Employee’s photos more revealing than her resume: Can you fire her?
November 26, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: Dubious decisions, Special Report
An employee who works with children had a previous career in an industry that is meant strictly for adults.
Louisa Tuck is a cafeteria and playground aide at an elementary school in Vineland, NJ.
The school district recently discovered she had a previous career in the adult entertainment industry, according to The Daily Journal.
School Board President Frank Giordano wants to fire Tuck.
However, three lawyers consulted by the district all agree that there are no grounds to fire Tuck based on her past work.
So, the district has taken no action.
Tuck starred in adult-oriented movies, performances and photo shoots under the name Crystal Gunns.
She says it’s been five years since she worked in the adult entertainment industry.
However, her films and photos are readily available on the Internet. Just recently, a Web site under her film name was password restricted, but it was available to anyone when the school district started its investigation.
‘People can change’
Tuck also works with children at a YMCA. The Y refused to comment to the local newspaper on her work. Tuck told the newspaper, “The YMCA has been great to me. They are a Christian place that believes that people can change. I’m sorry I had to put them through this.”
A local mom whose children go to the Y said she considers Tuck a close friend and said she “would trust her with my children at any time. She has nothing but love and compassion with all kids.”
Giordano says parents are concerned and have called for Tuck’s firing. He doesn’t think it’s a healthy situation, and if it were just up to him, he would terminate her.
“We have an expectation for all the employees to be held to the highest standards … both in and out of school,” Giordano said.
Tuck “could be one of the best aides we have,” Giordano said, but he adds her involvement in the adult entertainment industry makes him question how good of a role model she can be for students.
Would you fire Tuck or keep her on staff at the elementary school? If you found out one of your employees with a good record had previously worked in the adult entertainment industry, would you fire the person? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
Tags: adult entertainment, fire, highest standards
November 26th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Point to ponder: You can be as freaky as you want in your spare time as long as you don’t have a website dedicated to it. You can cheat on your wife, have multiple sexual partners, do a certain amount of drugs, etc. and get promoted. But you try to turn your life around (which is a wonderful role model to me… Chef Jeff Project much?) and you’re fired.
It’s not an easy situation. I’m doubting there was no disclosure before she got the job, because she probably wouldn’t have gotten the job. She’s not on a sexual predator’s list. Did that YMCA not do a thorough background check? If they did and she left off elements from the background check than that could be considered grounds for termination. There are some elements missing to the story.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Based on what’s in the article, I think we can assume Ms. Tuck didn’t commit any crimes against children, or any crime at all really. After all, as long as you’re of legal age and follow the laws associated with the industry adult entertainment is not a crime.
It’s been 5 years. It sounds like she really has turned her life around. If the kids she works with are surfing the internet looking for porn, then their parents have a big problem on their hands whether or not the kids find Ms. Tuck’s former work. Most children don’t seek out porn and would never have reason to know about her past. I don’t think this is about protecting our kids. I think it’s about a bunch of uptight adults who are having difficulty showing compassion for someone who’s made a sincere effort to improve herself.
Finally, I agree with the lawyers (how often do you get to say that?
). There is no legal basis for termination.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
If the concern by the parents and district is to make sure she is a positive role model for the children then they should not go to such lengths to publicize her past. I agree with JVN. As is typical uptight parents are looking to other people to do their job. Just like with television and radio programming, they expect everyone else to control what their children are able to see instead of monitoring it themselves. If they are so concerned that their children might find their aid in a porno, maybe they should consider their children’s online capabilities. Wait, that would never work, that would consist of talks and parenting.
I agree with the lawyers. Keep up the good work Ms. Tuck.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I agree with all of you so far.
1. She has done nothing that is illegal.
2. If it was a crime would it pertain to the job and her duties? I don’t think so.
This is over-reacting parents and as usuall the major knee-jerk reaction by public school administrators.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I think that we are all in agreement. There is no reason to fire her. Everyone has skeltons in their closet that they are not proud of and then they go through the steps to turn their life around. Ms Tuck has done nothing that would make me feel that she is anything but a wonderful teacher. Parents really need to look at the big picture, is she harming their children, is she a sex offender? The answer is no. I agree with JVN, this was something that she did in her past and it should not be publicized. Her past skeltons have nothing to do with her abilities to be a wonderful teacher.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I applaud Ms. Tuck for improving herself. She is making what sounds like a sincere effort to better herself. The problem is the parents who are so sanctimonious. Once again, they affect moral indignation yet are part of the problem, not the solution. I wonder how many of them have ‘adult’(?) entertainment tucked away in their ‘naughty drawer’ or up on the shelf, way in the back? Hypocrites are ruining this world.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I find it scurillous that you would post her name in your article. Revealing this woman’s real name and stage name was not necessary. As a result of the identification of the players, the media have caused much more harm than her previously unheralded past did.
For off duty conduct to warrant employment related actions, it must cause harm to the employer or the co-workers. After her past was discovered, did it cause clients to remove their children, or bring disrepute upon the good name of the Y?
Personally I do not find a damaging link between her previous career as an adult entertainer and her child care role, but I am sure that as a result of the media’s search for titilating and salacious material, there is now a much brighter spotline shining on her and her employer. Is that congruent with the freedoms of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
November 28th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I think these people should have kep this “QUIET”. It appears that the lady is trying to get out of that “old life” and stay out since she has been out of it for 5 years. As most of us know, when you are knocked down, you do what you have to to get back up again and who knows what her circumstances were 5 years or more ago. Maybe that was the only work she could get, maybe she needed money for family reasons and that paid the best without being illegal, who knows? Leave her alone and use your time for something more constructive. (Just a note, I am a mother of 3).
November 28th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I agree to the others. What happened in her past life should not matter now. Nothing she did was illegal. I bet if we did a background check on most of these parents oand adminstrators we could dig up dirt on them too. We are not God and we should not try to act like God. It is her business and her business alone. This was wrong to make this public. Time to grow up and be the parents we all should be. No more blaming others for problem stemming from home.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:22 am
From someone who works in child care, I think she should be left alone. She has committed no criminal act and background checkss obviously show she is not a harm to children. I have worked with people who had degrees in education who have no business working with children. Everyone has a past and she is obviously trying to change. This is something she did five years ago. There are people in education who do drugs and drink in their off time and then come teach kids. They just haven’t posted anything on the web. If we looked into everyone’s life who is an educator, there would be alot of people who would need to be terminated from employment, based on past and present actions.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:34 am
I think it is important to note that the article says nothing about parents wanting to fire Ms. Tuck. The one parent that is mentions states that she “would trust her with my children at any time”. It is the School Board President who thinks she should be terminated…in my opinion, he is the uptight one. Ms. Tuck has made what appears to be an honest effort to change her life, who are we to judge whether or not her past is scrupulous or not. Granted, she is working with children who are impressionable, but like it was stated in an earlier post, if children at this age are finding porn on the internet, then the parents should be a little more involved in their lives and monitoring what is being accessed, or watched on TV. I say…Keep up the Good Work, Ms. Tuck, and I am proud of your willingness and ability to change!!
November 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
As an aide, I’m assuming she does not fall under the school’s union collective bargaining agreement. So the school board policy next comes into play. What it says with respect to hiring and firing employees along with applicable state and federal laws represents the legal ground. In the scenario cited, because lawyers have already determined there is no legal ground for terminating, then the issue is over. You cannot fire her.
Assuming you can fire her, the question turns to whether you should. Quite frankly, as a school board vice president myself, I know this kind of scenario can be used positively. While I wouldn’t be giving it public notoriety, if the news broke then it does allow you to deal with it honestly. People can change and they do deserve second chances. Kids need to know that and seeing someone make poor choices earlier in life and then turn it around is one of the most powerful ways to convey that message. Not only is it healthy on a secular basis, but it’s also fundamental to Christianity for those who consider themselves Christians (though some unfortunately miss that message entirely). Undoubtedly, others in the school’s employ have backgrounds and current activities equally or more distasteful than this woman’s. Her missteps are simply now more obvious and perhaps more embarrassing than others.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
The bad thing is by making such a big deal out of it, they are giving kids an incentive to go try to look it up online. They should have just kept it quiet & let it go…
November 28th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I would like to know who found out –
It really appears that a internet porn hound saw her and recognized her then talked to others about her.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I’m just kind of wondering about this line, “Louisa Tuck is a cafeteria and playground aide at an elementary school in Vineland, NJ.” What are they so worried about? How many elementary school children are surfing the internet for porn anyway? Besides that, as many of you have already said, she has done nothing illegal in this process. Likewise, the school had every right to ask about her previous work history and run a background check prior to hiring . If they had a problem at that point, then they should have reconsidered her employment. Now, they have no ground to fire her.
December 1st, 2008 at 8:28 am
I’m a parent, grandparent, business leader, and well-respected member of my community. I was married as a teenager because I got my girlfriend pregnant. This means;
A) I had pre-marital sex.
B) I had sex before I was considered an adult.
This was 35 years ago. By the standards of this school, I can assume that I should also be fired from my job and be stripped of any and all accomplishments since then. These parents and this school board should be ashamed of their hypocracy. Unless the school is actually a Monastary, I’ll bet that, without exception, EVERY one of them had the same experiences that I did as a teenager. And furthermore, it is extremely likely that a fair percentage of them also have some photo or video of their own.
Shame……
December 1st, 2008 at 9:22 am
I agree that there is no way that this person should because of a previous job. Just to add some food for thought . . . the article seems to point out that the employee still has a fee-based website and other work products for sale (movies). If the employee is involved in these endeavors it could be considered continuing employment and create a conflict of interest.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:25 am
What would the conflict of interest be?
Also – where did you see the fee based web site info? I see a password protected website mentioned – but no fee based mention.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:32 am
Did anyone question the moral standards of the person who found her pictures or movies? Is any action being taken against them?? Of course not. It was probably the principal who found the photos….in his office…during school hours.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:33 am
I have personal experience with a similar situation. A female friend of mine was the Health Inspector for a central Texas city. She was employed in that capacity for 5 years. She had glowing performance reviews. She began attending a nudist resort located in the same county that she lived and worked. This is an all adult facility. She is a woman of size. Someone in the police department found a picture of her on the resorts website attending a holiday function at the resort. The picture was a ‘normal’ nudist picture and she was wearing a hip wrap that extended to just above her knees. The picture was shared with other city and county employees for ‘a good laugh’.
Within a week she was fired because she had lost ‘creditably’. She could not find a lawyer to take her case. The lesson learned: 1) You can’t fight city hall, 2) ‘Good ol’e boys cover each others backs and 3) when you live in the Bible Belt, the church elders can determine your livelihood. BTW – The nudist resort is a member of the Change of Commerce.
.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:37 am
I did ask about who found them – but I was guessing that it was a parent – that told other parents until one that was offended (probably didn’t take long) went to the school board.
Never thought about teh idea that it was likely a school administrator on tax payer time.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:10 am
Ed 3 – I assume that the web site is fee-based but I could be wrong (I’m not going to try and confirm one way or the other). I am not sure why the internet site would exist if not to create profit.
As to the potential conflict of interest, any secondary employment can be considered a conflict of interest if it interferes with the primary employment. While I agree that whoever has publicized the situation has caused greater interference than the employee, there is little doubt that the knowledge of this material is impacting her position.
Most companies, including mine, have policies about outside employment. All I am saying is if the employee’s prior business is a continuing concern, it may be a violation of school district policy.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:14 am
Any money that she may earn is not employment based but very likely royalties – she is no longer employed (for five years now) in that industry.
In other words she does not call in sick to shoot a new movie or do a new photo shoot.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:29 am
This wreaks of Jeannie C. Riley’s 1968 country hit “Harper Valley PTA”.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:31 am
The article really presents 2 questions for HR professionals:
1. Can Ms. Tuck be terminated?
Unknown, but probably. Despite what the attorneys said, if – as a school district employee required to undergo a background check (employment, criminal, etc.) – she was required to but failed to disclose her previous employment in the adult entertainment industry, then she could likely be terminated for willfully omitting such information. Exceptions would include if the employer has their application process written in such a way as to allow applicants to exclude “unrelated” previous employment history (in other words, has a bad process), OR if there is evidence to show that, despite a failure to disclose by an applicant/employee, the school district has a history of NOT terminating such individuals (in other words, the school district enforces their policy when they feel like it). If that were the case, that could lead to at least two different types of employment claims and possible lawsuits (which brings up a possible inference created by the school district consulting with THREE different attorneys on the matter…).
2. Should Ms. Tuck be terminated?
If she’s a good employee, of course not. I can’t really say it any better than Mike did, above. The school district here has an excellent opportunity here regarding teaching children about life lessons. That opportunity is quickly becoming an imperative if the school district is going to salvage anything positive out of situation going negative because of unwanted press attention.
Just because what amounts to perhaps a handful of parents object to even the presence of Ms. Tuck in the workplace is no reason to fire her without an employment-based cause (but see No. 1, above). The parents have the ‘luxury’ of moving their children to a different school or YMCA if they choose. Neither the school district nor the Y can or should make staffing changes based on the preferences, whims, or perceived wrongs of a few. Doing that equates with the old example that a business could refuse service to an African American or a Jew (or whatever) because their (prejudiced) clientele would cease frequenting them. Loss of business is not a justicification to punish or deny your employees or customers.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:11 am
The first question should be about the HR procedure that didn’t catch the job history.
1. Did the application require job history and job gaps to be disclosed for the past 7 years?
2. Did the application require a signature stating that all of the information was true?
If so, this is grounds for termination based on falsifying a company document. It’s a poor excuse for firing someone, but it is the CYA for any Company and the Recruiter.
If these elements were not on the application, this is grounds for some evaluation of the current job requirements and interviewing practices. As a past recruiter, I remember the struggle to understand the administration’s acceptance and denial of specific job and personal history. From criminal background facts, to job history details, to personal disclosures spoken during the interview, there are a lot of facts on which to make decisions. To ensure the best decision is being made, the best practice is to be sure there are SEVERAL people reviewing the application, interviewing, and signing off on the hire. It’s a lot more likely that a decision to hire is correct when you have several other people agreeing with that decision on paper. Additionally, it should give the recruiter some peace of mind to know that poor decision making on the part of a group is grounds for training and review instead of termination.
Another aspect to consider is whether or not a prior background in the adult entertainment industry is grounds for job exclusion. Is this really a BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification) issue? Could this be subject to disparate impact against women? I think it’s a long shot to go down that path, but I also think legitimate termination over the issue is a stretch too. How does one go about judging “role model” qualifications anyway? I could perhaps understand a parent’s concern about a member of the school actively participating in the adult entertainment industry as a second job, but when is the statute of limitations over? Even in bankruptcy, you can eventually recover your credit and credibility. Not so much for the porn industry I guess.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Previous responses reflect good thought on several issues. My issue is that of Doug Fisher. Publicizing her names does an injustice to this individual. I, too, am curious about whether a school
official “discovered” the web site or was it someone else. Leave this person alone, enough damage has been done already. From a mother of three and grandmother of seven.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
A lot of comments have been made about this story. I wanted to bring up 2 points in this discussion: First off, I can see how finding out that a teacher of someone’s kids was involved in the pornographic industry in their past could be a little unsettling. I have 2 boys and although they are very young; the past reveals that teachers have huge inpacts on the lives of children. After all, most kids spend more time at school than they do anywhere else; at least during the school year. Secondly; although I can see the reason for concern; I have to totally disagree with the way this was handled and exposed! This woman has a past; we all do. And although some people like to pretend that their past isn’t as bad as someone else’s; a mistake is a mistake. This woman has turned her life around; and the fact that she isn’t going around broadcasting her past shows that she has seen that her life is worth more than degrading herself in those kinds of photos and videos.
I once heard a quote that I think sums it up: “Let he without any sin cast the first stone”.
Well, that’s my 2 cents on the matter.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:48 pm
I just want to say to “Father of 2 boys”, the article states that she is a “cafeteria and playground aid” which sounds to me like she’s more of a “room mom” or some other sort of school worker; not a teacher. I don’t know if that makes a difference to you or not, but I find it a little less severe since she’s not actually DIRECTLY commanding a classroom.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
John.8
[7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
You know, it’s quite possible that she listed acting or modeling in her performance history.
It strikes me that while everyone here seems to agree she should not be fired, the reasoning is that she is reformed. As our laws permit this type of employment, I don’t see that her background should be called into question AT ALL. So long as she has the skills to perform her current job, there should be no question as to her continued employment.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Hmmm…I don’t know that I would use the word “reformed” precisely, but if the school district requires its employees to sign any type of “personal conduct”-type of statements (a statement to the effect of taking no action, even in one’s private life, that could cause harm to the employer or employer’s reputation), then if she were still active in the adult industry, that could pose a problem for her. However, my understanding is that Ms. Tuck did in fact leave the industry and is no longer active in it (despite the fact that evidence of her prior work is readily available on the Internet).
I should also point out that most if not all public employers engaged in sensitive work (public safety, work involving children or the elderly, etc.) do have some type of personal conduct requirement.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Nice to see all the support for Ms. Tuck. One request though, can everyone please stop saying “she turned her life around/reformed/found jesus” (sorry Jesus poster guy)? It makes it sound like there is something wrong with being a porn star-geez! It’s acting, it’s business, and something which can’t be easily outsourced (unless that’s what does you-there’s a whole section). OK, so maybe it’s different than Angelina Jolie in “Gia”, but still – just because you see penetration, should porn be treated different than any other acting/job – putting your religious opinions aside for a moment? What was she supposed to say “I loved what I did and was the employee of the month?” Also, most of the people so bent on enforcing the gray areas of interpretive moral “law” usually have some skeletons of their own (Senate/Congress members anyone?). I can only hope it’s a short matter of time before they bust into Giordarno’s office to find him smoking crack and watching his private video collection of the girls/boys locker rooms. Maybe it’ll be a public restroom and some foot tapping… Then we’ll really know why, “if it were up to him, he would still fire her”. I hope she still gets royalties or at least get some out of this publicity… Googling Crystal Gunns in 3…2…1
December 12th, 2008 at 10:10 am
The first question should be about the HR procedure that didn’t catch the job history.
1. Did the application require job history and job gaps to be disclosed for the past 7 years?
2. Did the application require a signature stating that all of the information was true?
__________________________________________________________________________
I have noticed that these two questions have been repeatedly used as a basis to terminate for falsifying the job application. Maybe. . maybe not. Even if a person signed a document there have been cases that omissions do not necessarily automatically present a case for terminations. I wish I could remember the specific case, but it was an article not too long ago right on this site. It seemed as if an employee had worked for a number of years, was a great employee with great reviews. It was found that she in fact did leave something out of her original job application and was eventually terminated for that. The termination was over turned based on the fact that the omission was not material to the performance of her job or the proven ability that she had.
I don’t know how long this person in this article has been employed. But it would seem that a termination bases on an omission is not quite as straight forward as it once was. But the fact remains if the person has changed, is not on a sex registry, has not broken any laws, is not currently nor has been for a number of years acting in the adult industry then there is no basis for termination. As has been said before my concern is about the person that ‘discovered’ her on a web site and why is that person not being scrutinized for the same reason of moral turpitude that they want to place on the employee.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:00 am
[...] too long ago we told you the story of Louisa Tuck, a part-time cafeteria and playground aide at an elementary school in Vineland, NJ. Her previous [...]