When should a domestic abuser be fired from work?

[MrPurple]

The me too movement and the current publicity over Rob Porter has had me wondering about the situation of firing someone over abuse allegations in their personal life, which they haven't been convicted of or charged with. The behavior is reprehensible and I'm not saying that I think it should be tolerated. And, I can see where the decision in the entertainment industry, where the offender is high profile, is straightforward because of bad PR. I guess the same factors apply to working in a White House position.

But, in general, should someone who has been accused of abuse in their personal life be unemployable? In Porter's case, Kelly is at fault for vouching for his character, when he knew about the allegations. But, on the list of horrors of the Trump administration, for me this is about number 50,000.

I think this off with their heads mentality yields an environment, where it's possible to frame a potentially innocent person, like Al Franken. Porter doesn't appear to be innocent, and I'm glad for the Trump administration to be sustaining damage for ANYTHING, but when I see the amount of time MSNBC has given to this yesterday and today, I don't really view it as a positive thing.

What do you think?

[leftstreet]

1. One of his wives got a no contact order in 2010

I would think that would flag in a security background check

Porter is twice divorced. Both of his ex-wives accused him of physical and emotional abuse.[13] His second wife, Jennie Willoughby, sought and received an emergency protective order against him in June 2010.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Porter

[dawg day]

30. Another girlfriend (former) who supposedly works at the White House also accused him

I would say there should be some thought--
Like-- does he work with women? (or men who have women relatives, lol)
Does his job involve the public?
If this got out, would it harm the employer's reputation?

You can be fired for nearly any cause or no cause at all, so if an employer decides this guy is too much trouble for whatever reason, shrug. There are people who have been fired because they stayed home sick one day. Or because they turned down the boss's advances. I'll save my sympathy for them.

[enough]

2. It think the fact that the FBI decided the abuse allegations were enough to keep him

from getting full security clearance is the central fact in this situation.

[Cha]

48. Ye-ah!

[SMC22307]

81. Exactly. How does one serve as White House Staff Secretary for over a year...

without the necessary security clearance?! That issue seems to be lost against the domestic violence, but both need to emphasized. REPEATEDLY.

[spooky3]

3. Public servants in a position to determine policy or

Advise others who do should not be people who show their hate for 51% of the population by physically assaulting them—as one possible standard.

How would you feel if there were credible evidence that a guy like Porter went out with buddies, for example, and beat up a black man?

Domestic violence is violence. It’s even perhaps more reprehensible in some ways, because allegedly the abuser loved the victim.

[bettyellen]

11. Good points. This OP fails to recognize the danger of working alongside those inclined to violence.

Why should any workplace tolerate this shit?

[metalbot]

16. Workplaces shouldn't tolerate domestic violence by employees

But the OP's question isn't really asking that. It's asking when does a workplace take action because someone is _accused_ of domestic violence. I don't want to work next to a domestic abuser. The challenge is that there is some middle ground between an accusation and a conviction, and that's a really hard line for employers to walk.

I don't think that really applies in the Porter case, as the FBI had clearly found the skeletons in the closet, had talked to the women, and had relayed those findings to the White House. Most employers don't have the luxury of having FBI agents who will do field work for them to investigate.

About two years ago, I a salaried employee who vanished for a couple of days, then came in with heavy concealer over his black eye. It turns out he'd been gone from work because he was in jail, and had been arrested for domestic violence. When asked about it, his story was basically "my wife hit me, and somehow I'm the one that went to jail".

What was my correct course of action?

[bettyellen]

17. Are you saying you believe him over the police? Honestly?

If it was a perfect world, I’d probably talk to HR because that would be important to monitor. If it turns out he’s got a recorded history, that would be ample evidence that the man can’t handle his shit and it could spill into the workplace. I know a lot of people don’t want to hear that- but I know convictions are few and far between. With at will employment what it is, people get fired for no reason. Engaging in violence repeatedly is s good reason.

[RhodeIslandOne]

47. People dont believe the police every day here on DU

I mean, if you were seated on a jury, wouldn’t that be the end argument against any defendant?

[bettyellen]

68. Are you kidding? Its more common for the violent to lie about doing it and if

Someone doesn’t have bruises the other person is just separated and not taken on for booking. There’s actually a pretty high bar for being convicted. Which is why if someone is actually taken in a few times for violence yes I think they are a risk to others. It’s something employers should consider.

[metalbot]

69. You're slightly dodging the question here

What was my correct course of action?

Perfect world? Talk to HR? He was my employee. I'm the boss. There's no higher power for me to appeal to here.

He had no arrest history (or at least none that we found in background check, and I have no reason to think we missed something).

What does it mean to "believe'" the police? The police aren't going to answer any questions about the case, and the only thing I'm going to get that is public record would be a very lightly detailed arrest report that constitutes "he said, she said, I decided to arrest him because it's the wife who called".

[bettyellen]

70. so you believe the arrested guy that its the wifes fault he was arrested? Thats your choice and

Hopefully in making it you’re not endangering your other employees lives. But taking his word for it is your priority.

[RhodeIslandOne]

74. Generally people believe the people they know

Especially if they have no priors or given any indication they are violent in the workplace.

[bettyellen]

75. And theyre generally wrong to deny the evidence others give- they do that out of bias.

I’ve seen it first hand- men stick up for each other for no rational reason. They just find it easier to pretend bad things don’t happen. Same as Trump is doing. Men seriously need to rethink that shit.

[RhodeIslandOne]

77. Do you believe in our justice system?

Do you think a person deserves a day in court? And then if they are convicted, lose their job?

What if they are fired and found not guilty? Do you think they should be rehired?

What if the accused is a woman? A female employee comes in and says she missed work because she was arrested for striking her boyfriend in self defense. I’m sure, based on your answers here, you’d say “I’m sorry, Judy, but despite knowing you for a few years, the police arrested you only. I believe them. We cannot have violent people here.” I mean I have to form the belief that’s what you’d do based on your answers here. And that would be wrong in my view.

Porter should never have been hired, period, because he couldn’t pass a security clearance due to his record. That’s a lot different than an employee who passed their background checks and has never had an issue before being given the benefit of the doubt until they get their day in court.

[bettyellen]

78. Being free from incarceration doesnt guarantee you a job. Lots of factors make a person less

Desirable for certain work situations. He can go get a shitty job with other scary “non-felons”. And I did say if they had repeated arrests- you bet I’d fire them for that. They need to fix their shit.

[metalbot]

82. I'm not saying anything about belief

And you continue to dodge the question completely, so I'll ask it more directly:

What is the specific course of action I should have taken as his employer?

And is your specific course of action the same as you would recommend ANY time an employee is arrested for DV?

[dawg day]

31. And someone flagged one important point

..That Porter allegedly tried to choke one of the women.
Choking and strangling a domestic partner, for some reason, is a correlative to mass murder. That is, most of these recent mass murderers didn't just have domestic violence in their past, but specifically choking a partner. Even if he (the choker) didn't kill the partner, he (in these cases) ended up killing a bunch of other people.

I think any responsible employer would have to consider the right of the other employees to, you know, keep living, over the right of a man to assault his partner and keep his job.

[dawg day]

32. Here's the link to the article about strangling and mass shooting

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/which-domestic-abusers-will-go-on-to-commit-murder-this-one-act-offers-a-clue/2017/11/16/80881ebc-c978-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.fb433912ef82

[Akacia]

4. Not sure about that because

so many workplace shootings and other acts of violence are from domestic abuse that ends up at the work place. So often an angry spouse or boyfriend ends up killing innocent people that were at the wrong place at the wrong time. If someone is capable of hurting someone they say they love why would they give a darn about anyone else.

[bettyellen]

10. Hugely important and overlooked point- men like him make the workplace dangerous for everyone!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Apart from the fact that the behavior itself is reprehensible, the other problem

is that the FBI wouldn't give him a security clearance, a thing that private employers do not normally require. So right there, the situation is different. The accusations are highly credible - a photograph of a black eye (and Porter hasn't explained how she got it, despite his denials), a no-contact order, a subsequent girlfriend calling one of the ex-wives to ask what to do about his abusive behavior - and certainly enough for the FBI to conclude he should not have a top-level security clearance. For that reason alone he should have been fired, or not hired in the first place.

What private employers decide to do about an employee about whom there are credible reports of domestic abuse but no criminal conviction will depend on particular circumstances. How does the person behave at work? Does he seem to have problems with anger? Is he respectful toward the women he works with? How long ago did the incidents occur? If the accusations become generally known, how does that affect the person's work? As for working in the WH, regardless of the security clearance, arguably people who work in the highest levels of our government should be held to a higher standard.

[MaryMagdaline]

6. When he works within shooting distance of

congress, president, Supreme Court or foreign dignitaries.

[Corgigal]

7. Accused?

Got a judge to sign for a restraining order. They aren't always approved. Not to mention the cops had to come to the house after he was breaking windows in a house one of the wives were living in.

I had a 911 call, wife and hubby going through a divorce. Child at school, thank god. Hubby also broke through the window and came armed. She was on the phone with her attorney, but when the husband arrived, the attorney told her to call us. We listened to her scream, as he chased her around the house but she got out, however the fatal shot was delivered to her in the driveway.

Found him dead, several hours later sitting in his car. I took the call from the attorney who wanted to know the status of his client. I had to switch him to homicide.

Stupid men at work said, well he just retired from the military and was going through stress.

So fuck those guys, and I don't care if they ever work or breathe again.

[Hekate]

35. Good input, Corgigal

[tammywammy]

8. He should have been fired since he cant get a security clearance

Regardless of whether the FBI denied the clearance for the abuse or other reasons in his background.

I’m required to have an active clearance (private employer, government contractor) and if it’s rescinded I will lose my job. If I couldn’t get one the original job offer many years ago would have been pulled.

[HipChick]

9. Exactly..I still don't understand how he was handling classified material

with just an Interim..

[tammywammy]

14. The same reason Kushner is

The rules don’t apply to this administration. Secret can get interim clearance but not TS.

[bettyellen]

12. I think dismissing it as an off with their heads mentality is BS gaslighting and fuck that.

[Hekate]

36. +10000

[dsc]

13. Even if you think what he didn't wasn't enough to justify firing him

and honestly, I find that problematic, he couldn't get a security clearance which was instrumental to his job.

[Ilsa]

15. He's in the wrong job.

If it is reasonably proven that he is guilty of a pattern of physical abuse, an employer may insist he get psychological counseling in order to deal with anger management to protect fellow employees.

[pnwmom]

18. I think the standards for jobs like his, where he has a public responsibility,

should be higher than for people in the private sector.

[kcr]

19. Well, he couldn't get a security clearance

So, I don't know what you expected them to do. I think that alone makes it pretty clear it was serious. This isn't hard.

[Raine1967]

20. Are you KIDDING US? How about when one can't get s SecClear for a job in the WH?

Fuck this ish.

There is a DAMN good reason why we have security Clearance applications and interviews about people seeking them. You have no idea about how security clearance works.

Actually, you have no idea about domestic violence.

Let me posit, MrPurple, would you be ok with working for a dude that beat up not one but TWO wives?

[Beantighe]

21. I have an unpopular opinion

I think that if any man can not refrain from beating his wife, he doesn't deserve to work. I have watched too many wife-beaters get a slap on the wrist; a ticket or mandated to an alternatives to battering course only to go right back to beating their wife/ girlfriend / next wife / etc. (or even walk into her place of employment and murder her) to have any delusion that most of those who beat their wives will be rehabilitated.

I also think it needs to be called what it is - wife beating. Spousal abuse, domestic violence, domestic abuser, or any other label that doesn't properly describe the act only serves to diminish it. Maybe then Kelly wouldn't need to see a photo of the guy's bruised wife before taking it seriously (if he actually takes it seriously).

I have worked with women bruised from head to toe because of these animals. I've seen them dripping urine from kidney damage from a beating with 2x4, unable to see from blood dripping into their eyes or unable to walk from a broken leg - for what? Because she overcooked the bacon? Maybe she didn't want to fuck?

Perhaps if these guys were stripped of their livelihoods, some women wouldn't be so tempted to return to them due to fear of not being able to feed her children. Better yet, maybe if they were tossed in the clink as they should be, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's odd really, that we ARE having this discussion and the thug isn't in jail, don't you think?

I view covering for a wife beater as quite newsworthy. It deserves the attention.

[raccoon]

27. Good post. One thing, these men CAN refrain from beating

Their wives or girlfriends. The vast majority of them would never pick a fight with a 6' 4" great big man. They figure beating a woman, "their "woman, that they'll get away with it and unfortunately they do, the majority of the time.

[Beantighe]

33. definitely

Thank you. Definitely should be "won't" instead of "can't."

[nadine_mn]

67. The reason it's not called "wife beating" is because women think they have to have

A black eye in order to be abused. "Beating" ignores financial, emotional, verbal and sexual abuse which can often be more devastating than a broken bone.

I have been an advocate for domestic violence victims for 2 decades and have worked with 100's of victims of ALL genders (another reason we don't call it "wife" beating) raging in ages from small children to elders in their 90's...every single one without fail has said that the physical abuse didn't hurt nearly as much as the emotional and psychological abuse.

And it always starts with verbal and psychological abuse, before it gets physical. Some abusers are experts at not leaving bruises, and are skilled at terrifying their victims with just a glance.

The domestic violence movement has worked hard to educate the population that violence doesn't have to leave a bruise. What you are suggesting would set the movement back...again making victims believe they have to have physical injuries in order to be victims. Men can be victims from women or other men, and you don't have to be married. Laws have been changed by the fierce work fo advocates over the years to protect all genders, to recognize domestic means family, marital, dating, and in some states roommates, and to protect against MULTIPLE forms of violence.

Saying let's just call it "wife beating" erases all of that.

Women aren't "tempted" to return to their abusers: they are fearful, they are bullied (by church, by family, by police), they have limited options, and yes..oftentimes they love their abuser...because an abuser isn't always abusive. The "honeymoon" period is called that for a reason, it's called a cycle of violence for a reason.

Abusers CAN control themselves...it's all about Power and Control. They never hit someone they don't have control over, and brace yourself..6'4 men have been victims of domestic violence.
Educate yourself on the dynamics of abuse and the work that has been done. You are the one minimizing it.

[Beantighe]

73. Well, I did say upfront it was an unpopular opinion

I also worked as an advocate for abuse victims, but during the late eighties and early nineties – and only for about five years. I get that there other types of violence that can be equally or more emotionally devastating to the victim than a broken bone, but dead is dead. I understand the cycle of abuse. I have also worked with hundreds of women and children (no males, but toward the end of my work in that area men were being encouraged to come forward).

I stand by my statement, "Perhaps if these guys were stripped of their livelihoods, some women wouldn't be so tempted to return to them due to fear of not being able to feed her children." I worked with many women whose biggest fear was not being able to feed their children due to a lack of a job and/or outside support. It was stated as the reason they returned. I also understand the dynamics underlying that, but that was not the purpose of the post.

The purpose of my post was to call a wife beater a wife beater and suggest they don’t have a right to work. It wasn’t to minimize other forms of abuse. It was to suggest they need to be locked up with a big old ugly label that reads "wife beater" (rather than be heard in what is tantamount to traffic court and allowed to continue on with their life as usual) when they beat someone just because they can. Maybe I was short-sighted. Maybe not.

Porter is a wife beater. He beat his wife and it sounds as though he suffered no real repercussions for doing so. BUT yes, your point is well-taken that calling him what he is could cause those abused in other ways to not see what they are experiencing as abusive if there are no bruises.

All of that being said, I commend you for your dedication and ability to work with abuse victims for so long. It takes a special kind of person to be able to do that work for so many years.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

22. Unless the abuser is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, any time the employer deems it

necessary. At-will employment giveth, and at-will employment taketh away.

[bullwinkle428]

23. My workplace fired a guy who was arrested for solicitation of a prostitute.

Most workplaces take a pretty dim view when an employee publicly embarrasses them.

[MrPurple]

29. Was he fired for being arrested, or did he plead guilty?

Technically, you're innocent until proven guilty in court. Not saying I think Porter is innocent.

[bullwinkle428]

38. I did some searching online, and could not find any information regarding disposition

of the case. When you're an at-will employee, though, an employer essentially has the right to fire you for anything within the law. In other words, only specific cases of discrimination prohibit the right to terminate.

[spooky3]

45. Not to split hairs, but there are a few more exceptions

to at will employment. For example if you have an individual contract or are covered by a union contract, the employer has to follow the terms of the contract. Or, there might be a state law protecting certain rights, eg to smoke cigarettes in your own time, at home.

But you’re right—most Americans are at will for most aspects of their work life. If the employer had any concerns about an employee’s violent tendencies, the employer does not have to keep that person employed and doesn’t have to wait for a conviction. As long as the employer treats blacks the same as whites (etc) in applying the decision rule, the employee has no right to keep the job.

[Hekate]

40. Security clearances, like at-will employment, have nothing to do with what you said

Fine, go to court. It won't get you your security clearance back, nor your job, if it depends on same.

[RobinA]

24. No

Personal behavior not effecting work stays at home.

[Squinch]

50. So you are fine sharing a cubicle with someone

who molests his children at home? How about if he murdered his wife at home? You still good working out a budget around a conference table with him?

Why is it ok, then, for him to batter his wife at home? Is she less important than those other humans?

[RobinA]

55. Why Aren't The Molester

and murderer in jail? If they aren't, I guess I'm stuck sharing a cubicle with them, because apparently law enforcement was not able to make their case.

That being said, I don't sit around conference tables working on budgets, I work with murders and child molesters daily, so this argument is not going to go real far with me. I'm in forensic mental health.

[Squinch]

72. So now I'll ask you: did YOU read the sub-thread you are responding to? The original

Last edited Fri Feb 9, 2018, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)

comment said that if someone commits acts that do not affect their work performance, they should not be addressed in the workplace.

Which means that if one of your colleagues was revealed to you to be a child molester or murderer, you should have no problem with having them as your colleague.

You work with murderers and child molesters daily, but I feel certain that they are not your colleagues, and if one of those murderers or molesters were put in charge of your department, and you had to report to them, you might have a problem with it.

[MichMan]

76. Does the same apply for a criminal record of other violent acts?

If someone who is accused of committing domestic violence shouldn't be employed, what about those with other types of violent acts ? Does an assault & battery conviction mean one should also be unemployable for the rest of their life ?

[Squinch]

79. Do you know anyone with an assault and battery conviction? I do. Do you know how hard

it is for them to find a job? It's very hard. But somehow as a society we don't mind wife battering quite so much.

[GulfCoast66]

25. My company will not hire someone convicted of the crime

And if convicted while employed will be fired.

But the accusation is not enough and I agree with that position.

But I am not in the White House. Politics are a horse of a different color.

[bronxiteforever]

26. Heres how I feel. Fuck Rob Porter.

Three different women and photo evidence. He is serving in the White House not washing dishes in a diner. I prefer tax paid civil servants to not be serial domestic abusers.

[Hekate]

28. When they LIE to the FBI on their freaking background check. How about that?

THAT is not a freaking "she said/he said," is it?

I hope this is clarifying.

[JenniferJuniper]

34. Security clearance - turn Rachel on now

[Merlot]

37. He worked in a position that reqired a security clearance but coudn't get one

In this instance he needed to be fired, should never have been allowed in the position.

[Squinch]

39. I think it would be great if we lived in a society where men knew that if they punched their wives

around they wouldn't be able to make a living.

[RobinA]

41. Limiting Peoples

ability to work never ends well. What if the abuser is the sole bread winner? What happens to the wife and kids? What if he wants to pull himself together? How do things get back on track if he can’t earn money? Is a man who can’t work more or less likely to be violent?

[spooky3]

43. What if he becomes violent with a coworker, after

the employer knew about violence in his background but permitted him to continue working there?

Do you think the coworker’s family might have any basis for suing the employer for negligence?

What if it were a customer rather than a coworker? What if it were 10, or 20, or 100 coworkers or customers?

[RobinA]

53. If There's Some Reason

to think he might be violent at work, threats etc., he can go. That's when private behavior bleeds into work behavior. Other than that, we can't fire everyone who shares a characteristic with anyone who has ever been violent in the workplace.

[spooky3]

58. In the US we (employers) can fire or refuse to hire

ANYONE, with good cause, bad cause or no cause, unless the reason falls into one of several categories of exceptions and limitations on at will employment.

And employers can be and have been sued successfully over negligent hiring and failure to protect customers and coworkers.

[RobinA]

60. I Know That

I didn't state that it would be illegal to fire the guy. The original question was SHOULD the guy be fired. My belief is that, no the guy shouldn't not be fired, and I gave my reasons for feeling that way in various posts on this thread..

[spooky3]

61. Im responding to

“Other than that, we can’t fire”...

[RobinA]

62. Ok, Fair Enough

I spoke inartfully. I meant “can’t” in a moral sense, not a legal sense.

[Squinch]

49. What if we were a culture that simply didnt tolerate it?

There would still be a very simple way around all those problems for your hypothetical poor beleaguered persecuted spouse beater. Can you guess what it is?

[RobinA]

52. Did You Even

read my post? I wasn't talking about the beleaguered spouse beater, I was talking about the collateral damage to interfering with people's ability to work. If I'm an abused wife, does knowing that hubby will be fired from his job make me more, or less, willing to report the violence? I'm talking about the real world here, not Perfect World where sinners are 100% bad and their banishment makes the world once around them all happy again.

You didn't address my questions.

[Squinch]

71. Yeah, I read it. It says we can't have zero tolerance to wife beating because the abuser might

be a breadwinner, and if he loses his job he might whale on his wife and kids even more.

That's a stance that doesn't really understand what zero tolerance would do. Your question here about whether the wives would report the husbands shows again that you don't understand it.

Would the wife report it if she was certain her report would be taken seriously, and there would be a way for her to do it safely? And she would be supported by her community? You bet your ass she would.

Your comment about a "perfect world" assumes that a world where abusers are punished and their victims have options is impossible. To that I say examine your privilege.

[PeaceNikki]

65. Limiting people's ability to fucking live without fear of being abused is more important.

Our society needs to shun abusers entirely.

The end.

[Hekate]

42. Are you getting the support you hoped for from your fellow DUers? Or is the nature of...

...an FBI Security Clearance clearer now?

[spooky3]

44. Why does violence against women rank #50000

On any progressive’s list of priorities?

[PeaceNikki]

63. mmm hmmm

[Iggo]

46. Beating up women is not number 50,000 on my list.

You need to get a new list.

[HipChick]

51. He should be fired, if he can't obtain the required security clearance..

and it's required for his job..

[ProfessorGAC]

54. A Guy Who Punches And Chokes His Wives. . .

. . . and has a court order of protection against him, thereby preventing him from getting security clearance for a White House job, is 50,000 on your list?

Yeah, there's a lot rotten in Denmark, but 50,000 is preposterous.

[Caliman73]

56. When the behavior interferes with the performance of their duties. Or when the employer wishes to.

There isn't an easy answer to your question and there is always a chance that people can be falsely accused. Domestic abuse is a serious and significant aspect of life in the US and while it happens to both genders, we all know that the vast majority of victims are women and they are women because of the historical power imbalance in society. My take is that if you resort to violence for the sake of control in your romantic, or any relationships, then there are some significant emotional problems that you have to deal with.

We cannot use Porter as an example because his issue is not just about the domestic abuse. It was the abuse that kept him from getting security clearance but it was the fact that he was allowed to continue working in the highest levels of power, when people knew about his lack of security clearance and WHY he was not able to get it. But then, that situation goes to prove my statement above, that people knew that there were problems with domestic abuse and the DID NOT CARE.

Domestic abuse is both a private matter AND a public safety/social matter. I don't think that every situation requires an instant termination of employment with no chance at defense or rehabilitation. Like I said though, if you engage in violence to resolve romantic or parenting relationships, then chances are there are problems that need to be addressed that will eventually interfere with work.

[LexVegas]

57. Jesus Fucking Christ. nt

[PeaceNikki]

64. This

[LanternWaste]

59. I think far too many people are attempting to minimize abuse against women

"What do you think?"

I think far too many people are attempting to minimize abuse against women, and will rationalize the negative aspects of one man's abuse as an unfair "off with all their heads" indicator against all men. I think these men will denounce the news coverage it receives as not positive at all... and I suppose it's not positive-- to the particular narrative they are attempting to advance.

To be honest, I've yet to see anyone argue the point (which is quite different than simply holding the sentiment) that abusive spouses should be unemployable. It seems to be a point no one but you is making with any serious gravity behind it.

[nadine_mn]

66. There are 2 points to this that you are conflating

In the Porter case, as abhorrent as being a domestic abuser is, the issue was his inability to get security clearance due to his likelihood of being blackmailed...due to his history of domestic violence.

He wasn't shit canned because he beat his wives, it was that he couldn't get security clearance. In this instance, the public outrage as to WHY is what led to his departure. If no publicity about it, he would still be in the office.

As to whether or not in general, a batterer should be unemployable, that is different. Each business has its own work culture: some have strict religious morality clauses, some are more laid back. A bank or financial institution is going to be more concerned with someone who has a lot of personal debt (and will require financial background checks) and a position that requires contact with children or vulnerable populations is going to be more concerned with a criminal background check.

Being "accused" of beating your partner isn't the same as having police reports, photos and protective orders filed against you...Porter's case has a lot more substantial evidence against him than Al Franken's half dozen anonymous accusers and allegations of hands around the waist.

I have been a domestic abuse advocate for over 20 yrs, and abusers never have one victim...it's a pattern of abuse that increases in severity. They are charming, manipulative violent people. As an employer, I would not hire someone with a history of domestic battery..the safety of my employees comes first. Victims (rarely) don't report to the police the first time they are hit... they will find an excuse or accept the profuse apologies abusers are so adept at giving. By the time a victim calls the police to report abuse, there has already been a long pattern of abusive behavior. Abusers don't start off with a punch...it's a long con of isolation, emotional, verbal, physical abuse that escalates over time.

[FarCenter]

80. What kind of investigations should an employer do to avoid hiring an abuser?

I guess that a thorough review of social media accounts belonging to the applicant and the applicant's acquaintances would be a start. Should former spouses, relatives, neighbors, teachers, clergy, etc. be interviewed?

But employers usually don't have the resources to do the interviews of references that the government does for security clearances. They also develop information from these interviews and other sources as to who else knows about the applicant, and then they follow a chain of references for deeper investigations.