• Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s potentially worse, and stupider, than that.

    The bank didn’t fire her specifically because she posted the video where she made a couple faces after trying kombucha. They fired her because her face started to get used for the meme. Completely out of her control, because people started posting “thing I don’t like, thing I like” memes with this format, often times with various political messages. Basically someone else used her face in a “this brings joy, this does not bring joy” meme and she got canned because of the bank’s “image.” As if it was actually her saying these things.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 months ago

      I mean, I hope she got a hell of a lawsuit out of that, because damn. Also its a bank so you know they have at least some money.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        At Will employment. “In a meme” is not a protected class, and a reasonable bank employee could see her meme-attachment having a detrimental effect on business (you don’t have to be in your reasons for firing someone as long as those reasons aren’t protected or being used to hide that you’re firing them for a protected reason). I’d guess she’d have no case in almost any state in the US with their lack of employee protections.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          And to be clear - she probably got unemployment. “At-Will” isn’t a magic spell.

          Terminating an employee without cause requires them to pay unemployment.

          • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            She was terminated “for cause”. To get unemployment, she’s likely to have to fight for it. She’s likely to win, but it’s not a free thing.

              • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                You’re not wrong, but I’ve also worked at companies that successfully contested unemployment claims. It can depend by state, but “it was entirely this person’s fault” is a bad start. Employers win about 30% of contested claims, and then about 15-20% of appeals (#1 cause for an employer losing a contested claim or an appeal appears to be withdrawing or not showing up for it). (Some numbers)

                And the main reason employers lose when they show up is lack of preparation. In a case like the above, if they can show a policy (preferably one signed by her) that directly forbids her onlyfans account, they probably have a pretty good case to shut her down.

                That said, they’re very unlikely to waste their time and money to fight it. Ultimately (as my current employer’s HR put it) “it’s just a cost of doing business” and a waste of money to pursue.

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Gross. Here in Brazil the employers would be bending over backwards to beg her not to sue them for all they’re worth.

          • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Here in Sweden this wouldn’t be a problem whatsoever, and she’d have worker rights. Well, the conservatives driven by American cock sucking ideals are dismantling all that, but so far, she’d be ok.

            ed: i get political when I’m drunk, sorry