Marshall principal accused of Bias incident.
yahooyahoo said:
And then no one would want to work there and they wouldn't be able to get any talent.
ml1 said:
bub said:
Look, your mislabeling something that we are otherwise in agreement about. Big corps these days usually don't fire people "on the spot" in the way they do in movies. But that's not because of the "law as applied in the real world" but because of HR policies that have seeped into corporate culture in the real world (granted, in part to avoid litigation or make a good record in the event of litigation).
if corporations were sure they would win all legal actions in these cases, they wouldn't pay anyone.
This is a biggie. When someone gets done for no reason it impacts morale in a big way. “She got it and she was cool and worked hard. Coulda been me.” This isn’t that. This isn’t for no reason. It’s an easy lesson to absorb as one of the employees watching. “Ok... so if we didn’t know already.... apparently, making fun of staff to other staff based on a physical characteristic ends the gig, even for (or perhaps especially for) the boss. Got it.”
No one is going to think “omg I could be next better start looking.”
Want to add one thing... can you imagine having a disability where you’ve probably taken **** from thoughtless kids all through school, pushing through it, going to college, tough but probably better, thinking “that childish **** is behind me. I did it. I’m joining the professional world where I’ll be judged by my work.” And her first job, her internship essentially, the most senior person of the building takes a picture of her and sends it to another co-worker with an “LOL”.
Maybe she shrugged it off. Good for her if she did. I hope she knows that what happened is NOT normal in the adult, professional world. Not by a long shot.
Tom_R said:
Does any know what the photo depicted?
TomR
According to this news report, it was a photo of the teacher.
However, the allegation is that it was texted by the principal with the caption, "LOL".
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/principal_under_fire_after_alleging_texting_pic_of_1.html
nohero said:
Tom_R said:
Does any know what the photo depicted?
TomR
According to this news report, it was a photo of the teacher.
However, the allegation is that it was texted by the principal with the caption, "LOL".
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/principal_under_fire_after_alleging_texting_pic_of_1.html
I gonna presume that there are now, at least, two of us who have not seen the photo.
Thanks.
TomR
Well the inevitable has now happened and the fight is on!
unicorn_and_rainbows said:
Well the inevitable has now happened and the fight is on!
I gotta admit, I did not anticipate this becoming a racial issue. If it was “inevitable” I need to re-calibrate my sensors.
https://patch.com/new-jersey/southorange/group-defends-nj-principal-accused-mocking-little-person
Tom_R said:
I gonna presume that there are now, at least, two of us who have not seen the photo.
nohero said:
Tom_R said:According to this news report, it was a photo of the teacher.
Does any know what the photo depicted?
TomR
However, the allegation is that it was texted by the principal with the caption, "LOL".
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/principal_under_fire_after_alleging_texting_pic_of_1.html
Thanks.
TomR
I'm not sure what your point is, but please leave me out of whatever it is.
Jackson_Fusion said:
I gotta admit, I did not anticipate this becoming a racial issue. If it was “inevitable” I need to re-calibrate my sensors.
https://patch.com/new-jersey/southorange/group-defends-nj-principal-accused-mocking-little-person
Absurd. Until I read that article, I did not know what the Principal's race was and I still don't know what the victim's race is.
This isn't a racial issue, its a human decency issue.
As someone who was born with a body that differs from the norm, I will say this to the SOMA Black Parents Workshop. I will fight with my dying breath for you and your children to be accorded the respect that is due all human beings EVEN THOUGH you apparently don't believe that people like me should be accorded that same respect.
All that being said, the district could opt to address this issue with restorative practices (as mentioned in the email from the Supt), which has been a goal for dealing with student disciplinary actions. In other words, this could be used as a model of how restoration can work. But restoration to the community may interact badly with personnel privacy laws.
I guess we'll see.
nohero said:
Tom_R said:
I gonna presume that there are now, at least, two of us who have not seen the photo.
nohero said:
Tom_R said:According to this news report, it was a photo of the teacher.
Does any know what the photo depicted?
TomR
However, the allegation is that it was texted by the principal with the caption, "LOL".
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/principal_under_fire_after_alleging_texting_pic_of_1.html
Thanks.
TomR
I'm not sure what your point is, but please leave me out of whatever it is.
Without regard for whether you understand the point of my query; I am curious as to why you responded, when it is obvious that you have no idea as to what the photo depicted.
TomR
P.s., The point is that I don't know what the photo depicts, but would like to know.
Well that's a major development.
It doesn't specify if Mrs Samuels has been permanently removed from the position, or if she is no longer employed by the district. So I imagine further details will emerge.
Last night's Board meeting apparently got contentious at times, so I doubt this is the end of the story.
Wow. U thought that was a contentious meeting? Clearly the issue was a distraction no matter which side you were on and it did reveal some underlying tensions in our community. Somehow SOMA is always in the news for stuff we are not supposed to be about.
annielou said:
Wow. U thought that was a contentious meeting? Clearly the issue was a distraction no matter which side you were on and it did reveal some underlying tensions in our community. Somehow SOMA is always in the news for stuff we are not supposed to be about.
Strictly going by a second-hand report, so not my opinion per se.
Were you there? I'd be curious to hear another perspective.
I blame this on the high number of residents in the SOMA area that work in the news/journalism business. It's easier to cover a story in your backyard.
annielou said:
Somehow SOMA is always in the news for stuff we are not supposed to be about.
I watched on Fios channel 22. Good points made on both sides of the argument but apparently too much of a distraction. Very emotional testimonies.
yahooyahoo said:
I blame this on the high number of residents in the SOMA area that work in the news/journalism business. It's easier to cover a story in your backyard.
annielou said:
Somehow SOMA is always in the news for stuff we are not supposed to be about.
I agree, and I've always felt like it was lazy reporting. Just rehashing something from an online discussion without any real research.
annielou said:
.... Somehow SOMA is always in the news for stuff we are not supposed to be about.
That line is priceless.
ml1 said:
I'm not sure about NJ. But both CA and NY are states where there is an implied covenant of good faith. An employer has to have a good faith reason for firing someone -- incompetence, malfeasance, mass layoff, etc. You can't just fire someone because you want to give the job to someone else unless you negotiate a separation. That's been my experience throughout my career working in NY and working with people in CA.
Almost nothing about this statement (at least as it pertains to the rights of a terminated at-will employee) is true or accurate.
I am glad to see this individual will not be working with our children.
DannyArcher said:
ml1 said:
I'm not sure about NJ. But both CA and NY are states where there is an implied covenant of good faith. An employer has to have a good faith reason for firing someone -- incompetence, malfeasance, mass layoff, etc. You can't just fire someone because you want to give the job to someone else unless you negotiate a separation. That's been my experience throughout my career working in NY and working with people in CA.
Almost nothing about this statement (at least as it pertains to the rights of a terminated at-will employee) is true or accurate.
I am always willing to admit being wrong. And maybe I am in this case. But I didn't make this up out of thin air. I may be misinterpreting and therefore wrong. But it is from a document published by the BLS, which is what I'm referring to.
Covenant-of-good-faith exception Recognized by only 11 States (see map 3), the exception for a covenant of good faith and fair dealing represents the most significant departure from the traditional employment-at-will doctrine.34 Rather than narrowly prohibiting terminations based on public policy or an implied contract, this exception— at its broadest—reads a covenant of good faith and fair dealing into every employment relationship. It has been interpreted to mean either that employer personnel decisions are subject to a “just cause” standard or that terminations made in bad faith or motivated by malice are prohibited.35 https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf
GoSlugs said:
I am glad to see this individual will not be working with our children.
? Has there been an update beyond the temp replacement?
To be fair, I found her to be a fantastic teacher. And from my conversations with other SPED parents, when she was still a teacher, they felt that way as well. I hope this works out well for her.
peteglider said:
To be fair, I found her to be a fantastic teacher. And from my conversations with other SPED parents, when she was still a teacher, they felt that way as well. I hope this works out well for her.
It's nice to read that somebody is not going to jump to a conclusion, which thus far, has no traction.
TomR
P.s., I still haven't seen the offensive photo. Has anybody?
Tom_R said:
peteglider said:
To be fair, I found her to be a fantastic teacher. And from my conversations with other SPED parents, when she was still a teacher, they felt that way as well. I hope this works out well for her.
It's nice to read that somebody is not going to jump to a conclusion, which thus far, has no traction.
TomR
P.s., I still haven't seen the offensive photo. Has anybody?
I’m sure some have, but no one is publicly revealing specifics and it has not been posted anywhere that I’m aware of.
Not sure why “offensive” was italicized in your post, though. Are you questioning why one is describing it as such without having seen it, and is thus not qualified to make that judgment? Or that one is misdirecting their offense to the photo in lieu of the caption or the circumstance?
How would the photo have been seen by anyone other than the person who took it, the person who received it, and whoever they may have shown it to? It isn’t likely to be given to the press, and why would it be? And I don’t think it’s being secretly traded around MOL. What would seeing the picture change?
There has been no claim that anything offensive was being done by the victim (see what I did there?) so I imagine you are questioning whether the act as alleged and committed by the principal is offensive.
But why should I imagine? Clearly you have some doubts about how this has been portrayed and you should probably state what they are rather than asking to see evidence yourself, which would serve no purpose unless you’re on the school board, the super, or the victim’s lawyer . So what’s up here, guy?
I'm not sure what seeing the photo would accomplish besides exposing the victim to further embarrassment. The facts don't seem to be in dispute. The principal sent around a photo making light of the student teacher's height.
The issues being debated seem to be:
1. Is this a regrettable one-time incident that can be dealt with appropriately through sanctions or does it destroy Ms. Samuels' ability to serve effectively as Marshall principal?
2. Seeing that the district issued a punishment for the incident (a two-day suspension that Ms. Samuels served without protest or appeal), is it permissible to re-punish her? What new information, if any, came to light since the first punishment?
3. A letter was read on behalf of the teachers questioning Ms. Samuels' ability to lead. Should this be used when considering her future? If so, how?
4. The Black Parents Workshop and others have spoken at the last two BOE meetings, defending Ms. Samuels and stating that she is suffering from disparate treatment because she is African-American. How can we determine if this is a factor?
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Rentals
Advertisement
well yeah. Being known as a place that fires people arbitrarily because they can would certainly be bad for recruitment.