Erika Casher: Cigna 'Quietly Fires' Employee Mocking Teen Over Grandmother's Death Due to Covid-19
Source: International Bussiness Times
Erika Casher, a white woman who was seen laughing at a student as he spoke about his grandmother's death due to Covid-19, has been fired from her job. The incident took place during a Tennessee school board meeting about implementing mask mandate.
The debate was organized after multiple schools in Tennessee announced that they would be closing in the wake of the rising COVID-19 cases.
The video, which has gone viral on the social media, shows a masked boy, Grady Knox, from Rutherford County speaking about why he feels that masks should be worn in the school by both the students and teachers.
Read more: https://www.ibtimes.sg/erika-casher-cigna-quietly-fires-employee-mocking-teen-over-grandmothers-death-due-covid-19-60169
BTW - She was a NURSE working for Cigna -A NURSE!!
ashredux
(2,612 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,499 posts)The story says she was a case manager for Cigna. These are usually the employees who deny treatment to injured workers compensation victims. They review what your doctor is doing and suggest cheaper treatments, deny some treatments outright as not medically necessary, and are quick to say the injured employee is ready to return to work.
She could be someone who reviews your health insurance claims rather than WC and denies the coverage etc.
Takes a really unempathetic person to do that job for sure.
Either way it is great she is gone!
Prof. Toru Tanaka
(1,996 posts)I like how it says she was "quietly fired." Another nasty person outed by video,
ashredux
(2,612 posts)dflprincess
(28,094 posts)Or she could be in a department that deals directly with patients to help them manage their conditions and don't deal with claims at all. Most insurance companies have sonething like that now.
Either way she's a lousy nurse.
RVN VET71
(2,699 posts)malthaussen
(17,235 posts)On the other... I am puzzled by the willingness of some companies to fire people over conduct unrelated to the workplace. Since when are employers in the business of dictating the behavior of people when they are not on the job? This is only one of several such incidents. I don't think I like it.
-- Mal
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)If they dont want despicable assholes like this representing their business, thats completely their right.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)This woman was not "representing Cigna" at the board meeting, she was acting in her capacity as a private citizen. I do not think that companies should have a right to regulate conduct of private citizens. It would be absurd for them to claim that an employee is always "representing" them. I do know that this happens, I don't approve. What happens if they demand to be "represented" in something reprehensible?
-- Mal
not fooled
(5,805 posts)but there's something about this case that makes Cigna's actions more defensible--her private conduct overlapped with her job...a nurse mocking public health measures...directly reflects on Cigna's mission to protect health (=pay as few claims as possible).
Anti-vax nurses shouldn't even be in that profession, IMO.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)If she shows such an anti-health attitude at work, then she should get another job. This I can agree with. As I ask upthread, though, how many people who watched that video knew she worked for Cigna before they fired her? I suspect very few, probably only her friends and neighbors. So it makes the claim that she was "representing Cigna" absurd.
-- Mal
Pluvious
(4,339 posts)I agree with your reaction to this, and the feeling of wrongness.
If she'd been USPS mail carrier, or say worked for the Department of Water and Power, it'd be totally wrong to fire her.
But working for an enterprise dependent upon goodwill of their customers, their reputation for the kind of people they employ impacts that goodwill. It's highly likely that she signed an employment contract spelling this out, as well as consequences.
druidity33
(6,452 posts)they knew she was a NURSE. Often parents know what other parents do for a living but don't know where they work. If she was known as a nurse, maybe Cigna thought they would be branded by association. After all, a Nurse should know better.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,249 posts)I don't know if she had it at one time and burned out (that certainly happens) but she's certainly in the wrong profession now.
Response to not fooled (Reply #34)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Marthe48
(17,112 posts)One of the things I agree to when I anually renew my volunteer status is that I represent the organization no matter what I'm doing. That means for me that I live the mission of the organization. When I run errands, I change from my house clothes to my public clothes and behave as a representative of AFS. I've volunteered for over 20 years, and I'm glad to comply with their standards. When I was in grade school, we would go on field trips. Our teachers would remind us to behave because we were representing our school. I took it to heart.
Maybe Cigna expects more from its employees than someone callously ridiculing loss, in their job or in a public situation. I wouldn't want her tending to my health needs and if Cigna hadn't punished her behavior, I'd question using them for my insurance needs.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)If the woman made an explicit contract to "represent" the company even in her private life, then she can be fired under that obligation. But not if it is implicit, IMO. That would establish the principle that the company (or organization) can hire and fire for arbitrary reasons unless one falls into a protected class. Suppose the company decides that using birth control represents them poorly? Users of birth control are not a protected class.
-- Mal
ShazzieB
(16,636 posts)At least in the U.S. they can. Every state in the U.S. except Montana has what is called "at-will" employment. This means that, with certain exceptions,, employers can fire an employee at any time for any reason (or no reason).
You may not agree with this (I don't care for it myself), but that is the law here in the good old USA.
The following quotes are from this source: https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx
A. At-Will Defined
At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.
At-will also means that an employer can change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences. For example, an employer can alter wages, terminate benefits, or reduce paid time off. In its unadulterated form, the U.S. at-will rule leaves employees vulnerable to arbitrary and sudden dismissal, a limited or on-call work schedule depending on the employers needs, and unannounced cuts in pay and benefits.
The only way to change this is to get the labor laws changed. There are movements to do that in some states, but since it has to be done on the state level, it's going to take a long time. Especially since employers are like being able to hire and fire (especially the latter) at will and will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. In the meantime, this is how things are.
That said, I fully support this woman's firing for completely different reasons. As a nurse, she's a member of a profession that is bound by a code of ethics. I believe she violated that code in multiple ways by mocking someone who was talking about the death of a loved one and by working against scientifically based public health measures (i.e., masking to prevent the spread of covid). No, she wasn't on the job at the time, but I don't think that matters. Nursing is a profession, not just a job, and her behavior was a disgrace to that profession. She fully deserved to lose her job.
spooky3
(34,525 posts)Known quickly, and often the employers name is outed. So whether employees like it or not, their off duty conduct often DOES reflect on the company.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)There is really no Earthly reason why an employee's conduct off the job should in any way be ascribed to their employer. Since I am discussing a principle, and not a matter of fact, this should have no bearing on the question. Or I should say, since it is my intention to discuss a principle. Clearly, many respondents do not separate "ought" and "is."
-- Mal
reACTIONary
(5,796 posts)... on behalf of an employer, decisions that affect the public and customers, and shows bad judgement in public, that is reason to ascribe bad judgement to the employer / company.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)PatSeg
(47,741 posts)and there are times when companies do encroach on their employees' personal lives in ways that are inappropriate and sometimes illegal. In this case being she is a nurse and we are in a national emergency situation, I think I might make an exception. It is kind of a slippery slope. When she was hired, she probably signed some agreement that the company could let her go without cause. So many companies do that these days, which often works against the employee.
I am glad she has been held accountable for her cruel and uncivilized behavior, but I am afraid some companies could be setting unhealthy precedents.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)At-will employment being a separate issue, with which I also disagree (as do most at DU, I believe).
-- Mal
PatSeg
(47,741 posts)plimsoll
(1,671 posts)which actually means you can be fired for any reason. Sounds like a whole bunch of policies that she probably supported caught up with her. Is it an absolutely just set of policies that allow this to happen, no. Seems like a real lack of imagination as well as empathy.
Work for a company that can fire me at will. Check.
Go to a public meeting and behave in a way that will reflect badly on that employer. Check
What could go wrong?
spooky3
(34,525 posts)Unions cannot negotiate contracts with employers that would require union membership to be employed there. They cant require the payment of the equivalent of union dues to the union. Employees have a right to work free from union pressure.
plimsoll
(1,671 posts)Just saying these are policies that conservatives support in general. They always seem to be in favor of laws and regulations that protect, but do not bind them. This is just a case where what she supports actually did bind her.
spooky3
(34,525 posts)Employment at will. They are two different things.
plimsoll
(1,671 posts)My point was that she's kind of screwed, and probably was OK with those kinds of rules.
Because she lacks those kinds of protections, she'll be a martyr to "political correctness" or some other BS outrage source for the GOP.
Response to PatSeg (Reply #50)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
PatSeg
(47,741 posts)and it is very unsettling. They can let you go because they want to hire someone younger or cheaper. That said, this woman certainly shouldn't be involved in healthcare, it is just hard to reconcile firing her over something she did off the job. Of course, I am glad she got what she deserved. Maybe it will cause her to reevaluate her behavior.
Response to PatSeg (Reply #87)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
PatSeg
(47,741 posts)It has become so predictable. Do something obnoxious or hateful, pay the consequences, play the victim, and start a GoFundMe page! Because the world is full of suckers more than willing to finance another person's bad choices. So much for "personal responsibility".
LiberalFighter
(51,299 posts)Which means an employer can fire anyone for any reason or no reason. Except for reasons of discrimination defined.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)My objection is not that they can fire her, but if they should be allowed to fire her for this reason.
-- Mal
Dream Girl
(5,111 posts)As long as shes not a protected class and she is not be fired in a discriminatory way.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,703 posts)Meaning she could be terminated at any time, for any reason, or no reason (other than for being a member of a protected class, which is protected by federal law).
If she doesnt like it, she should move somewhere where nurses are unionized.
spooky3
(34,525 posts)qazplm135
(7,447 posts)But if her conduct hurts their business they don't have to continue employing them either.
LisaM
(27,850 posts)Obviously, there are exceptions, but I don't think it's generally okay to fire people for activities unrelated to their jobs.
wnylib
(21,765 posts)Her actions are directly related to her work. As a nurse, health care is her profession, regardless of what specific work she does for her company. Health care and prevention of disease and the cost of treatment is directly related to her company. When she supports actions that make more people get sick and die, she is acting at cross purposes to her company, costing thrm more money in payouts. When she is seen in public mocking a teen for grieving the loss of his grandmother, she hurts the company's image. Even if only her friends, relatives, and neighbors know that she is a nurse and where she works, in today's world, with social media, the whole world could end up knowing.
So I agree with the company on this.
I do think that firing people for non work activities is encroachment on privacy. In the runup to the Iraq war, I went to DC for a protest march. A reporter started asking me questions during the march. To protect my privacy, I did not give him my name. When his companion put a camera on me I coverrd my face and said, "No pictures, no film." i knew that if my employer saw or heard me on the news, they would make my life miserable and find an alternate excuse to fire me if I didn't quit.
But this time I agree with the company.
The Magistrate
(95,264 posts)If a person you employ becomes a prominent asshole, it can harm the company. People can and will refuse to do business with a firm that pays such a creature a salary.
It can certainly work both ways, but at present, it is working in our favor and no good point is served by complaining of. There should be consequences, serious consequences, for this sort of behavior.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)Further, if a company has a right to fire someone for their conduct off the job, they have a right to not hire them in the first place, for whatever arbitrary reason they decide poorly represents the company. Example, homosexuality. What would be the response, do you think, if a company refused to hire "those people" because they didn't "represent" the company's image?
Mind you, why anyone would want to work for such a bunch of twits is also puzzling, or why anyone would choose to do business with them.
-- Mal
eggplant
(3,919 posts)So you can't fire someone because they are black, but you can fire them because they are an asshole. Assholes are not a protected class.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)The problem, of course, is that "protection" can cease (and if the GOP gets its way, it will for many classes). How long ago was it, after all, that gays weren't a protected class? This is why, as a general principle, I think employers have no place regulating the conduct of their employees off the job. The claim that a person is "representing" the company at all times is specious, although it is certainly assumed or made explicit in many employment contracts.
But it is wholly arbitrary. How many women-abusing felons play in the NFL and the team and commissioner are just fine with it until the individual becomes notorious and they decide to cut him off? The issue is one of image, not substance, and I generally dislike questions of image.
-- Mal
jaxexpat
(6,876 posts)The client was a 100 employee machine tooling manufactory that had about 40% female employees. Our project's location forced all their employees to walk adjacent to us from the parking lot to the main entrance. The client wrote in the contract that it was our (the general contractor) responsibility to enforce onto all construction personnel that there would be no cat calling toward his employees. Everybody was on their good behavior and we had no trouble until the steel erection sub-contractor began assembling the super structure. His crew were somewhat uncivilized and there were complaints almost immediately. It was incumbent upon us to tamp down the sub's behavior. This became a problem immediately since enforcement by termination was not, for practicality's sake, in our purview. They weren't our employees, we had a schedule to make, there was no other erection company which could/would perform on budget and to schedule. We had a wise old superintendent who took the entire erection crew aside and mentioned that those women could be their mothers or sisters and how would they like the catcalling on their own family. The shaming worked perfectly well and there were no further incidents.
A professional nurse that mocks the application of modern science in a public venue, for the world to see, has marched outside the realm of employability. She and people like her have no shame but I doubt that any amount of shaming has been tried on her because that might be an attempted violation of her right to free speech. Ultimately all employers are in position to be tyrants.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)For Houston who the team is healthy scratching.
The Magistrate
(95,264 posts)To be close enough, the person using birth control would have to have come into notoriety by public behavior. Were that the case, while I would disagree with the act, it would be within an employer's rights, under present law. I expect there are communities in which employing a person widely known as obstreperous proponent of birth control could be bad for business.
In most of these instances recently reported, while the announcement may include boilerplate about 'company values' and such, the person is not being fired because the employer disagrees with the views expressed, but for the tenor and tone of their expression. It is that which calls the company into disrepute, not the view itself. If someone were fired merely for expressing support for Trump, I would not consider that proper. If he were fired for expressing that support by hanging an effigy of Mrs. Clinton or President Biden from a tree in his front lawn, even an employer who votes Republican might see that as a problem to be solved by separation. This particular person is being fired for laughing at the grief of a youngster in public. I not only have no problem with her being fired, if she were beaten by an onlooker I would consider a public service had been performed.
It has been quite common for persons to be fired for left views, particularly in regards to union organization. It is, in fact, a novelty that people now are being fired for piggish and bullying behavior on rightist lines. It is going to continue, because the christo-fascist right has difficulty adjusting to the fact that it is no longer socially dominant. Companies with any vision wish to appeal to younger and more urban persons, as this where the future and the money is. Failure to appreciate this, by an aging group which is now a minority, but one large enough its members cannot believe they are not the majority, will continue to bring sudden unemployment to persons who fail to process the altered circumstance.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)I, too, would have enjoyed seeing some other member of the audience feed her a knuckle sandwich for her bullyragging, although I suppose that is endorsing assault.
I disapprove of the principle, but in the real world we must often live without principles. If, in fact, it is becoming unfashionable to be publicly an asshole, then that is perhaps a good thing for society, although the hearty participation of the rest of the audience in her mockery of the young man suggests otherwise. And certainly, in the political sphere, being an asshole seems to be a recommendation in certain constituencies.
When it comes to employers regulating the conduct of employees, I have always been a radical opponent. 'Twas not that long ago when employers felt themselves justified in locking up their young female employees after work to keep them from depraved behavior. Nowadays, companies seem to feel that their employees are on duty 24/7. I knew the world was heading in a bad direction when beepers were being worn as a common habit. Perhaps I am too sensitive in fearing corporate slavery, but the conduct of corporations in general does not reassure me that I am.
-- Mal
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)I can express no opinion on any issue publicly. No letters to the editor, etc. That is what I stepped up to when I accepted the position. Do I like it? Hell, no, but there are reasons for this and I have found workarounds.
This woman made an ass of herself in public. A nurse, no less. No sympathy here.
At-will employment is a bitch; this is just one aspect of it.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)If you signed up for a contractual obligation, then naturally you should observe it. The issue of whether such contractual obligations are/should be legal is separate. My anarchist self thinks all such regulations are wrong, but people always have "reasons" why this or that job is different.
To be clear, I have no sympathy for the woman, either. But though I strive not to be too much of an asshole, I will defend to the death someone else's right to be an asshole. Within reason. Publicly mocking a teenager pushes the envelope almost to the breaking point. If she were acting in any official category, especially if she were abusing the power/position of her job, then I would be all for hanging her.
-- Mal
spooky3
(34,525 posts)What if you put yourself in the role of the anarchist employer rather than that of the anarchist employee? Would you want to be told you HAD to retain an asshole employee? One who harmed members of your community and made you look bad by association? Who could in the future, for example, bring a weapon to work and harm someone due to their sense of entitlement, and their off duty conduct gave you a clue that could happen but you didnt take steps to prevent it? Etc., etc.
There are also matters of degree rather than all or none. The law provides that some off duty conduct cannot be regulated by employers but other types cannot. For example, many employers may legally drug test you and fire you even if there is no on the job impairment.
There is also the very separate consideration of ethics rather than law. Even if something is illegal, you could consider whether an employee or employer has ethical obligations to the other and to other employees, the community, etc.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)For the record, I also oppose random drug-testing.
As far as the "anarchistic" employer goes, I do come down on the side of the employee in that case. If it could be demonstrated that the employee has done measurable "harm" to the community, then appropriate legal action should be taken. If they have broken no laws, then the issue becomes one of community standards, and I tend to become very agitated when the community imposes its standards on non-conforming individuals. At the least, I'd need a demonstration that the conduct does visible harm to the community as a whole before considering it actionable. This does mean that people get their first murder free, but the opposite extreme is everybody being treated as a suspect. This is the direction I see our society going towards, and I don't like it a lot. But then, the assholes do seem to be multiplying, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the whole.
Ethical standards, especially for professionals, are a difference in degree. Many have argued that as a member of the health care profession, Mrs Casher should be held to a higher standard than a normal grunt. That argument is not without merit. Especially in a time of health crisis, health care workers should advocate best practice or find another job. But is that the case here, or has she been fired for making the company look bad?
-- Mal
stopdiggin
(11,411 posts)to acknowledge your hesitation, and probably share a degree of your uneasiness. 'Corporate overlords' and big brother and all. However, your overall thesis that people (employees) have a right to act however they wish on their own time - is just fundamentally wrong. Not true now - and there's never been a time when it has been.
In fact, being an 'as*hole' has always had a social penalty attached to it (that's why we call them as*holes). People do not want to be around A-holes. People do not want to play and work on the same team as an A-hole. People will veer away from participating in civic activities (or going to church) because of the presence of A-holes. And smart leaders (read pastors, employers, managers, and HR) are quick to recognize that 1 or 2 A-holes - can end up costing an organization big.
The idea that people are only adjudged 'A-hole' and thereby shunned and ostracized on the basis of their actions at work or on the job - is also a huge fallacy. That's simply not the way things work. If it's widely known that an employee drives a vehicle festooned w/ Nazi symbolism, has co-ownership in an after hours bar, currently dates a 17 year old, and has 3 restraining orders regarding previous marriages and relationships - the majority of this person's 'fellow employees' are going to headed in the other direction - fast.
And that is the way it works in the real world. There's always been a social cost involved in being a loathsome individual. And employers are not so much 'setting' the rules here - as they are following through with them. If you find out that one of your employees has been shooting cats and poisoning dogs in the neighborhood, or diddling little kids - then, for the sake of the team, - Jims gotta' go!
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)In my sample pool, assholes tend to prosper -- or, more to the point, those who prosper tend to be assholes.
If "nice guys finish last," then it would follow that if one wants to be first, he'd better not be nice.
-- Mal
Backseat Driver
(4,402 posts)age if they meet the physical requirements of what amounts to a sedentery job that uses brain instead of brawn any more than not hiring/firing well-groomed "big" women for behind-the-counter
hospitality positions for the optics of youth and beauty that male travelers prefer.
My daughter was a dean's list BS Hospitality graduate of OSU. She is blonde, blue-eyed, and well-groomed as well. She applied to a front of house job at The Ohio State's Blackstone Hotel for which she felt she was qualified, including previous education that included internship at that hotel, and experience at other jobs in which she worked with the public in Customer Service. She received a letter that they would not even interview her and considered her ineligible for that position.
In a state that is "at-will," there is no point in litigation if fired, made redundant, nor "let go NOT for cause" from a contract position EVEN if one feels they meet a protected class such as a Viet Nam Era veteran on a Federal contract - such a position seems to only protect Federal Civil Servants where different identified processes are used for hiring and firing. In addition, the worker is never made privy to the terms of that contract. There is also no protection when being hired on a contract for the term of that federal contract the contractor happened to win; hence, no bench time, no re-training for an alternate contract that employer might be exploring, nor additional skill-training while waiting for a new gig. In fact, the contractor probably only has that single contract but, oh yeah, they always expect a renewal...hahahaha!
DH was once "recruited" and hired for a federal position with the VA that was part of the huge T4 contract. On the day before hiring paperwork was to be done, he received a call from his prospective boss/hiring manager that wanted him to travel to DC for URGENT training set up by that agency at his own expense though accommodations would be provided by the prospective employer, personally.??? Employer said, "bring the wife, too." DH asked to URGENTLY get the paperwork accomplished and only then would we travel. Once there, after one preliminary introduction day, that urgent training was canceled. Even the trainers failed to show??? We encountered unavoidable car trouble returning home (no one knows when the alternator will fail). We were lucky to find a tow and repair that very day. Two days later, on returning home at great personal expense, he was "let go." We figured federal "budget burning" on this URGENT training episode. No way to know how that job went South so suddenly. DH filed for unemployment from said employer and then received a call that ODJFS said no such employer existed--oh yeah, said his former boss - I forgot to tell you to use this name if you're filing (Here, the outfit had contracted payroll and HR to another contractor dba). ODJFS then agreed to his claim for benefits). Go figure! Also figured there was some "commission" collusion going on as this fit a scenario in which DH had "networking" knowledge of the new VP of the company involved with the "hire." SO depressing to a family that really needed a new chance.
irisblue
(33,054 posts)"Tennessee is an at-will employment state. That means that employers can hire or fire an employee at any time, even without reason."- google.
Every employer has a code of conduct as part of your employment, all of them have something about not damaging the employers good name in public, in particular, higher level clinical positions.
Casher fucked around and found out.
Her bullying behavior in public caught up with her. It's on her alone
llmart
(15,566 posts)If you live and work in an at-will state, the employer needs no reason to fire you. I guarantee you that this person probably is all anti-union but when the consequences of it affect her kind then they say "not fair".
Glad the company did this. She deserves it.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)The company may have a legal right to fire the woman. I dislike the principle. At-will means they could hire or fire someone for accidents of nature, not for cause.
Again, the woman was acting as a private citizen. Show of hands: how many knew she worked for Cigna before they fired her?
-- Mal
BidenRocks
(829 posts)PR disaster before the media could make the link to them.
Simple preemptive damage control.
A health care worker mocking a death would make me question her professionalism and her employer.
We must agree to disagree on this.
Traildogbob
(8,884 posts)Your saying Al Franken should not have been let go🤔?
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)Now, if he had been engaged in current criminal (or quasi-criminal) activity while on the job as Senator, then the issue becomes more iffy. But hell, we allow felons to be elected to public office. Elected officials seem to be held to different standards from us normal grunts (and standards that differ depending upon what party they belong to!).
-- Mal
Traildogbob
(8,884 posts)Is sick, lawmakers are above the law. With Liberty and justice for all. Why I refuse to recite that bullshit. God Blessin MurKKKa.
radical noodle
(8,017 posts)said and done some questionable things at work and that was just the icing on the cake.
Backseat Driver
(4,402 posts)her boss thought unsuitable at bedside; someone told my DH the timber of his voice was all wrong in the office - he had once considered a career in radio due to his "great" voice. Go figure - in an at-will state, none of that matters when your employer says "go."
radical noodle
(8,017 posts)at a child talking about his grandmother's death is a joy to be around in other situations. Somehow that shows a lack of compassion (or at least control) that is necessary for a medical environment.
I do agree though, that in many states the employee is at the mercy of his/her employer.
blm
(113,131 posts)And did so in a public setting.
NH Ethylene
(30,824 posts)And she was only fired because it was viral and thus well publicized. If it's fairness we're after, what about all the other people in that room who laughed aloud at that poor kid?
Wingus Dingus
(8,059 posts)health care personnel to publicly fight against hand washing and sterile technique, as an employer? She probably barely passed her state boards, she's an idiot who doesn't deserve a license.
NH Ethylene
(30,824 posts)If this is okay, then firing someone who comes out as gay to his friends on Facebook is too. Or a woman who publically 'admits' that she has had an abortion.
If you argue it is acceptable to fire someone for their personal, legal choices made outside of work when it favors one side of a debate, you have to concede that the opposite scenario is also okay.
By the way, people fighting against masks or vaccines is more attributable to the community or subculture in which they are immersed than it is to a low level of intelligence. We like to think they are all just stupid because it makes it easier to categorize and demonize them.
Wingus Dingus
(8,059 posts)Compassion for the physically/mentally suffering, a cornerstone of the nursing profession. Upholding public health measures that are based on science, a cornerstone of the nursing profession. She is publicly advancing the SPREAD of the disease instead of fighting it. She does not deserve a nursing license, she's the OPPOSITE of a nurse, and I'm glad her stupid nasty ass was canned. She wasn't photographed in a supermarket not wearing a mask, but otherwise minding her own business. No, she was at a public forum debating against accepted public health practices for the safety of children and staff in public schools.
stopdiggin
(11,411 posts)spooky3
(34,525 posts)Limitations on employment at will.
Discrimination based on sex includes discrimination against gay people. Revealing one is gay is very likely protected. It very likely also protects revealing one had an abortion because women would experience disparate impact by such a rule.
Mysterian
(4,601 posts)It's right there in public view.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)Again, no one knew she worked for Cigna until they fired her. She was acting in her capacity as a private citizen, not as an employee of the company.
-- Mal
Mysterian
(4,601 posts)In this case, the person acted in a disgusting and juvenile manner during a public meeting. Any private employer can fire your ass for anything that embarrasses the business.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)States have varying restrictions on who can employ felons. Any job requiring bonding, forget it. But somehow, elected officials appear to be exempt.
-- Mal
Skittles
(153,298 posts)she'd be OK if she had worn a mask, and we could not see what a sociopath she is
Wingus Dingus
(8,059 posts)professionals do. This shows she is not capable of doing her job. She's a nurse mocking a boy who was describing his grandmother's death: one would expect even an off-duty nurse to show compassion and appropriate affect/demeanor. They got rid of a piece of shit.
Bristlecone
(10,145 posts)contrary-to-science / health safety measures in a public forum. The fact she was front row and filmed being an asshole is almost beside a the point. That just served as the medium to get her caught for being a hack.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Thats why you watch your social media posts. What you do or say reflects on them. All they care about is their image. Like it or not.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)My objection is to the principle. I'm talking about "ought," not "is."
-- Mal
PSPS
(13,635 posts)Every company I've worked for has made it clear that how you behave in public is just as important as your performance on the job as far as continued employment goes. To assume otherwise is silly.
I can see it now:
Front page story, with a picture of a crushed baby stroller under the front wheels of a car. The caption says, "Tragic toddler's death after a drunk driver ran a red light. The driver, 33-year-olf John Doe, an employee of Acme Insurance, was arrested for DUI and manslaughter."
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)It is not germane to the story at all.
Now, if he were driving a company car clearly labelled "Acme Insurance," then one could argue that he is "representing" the company (in fact, I had a job where this argument was explicitly made. I was enjoined not to use the company car for personal errands for exactly this reason).
"To assume otherwise is silly." That I can cheerfully concede, because I am talking about "ought," not "is." I do not think it silly to question if the principle is sound.
-- Mal
Hekate
(91,005 posts)By all means attend a peaceful protest and yell a lot. But participate in a violent attempted overthrow of the US Government? No.
Your right to strike is a protected activity. But attempting to blow up the building over the weekend is not.
Your right to get drunk or high on your own time sure. The DU Lounge is full of that on Friday nights. But a well-publicized DUI or three complete with name of employer is going to put your career as a county surveyor or humble local banker in doubt.
Your right to attend a public meeting of the school board and mock a youngster whose Grandma died of COVID intact from interference by the government. And in this case, there were a lot of adults in that audience sniggering and chuckling that a young fool in a mask would request that the school board mandate masks just cause his granny passed from a disease no worse than the flu, yuh-huh.
The nurse from Cigna just happened to be the one sitting right in front of the camera, making a complete ass of herself. And Cigna, a health insurance company, is well within their rights to think thats not the face they want representing them. Especially after Olbermann outed her by name.
NJCher
(35,825 posts)If she acts like that at work, who would want to be around her?
People don't understand the importance of likeability at work. In fact, when you go to an interview, you are sorta' hired on paper. The reason for the interview is to see if they want to be around you.
Do you fit in?
I wouldn't be surprised if they said, "Yay, now we have a reason to get rid of her."
Buh-bye.
Skittles
(153,298 posts)who the fuck wants a nurse like that?
soldierant
(6,951 posts)That's not new by any means.
As for non-criminal behavior, I am sure many factors are considered. Being a health insurance company, empathy may not be required in her position. But if it is, I can see terminating her. If she showed that much lack of it right there in public, her showing it on the job would be a concern.
And,then. as others are saying, their image is a valuable property which is worth money. It used to be called "good will." It may not be tangible, but it definitely can be measured.
Random Boomer
(4,170 posts)Aside from the conflict of interest inherent in her anti-masking activism, companies freak when an employee engages in any activity that is both deplorable and high-profile. Most companies have an employment clause that covers in broad, vague terms, the responsibility of the employee to not bring bad publicity to the firm. It's bad PR for them, it associates bad images with their brand.
So if a CEO is caught on tape kicking a dog, even though the company has nothing to do with animals, that guy is toast (real-life incident). If an employee screams abuse at a black man bird-watching in Central Park and the video goes viral, that employee immediately becomes a liability. If an employee of software firm goes around coughing on people in a store and harassing them for wearing a mask and that video goes viral, they employee gets fired.
It doesn't really matter what you do as an employee, if you are publically associated with some bad behavior, your employment is immediately in jeopardy.
Luciferous
(6,087 posts)that if we were caught acting in a way that directly went against the values of the company, either at work or outside of work, we could be terminated. And this woman was a nurse laughing at a child who lost their grandmother, so good for them for not wanting to be associated with such a garbage human being.
Midnight Writer
(21,845 posts)who refuse the vaccine and have dug in on this denialism.
If we need medical, nursing or dental care, we are at their mercy.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)But if she conducts herself in a professional and competent manner on the job -- which we do not know -- then I do not believe a company should have a right to fire her for being an asshole.
-- Mal
Wingus Dingus
(8,059 posts)after using the bathroom, she should still be employed as a nurse making health care decisions for other people? Because the real issue here isn't JUST her inappropriate behavior toward the boy, it's that she's fighting a rational public health measure, publicly. That flies in the face of her employer's interests.
Response to packman (Original post)
Anon-C This message was self-deleted by its author.
lapfog_1
(29,243 posts)many people in the audience had these pre-printed signs
I wonder who paid for them?
TimeToGo
(1,366 posts)irisblue
(33,054 posts)couple of interpretations here
Response to irisblue (Reply #14)
Anon-C This message was self-deleted by its author.
irisblue
(33,054 posts)Response to irisblue (Reply #25)
Anon-C This message was self-deleted by its author.
irisblue
(33,054 posts)There are 2 8ish yr old girls and their older brother I read with. I am planning on Encylopedia Brown books later. I want to pass on the gift of reading.
hadEnuf
(2,223 posts)This is who is making decisions about your healthcare?
hlthe2b
(102,509 posts)modrepub
(3,505 posts)but Congress can't.
marybourg
(12,648 posts)Do you think the Speaker of the House should be able to fire elected Representatives?
modrepub
(3,505 posts)Somebody should. Politicians seem to be the only ones who can routinely lie, obliquely threaten other members, expose law enforcement officers to public harm and other despicable things with no repercussions.
And if the districts or states keep electing folks who can't behave themselves and maintain some level of civilized decorum they deserve not to be represented in Congress (and forfeit some of the federal allotted moneys for all I care). It's a damn shame when grown adults have less self control than the standard kindergarten class.
llmart
(15,566 posts)These days no one is "quietly fired". It's all over the internet so she'll likely have a tough time getting another job. I can only imagine what her answer would be to the interview question, "Why did you leave your last job?" I'm a thirty-five year retired HR manager, and any HR person worth their salt is doing more thorough background checks than they used to including checking social media sites.
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)Very disrespectful and wrong but I do not think she should have been fired for it. This was an expression she made (be it right or wrong) and nothing more. She was on her time outside of work, was not wearing anything that I saw that connected her to Cigna. I couldnt connect to the link to see if there were other factors involved here but if firing her was do only to this then I think that is going too far IMO.
Wingus Dingus
(8,059 posts)behavior and decide that a nurse that they employ shouldn't be anti-vaccine/anti-mask, and a nurse they employ should be able to show compassion for a teenager describing his grandmother's death. It's perfectly fair.
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)With-in their right to terminate her employment. I dont think she would have much success in winning a wrongful termination lawsuit but as I said I dont think she should have been fired.
There are many tweets on Twitter and post all over the internet, some here on DU of people expressing a very clear lack of sympathy for people who chose not to get vaccinated and have now died. There is a post about Howard Stern saying f*&% them on this site today. I dont think he should be fired nor anyone who has made such a post.
Wingus Dingus
(8,059 posts)is different than sitting in the front row of a public forum, jeering, rolling your eyes, and advocating for no masks. If a principal saw a middle school teacher coaching little league on the side on a Saturday, and the teacher was nasty/abusive towards those children, that principal may just decide fairly that this person shouldn't be around children. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. You do not owe someone a job if they PUBLICLY do not have the judgment and behavior for it, at least in many states where employers can fire at will.
malthaussen
(17,235 posts)malthaussen
(17,235 posts)What if the company decides something you *do* like represents them poorly, and is cause for firing? Should Hobby Lobby be allowed to fire employees for using birth control? Or, to be more in keeping with this woman's offense, publicly advocating for birth control?
-- Mal
Wingus Dingus
(8,059 posts)If it was a pro-life organization, they should have the ability to fire employees who show up at pro choice rallies if the state laws allow it. Also you are getting into issues of private health care decisions, which isn't applicable here.
Prof. Toru Tanaka
(1,996 posts)she may have had other issues to go along with this, such as substandard attendance. This may have been the final straw,
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)A worker at my company was caught off-duty in a restaurant making racist comments. I happily signed his walking papers. There's not many companies that will tolerate this level of bad behavior regardless of whether it affects their own employment or not. If a company knows about employees doing such egregious things, they have an obligation to discipline them for it up to and including termination. It's just bad business to do anything else especially in the age where people can and do find out where you work. Everyone has a right to free speech. You don't have a right not to face consequences for saying and doing the wrong things.
And FWIW, the people who do these sort of things don't just put on their asshole hat when they aren't on the job. In many cases they already have one foot out the door because of their asshole behavior on the job. So in the case of where it could go either way as to whether they get fired or face an unpaid suspension, their other previous conduct often seals their fate.
spooky3
(34,525 posts)Have more protection from employer interference with their free speech rights than do private sector employees. This is because the first amendment says nothing about private employer actions; it restricts some governmental actions. So in some sense, private sector employees may not have free speech rights if their employer decides to restrict them. If an employee doesnt like the policy, s/he is free to work elsewhere.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Even public sector employees have rules on what they can and can't do or say both on and off the job. Particularly in regards to political activities, federal public sector employees are limited by the Hatch Act in ways not as many private sector employees are. Free speech only goes so far when you are a public employee and you can still be fired for your speech even though you may retain certain rights every citizen has in regards to speech.
spooky3
(34,525 posts)Decides to allow you to engage in political speech, great. But the Constitution and federal law do not require them to do so. They could decide on a given day that they wont allow it. Unless another legally accepted condition applies, eg, there is a state law that specifically prohibits them from restricting your speech, or you have a written legal contract that allows it, including a union contract, a private employer can restrict your political speech or actions.
tenderfoot
(8,438 posts)eom
packman
(16,296 posts)tenderfoot
(8,438 posts)eom
PatSeg
(47,741 posts)What the hell?!?!
I'll bet she's not so smug now.
BidenRocks
(829 posts)from TFG.
And her smirk from Bush!
AMF!
Jon King
(1,910 posts)Seriously, how many of these well educated people with good jobs are going to continue to throw it all away for nothing? The lady coughing in the grocery store had a decades long career she built. This lady had a good job.
Its like they have no clue about cell phones and social media. Geez, after the first 500 right wingers get caught, exposed, and fired, you would think some would get just a bit of common sense.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,435 posts)you are a despicable, heartless, useless piece of shit.
lark
(23,191 posts)She has a highly desired skill, even if her brains are obviously mush. I feel so sorry for any and all patients that she comes in contact with and I truly hope she doesn't get a job and the people of the country are safer.
Ziggysmom
(3,432 posts)Wingus Dingus
(8,059 posts)It goes against their code, and discouraging masks makes Cigna pay out more.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)GB_RN
(2,404 posts)There are a lot of regressive, undereducated, anti-science, anti-vaxx nurses out there. Sad, but true.
ETA: Nurses are SUPPOSED to be empathetic, caring and understanding people. Obviously, that's not always the case, either. Lots of assholes slip through. Burnout is NOT an excuse for being a dick and laughing at someone else's misfortune.
BradBo
(535 posts)calimary
(81,594 posts)She shouldnt be allowed to hide behind anonymity.
NNadir
(33,583 posts)lambchopp59
(2,809 posts)I'm a healthcare traveler, currently taking some time off away from the fires and smoke.
I'm also taking time away from the COVIDIOTS. Arguing with idiots to "Please put your mask back on properly, sir" became truly draining, on top of ongoing exacerbated asthma ever since I had the COVID long before the vaccine or good intervention.
Although anti-masker, anti-vaxxer medical staff are relatively rare, I had my run-ins with some of them.
But one in particular stands out, I'm going to be intentionally vague here-- mask refusal only iced the cake of this person's horrible behavioral quirks--- this person had a tendency to slam doors in my presence, actively worked against me (taking patients back to their room even though it was clear they had other tests for me to do) and-- most notably to me-- reading the "Focus on the Family" rag, making display of it unmistakable. I'm not privy to the details of this person's dismissal, I'll just say I'm not surprised. Only fellow RWNJ's ever got any consideration from this person.
A couple weeks ago now I saw an SUV ignore a lights-and-sirens ambulance attempting to take a left turn, obviously to their destination, going the opposite direction on a four lane highway. Everyone else had pulled over, stopped. Most telling of all was a big "christian cross cowboy" sticker on the rear window and the obligatory "Trump/Pence 2020" on the bumper. They made the ambulance hit the brakes for them.
Not only disgusted me, but reminded me I need to buy a dashcam. Would have made viral video.
I'm going back to work once these obstinate fux have either lost their jobs or gotten vaccinated. I'm too old with too many risk factors to catch another variant from some ignorant anti-vaxxer dipshit.
Owl
(3,647 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)Don't understand your concern on confirmation?
Owl
(3,647 posts)AllaN01Bear
(18,745 posts)Lovie777
(12,392 posts)there I fixed it.
Hekate
(91,005 posts)33taw
(2,448 posts)LudwigPastorius
(9,257 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,430 posts)The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)SuperCoder
(300 posts)When instant karma strikes. Good riddance. That nurse deserves everything she got.
keithbvadu2
(37,039 posts)Think of the 1-6 insurrectionist who wore his company badge on his clothing for all to see.
Response to packman (Original post)
ExTex This message was self-deleted by its author.
Evolve Dammit
(16,817 posts)MissMillie
(38,603 posts)...that's a horrible human being.
Someone earlier on said she's a nurse? That's beyond sad.
PatrickforB
(14,604 posts)I'm so fucking sick of these people who are willing to let others die so they won't be inconvenienced by wearing a mask or getting a shot.
Fuck them.
Mandate vaccines.
Mandate masks.
And if these whack jobs refuse to comply, send in the guard.
Demovictory9
(32,493 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Actions have consequences.
twodogsbarking
(9,913 posts)beatch.
SKKY
(11,833 posts)..."Karma. It's a hell of a drug."
Aristus
(66,522 posts)in the ass.
I wonder what positive societal change this may inspire, and how long it will take to bring about...