies to government, not private employers. You might try reading what it actually says.

A private employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all. The law makes exceptions that prohibit firing for certain motivations (race, pregnancy, service on a jury, etc.) and employers may agree that an employee can only be fired for certain reasons in an employment contract or union contract, but if none of those exceptions apply you can be fired for bad taste, expressing views your employer doesn't like, a bad haircut, or the whim of your employer.

NSFW

tenkrunner wrote:

Google her name...not too bad at all

Jeff Wigand wrote:

You also need to learn to read. I said if there were no guidelines and employees could wear costumes then she was fired because people didn't "like" hers. She had the right to express herself and pick any costume unless her employers stated otherwise.

You don't understand what "at will" employment entails. Today my boss can walk into my office and fire me because I'm wearing a blue shirt. Nothing in my employee handbook prohibits me from wearing a blue shirt, but at the same time wearing a blue shirt doesn't put me in a protected class.

This woman received negative publicity for her costume, and someone at her company decided they don't want to be associated with her. Although a dick move, it's completely legal.

Pathetic.Americans are too sensitive and whiny. Always looking for some dumb excuse to get outraged.

Curious. wrote:

NSFW

tenkrunner wrote:

Google her name...not too bad at all

Her pics here:

I could see a home porn and then reality show in her future.

not a for real cowboy wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

You also need to learn to read. I said if there were no guidelines and employees could wear costumes then she was fired because people didn't "like" hers. She had the right to express herself and pick any costume unless her employers stated otherwise.

You don't understand what "at will" employment entails. Today my boss can walk into my office and fire me because I'm wearing a blue shirt. Nothing in my employee handbook prohibits me from wearing a blue shirt, but at the same time wearing a blue shirt doesn't put me in a protected class.

This woman received negative publicity for her costume, and someone at her company decided they don't want to be associated with her. Although a dick move, it's completely legal.

Don't you see the highlighted portion above?

Where does she get that right? It sure isn't freedom of speech. She choose to dress like an idiot. That was her right and she exercised it. The company also has the right to fire idiots and they exerted it.

Tasteless wrote:

You also need to learn to read. I said if there were no guidelines and employees could wear costumes then she was fired because people didn't "like" hers. She had the right to express herself and pick any costume unless her employers stated otherwise.

It's really not hard to get.

not the gov wrote:

Did her employer promise her 'freedom of speech' when she was hired?

People need to research what freedom of speech means before they throw it around.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

not a for real cowboy wrote:

You don't understand what "at will" employment entails. Today my boss can walk into my office and fire me because I'm wearing a blue shirt. Nothing in my employee handbook prohibits me from wearing a blue shirt, but at the same time wearing a blue shirt doesn't put me in a protected class.

This woman received negative publicity for her costume, and someone at her company decided they don't want to be associated with her. Although a dick move, it's completely legal.

Don't you see the highlighted portion above?

I did, and that's why I wrote what I did. It doesn't matter if her employer set guidelines (or didn't set guidelines, for that matter) about costumes. You have no right to wear what you want to work, religious garb excepted.

Now most employers don't care. If someone wears something provocative, most employers will have a documented conversation with the employee. However, when an employee's poor costume choice blows up on the internet and the employer does not want to be associated with that costume choice, that employee will likely be terminated.

I'll dumb this down for you: in an "at will" employment arrangement, an employer does not need a reason to fire you. If a reason is provided, it can't include things like sex, race, disability, etc. Clothing and costumers are not among these protected classes.