should you get fired for bad behavior at a football game, I’m worried my boss is laying a paper trail to fire me, and more

by Alison Green on February 10, 2025

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. Should you get fired for (even really bad) behavior at a football game?

I’m a big football fan and a feminist and civil liberties advocate. So I am really struggling with the question of a fan at the Eagles-Green Bay Wild Card game. He is on someone’s cell phone video (which of course was posted on social media) yelling misogynistic insults at a woman from the opposing fan base.

The team banned him from coming to future games, a sanction I support (this was beyond the usual jawboning at high-stakes games). But people online also tracked down where he worked and called for him to be dealt with at work. He lost his job (I read).

I wonder if this is just … too much. On the one hand, I can see a company not wanting to be associated with someone who became so notorious for his behavior. But it was not at work, not between coworkers. Before social media, his workplace might never have known about this.

On an emotional level, part of me thinks — good! This is what you get! But it also seems like a pretty big punishment for bad behavior not related to work or happening anywhere near the workplace. I always hated the term “canceled,” since I think it was used to describe situations where people were rightly called out for bad behavior or racist/misogynistic comments in public. But I also chafe at the idea that someone’s entire life falls apart because of behavior outside of work. What do you think? Did management do the right thing?

Well, this wasn’t a guy just being high-spirited in a moment of competition! He yelled really offensive insults at a woman and repeatedly insulted her looks simply because she was cheering for the opposing team … and he worked for a consulting firm that promotes themselves as being “DEI champions.” If I imagine hiring that consulting firm and then seeing that guy walk in to run my project, I don’t think it’s unreasonable that his company chose to part ways with him.

I do think there’s nuance here. If it hadn’t been recorded and gone viral and his firm only knew about because, for example, a colleague was at the game and told them about it, they’d probably have been less likely to fire him. But it did go viral, which makes the reputational hit to the firm a bigger risk (again, imagine hiring that company and he’s the guy they send, or imagine simply being his female coworker) … and there’s also something more viscerally upsetting about seeing a video of that behavior than just hearing about it secondhand.

I don’t think his company was out of line.

2. Can I tell my employee about a charity raffle I know he’d be interested in?

I’m grand-boss to a fantastic employee who travels extensively, including Disney multiple times a year. He mentioned that one of his bucket-list items is to spend a night in the suite in Cinderella’s castle. (That’s the one that can’t be bought, not for any amount of money). The only way I know to get a stay there is by winning it in a charity raffle for an organization I love; it’s a special resort near Disney just for terminally ill kids and their families, like mine, and we made many happy memories there. They just opened up this year’s raffle ($10 per ticket). I’d feel icky not giving him the chance to do something he’s dreamed of, but is it out of line for me to send him the info, since this is a charity I’ve personally benefited from? If it makes any difference, he’s financially comfortable.

Send him the info! Just saying “I know you’ve mentioned you’d love to do this and as far as I know this is the only way, so I thought you might be interested” isn’t inappropriate pressure. He can enter or not and doesn’t even need to tell you what he decides.

3. I’m worried that my boss and HR are laying a paper trail to fire me

Yesterday, I got a call from the HR manager asking if I could meet with her and my boss near the end of the day. They raised issues about my performance, pointing out a few mistakes I’ve made in the last year, and asked me what they could do to help me. But when I had a suggestion (tell me when a task is given to me if it’s high priority/to be done immediately), it was shot down. (They didn’t really give a reason. They just said that I had to be more proactive and ask for that info myself.) I was caught off-guard by the entire thing and couldn’t muster any thoughts in the moment. A follow-up meeting has been promised but not scheduled. I also sent an email around just to have a record of what I was asked to do specifically, and the response was very general “improve your performance” stuff.

I am terrified. This does not feel like a good-faith effort to improve my performance, it feels like laying the groundwork to fire me. I have never gotten a performance review in the six years I’ve worked here and only the most minimal feedback, so I had no idea I was on thin ice. About eight months ago, I went to HR about how I was being bullied by a more favored / trusted / influential employee, when it finally got to the point where my mental health was badly suffering from it, and I felt taken seriously at the time but I never heard anything else about it, and now I feel like this may be retaliation.

The sensible response would be to leave this toxic environment, but unfortunately it’s extremely hard to get a job in my industry: it took me two years of trying just to get this one. I’m worried that if I leave for something generic to tide me over, I’ll be kissing my career goodbye. Do you have any advice for me? Am I possibly making a mountain out of a molehill?

You should take it seriously. It doesn’t mean they’re necessarily preparing to fire you, but they could be.

Do you know anything about how your company normally handles terminations, like whether they commit to following a process of formal warnings first or whether it can be more out-of-the-blue? That info can inform your thinking. Meanwhile, though, go back to your boss, let her know that you’re taking the conversation seriously and plan to do XYZ to improve, and tell her you’d appreciate any other feedback or guidance she can offer. (And yes, they should tell you when a task is high-priority, but since they’re telling you to ask for that yourself, be vigilant about asking for it.)

Beyond that, it would be smart to job-search — not because you’ll necessarily need it, and you don’t need to take a new job just because it’s offered to you, but if you’re concerned, you should start laying the groundwork to move on in case you end up having to. (I know it being hard to find a job in your field feels like a reason not to go that route, but that’s actually more of a reason to start now so you’re not starting from scratch later.)

4. Employer said I retired, but I quit because I’m frustrated

I founded a nonprofit organization over 30 years ago, and for many years was the sole employee. The organization has always had a board of directors that participated in strategic planning and volunteering for the organization. Over the years, the organization grew, and now I am one of five employees.

Last year I went through a period of ill health; I cut back my hours and suggested a reduction in my pay to the board, which they agreed to. While I was recuperating, the board made some major changes to how we operate, which have raised costs and diminished the organization’s income. As a result, the organization is struggling to meet payroll, and the board informed me that they are cutting my salary again, by quite a lot. I wasn’t happy with this and turned in my resignation.

The board has just sent out a communication to all our members telling everyone that I have retired. I did not retire! I resigned because I am frustrated with the board’s direction and very unhappy with my salary situation. I am planning some new projects in the same line of work and don’t want potential new clients assuming I’ve stepped out of the working world entirely. Should I try to get the board to put out a correction? Am I making too big a deal about this?

I’d be pretty annoyed by that, particularly since I’d assume they framed it as a retirement because that looks better for them. That said, it’s probably not going to have a major impact on your ability to attract clients afterwards, particularly if you’re planning on approaching clients to pitch your work (which will make it very clear you didn’t retire).

Still, though, at a minimum you can ask the board why they misrepresented your departure and, depending on how you feel about their answer, you could in theory ask them to set the record straight in their next membership communication. (A special communication just for this would be overkill, but they could correct the info in whatever they happen to be sending out next.)

5. Can I advocate for myself during layoffs?

I’m not a federal worker, but I work in a field that is adjacent to the feds and my org has experienced a devastating financial impact from the executive orders issued over the past couple of weeks. We’ve been told this week that our division needs to reduce its budget by one-third as soon as possible; this means laying off roughly one-third of our staff, since we have few other programmatic expenses.

Right now my division is organized into teams of specialists, and my specialty is research. However, the extreme nature of our upcoming layoffs likely means that staff who are left will need to wear a few different hats, rather than be specialists. They will also understandably want to prioritize roles that are revenue-producing, and mine is not.

Compounding this is that I’ve only been with this org for about two years and just came back from a three-month maternity leave. But, because I worked in education and academia before this role, I actually have experience (and I would argue, strong skills) in many of the other specialized areas of my division — I’ve had those roles before! Many other colleagues have a 5+ year history here, including through other reorganizations, so I think their varied skill set is better known than mine.

Given that, I’m wondering how directly I could raise this point about my past experiences to my manager in the hopes of making the case for keeping me on in some modified role. They may not need a full-time researcher anymore, but I could easily split my time between that and other roles which do produce more revenue for the org. Is there any chance of this working?

I am applying for new roles, of course, but given that this is a sector-wide crisis, I don’t expect to have any job offers in hand when the layoffs happen in the next few weeks, and I strongly suspect (because the EOs have practically eliminated our org’s cash flow for the moment) that we won’t get any severance either. As a new mom, I’m just trying to find some way to keep an income and health insurance for me and my kid, but I also want to keep a good relationship with my peers and managers (for references, job hunting, etc.) and don’t want to stray too far outside professional norms in how I advocate for myself.

You absolutely should let your manager know what you’d be capable of doing, and up for doing! If it’s easy to meet with her in the next day or two, do it that way, but otherwise email since it’s time-sensitive. Frame it as, “I know we’re looking at a significant reorganization and a lot of roles will need to be combined, so I wanted to highlight my past experience with XYZ. (Be detailed here.) I’d be happy to take on responsibilities in any of those areas in addition to what I’m doing now.”

Obviously your motivation is to find a way to stay on, but you’re also presenting her with a potential solution to a business problem and providing relevant info so it’s not overstepping at all.

You may also like:
{ 485 comments }

{ 485 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Double A*

    Hopefully this isn’t too political, but for the last letter writer, you should also call your senators and representative to tell them about your situation. If you are so inclined, @ them on social media. Have your partner call as well. Maybe call a journalist who is looking for examples of the human harms caused by the EOs.

    I’m really sorry this is happening to you. I lost a job when I had a very young baby and home and it’s really rough. You will qualify for unemployment, I believe, even if you don’t get any severance.

    Reply ↓
    1. LW5*

      There’s been a lot of press about the situation already and my org has put out calls for action to contact members of congress. We keep getting promises that our grant payments will resume but no actual money is flowing yet. This administration is just too callous to care and too chaotic to sort its ish out.

      Reply ↓
      1. Crcala*

        I’m so sorry LW5. My org is in a similar situation (non-profit that receives federal funding, including USAID funding). We’re almost definitely going to have layoffs or furloughs. So many people out of work because of lies.

        Reply ↓
      2. Carling*

        Really sorry that you are facing this. I was in a similar situation a few years ago where my company faced government funding cuts and ultimately one third of us were laid off. I made my case to my manager, but in retrospect I was too late as my notice came down just days later. I support advocating for yourself, the sooner the better, and stating it from the point of view of how it benefits the company. I would be prepared that they don’t give you much of a response so it can feel like an awkward interaction, but feel confident that you are professionally sharing your skills and contributions to the company.

        Reply ↓
  2. Bethany*

    #1: I feel like there is a difference between a company firing a person who was nasty, grumpy, or unpleasant in general, and a company firing a person who was racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, ageist etc.

    One is a bad day unfortunately caught on camera, and the other is indicative of who they are as a person, what they truly believe, and how they may treat coworkers or stakeholders.

    Reply ↓
    1. Bob*

      Fully agree, he deserves it. The utter stupidity of doing that while working for a company that vigorously promotes inclusion gets him zero sympathy from anyone sensible.

      Reply ↓
      1. allathian*

        Yes, this. The reasons Alison listed are enough to fire him. I don’t think it’s realistic for companies to expect their employees’ values to align with theirs 100 percent, but they can’t be diametrically opposite, either.

        Reply ↓
        1. Grizabella the Glamour Cat*

          “I don’t think it’s realistic for companies to expect their employees’ values to align with theirs 100 percent, but they can’t be diametrically opposite, either.”

          I agree. That guy doesn’t just hold views that are directly counter to his former company’s mission; he put on a public display of those views in a blatantly glassbowlish way. He’s not just a misogynistic jerk; he’s a misogynistic jerk with very poor judgment, which is a concerning and disturbing combination.

          Reply ↓
          1. AnonInCanada*

            And I seriously doubt that was the alcohol talking, either. People like that will use that as an excuse for this type of behaviour. This shows their true character, and it’s good for the employer to fire his ass over this!

            Reply ↓
            1. Observer*

              I don’t think it matters. Even if it was the alcohol talking he has an alcohol problem on top of everything else. Keep in mind that his behavior was bad enough that he was banned from *his team’s* games.

              If alcohol shatters your filters that badly, you have a problem and it’s perfectly reasonable for a boss to say that they won’t take chances with someone in a position that requires judgement and the ability to deal with the public who has such a problem with alcohol.

              Reply ↓
              1. wilty*

                Pretty sure that if he has an alcohol problem, they should be offering him accommodations including potentially protected time off to get treatment.

                Reply ↓
                1. Katrine Fonsmark*

                  But even if he does have an alcohol problem, that doesn’t allow him to harrass other people with impunity.

                2. whatcha*

                  Did he say he had a problem and ask for accommodations? I don’t think employers are required to offer accommodations for addiction problems they don’t even know exist.

                3. Zona the Great*

                  That’s only for employees who do not display disgusting ideals. It’s for long time valuable and loyal employees.

                4. fhqwhgads*

                  Two different kinds of “alcohol problem”.
                  Is he’s an alcoholic, he’d be entitled to accommodations for treatment for that.
                  If he abuses people when he drinks, he is NOT entitled to be allowed to do that, and they are permitted to fire him for abusing people, regardless of the cause.

                5. Observer*

                  Pretty sure that if he has an alcohol problem, they should be offering him accommodations including potentially protected time off to get treatment.

                  Nope. *IF*, and only if, he comes to them to say that he has an alcohol problem do they need to offer him accommodations. And those accommodations do *not* have to include looking the other way when he gets drunk and acts out. The kinds of accommodations they need to offer are things like time off for treatment.

              2. Orora*

                My stance has always been that you don’t do anything while you’re drunk that you don’t (at least) think about doing while your sober. Alcohol just brings those thoughts to the top.

                Reply ↓
                1. AnonForThis*

                  I don’t think that’s true at all. Alcohol is *literally* a mind altering drug. It affects multiple neurotransmitters and neural pathways.

                  That *said* it is still not an excuse for abusive behaviour.

            2. Susannah*

              Seriously! I drink when I watch a ballgame, but I never behave that way.
              If the alcohol had a role, it was in revealing his true self.

              Reply ↓
          2. Observer*

            he’s a misogynistic jerk with very poor judgment, which is a concerning and disturbing combination

            True. Which would be a concern even if the company were not a DEI consultancy. But in this case? I don’t think the company really had a choice.

            Reply ↓
              1. Selina Luna*

                Yes, gross. She could have been a complete witch to him the whole night, and it would still not be okay to be misogynistic to her.

                Reply ↓
      2. Major Marjorie*

        Just because he works for a company that “vigorously promotes inclusion” doesn’t mean he personally holds those values. Sometimes people just need a job; if those who don’t value diversity and inclusion aren’t able to work then that’s probably tens of millions of people out of work and without any meaningful stake in society. As long as he behaves well at work I don’t see what the big deal is.

        Reply ↓
        1. Seeking Second Childhood*

          >As long as he behaves well at work

          We honestly don’t know if he was already on thin ice at work. This may have been a last draw situation.

          Reply ↓
          1. Major Marjorie*

            That’s true, but for the sake of avoiding as many unknown possibilities as possible I think it’s generally best to limit ourselves to what we know from the letters, which is normally not a lot! I’m therefore assuming that he is an average employee—not atrocious, not exceptional, but average.

            Reply ↓
            1. JSPA*

              Speculating that someone who’d go for these particular insults with this level of vitriol, might be someone who can’t consistently fake minimum human kindness and sensitivity…that isn’t a huge reach.

              I mean, workplaces that expect you to be analytical don’t need or normally expect you to be analytical 100% of the time. Ditto with being in sales mode, or being “adequately” ruthless, or non-stop witty, or correctly humorless.

              But being decent to people regardless of gender and group affiliation, that’s pretty much a 100% requirement. Screw up just once, and it’s like the old MacGregor goat joke (don’t google that at work if you don’t know it).

              Reply ↓
                1. Lenora Rose*

                  Speculating as in creating what is called “fanfic”, not as in any speculation whatsoever.

                  It’s the difference between
                  “A person who has shown this kind of gender-based aggression in one scenario is likely to have shown it in smaller ways elsewhere.”

                  and

                  “Maybe the guy was just dealing with a bad breakup and …”

          2. Observer*

            It doesn’t matter. The company is on very clear notice that this guy is very capable of showing atrociously bad judgement around the core of their business. Why would any reasonable employer take a chance on him?

            Reply ↓
        2. Grizabella the Glamour Cat*

          i just read this comment and had to pick my jaw up off of the floor. I hope someone else is up to the task of explaining to Major Marjorie exactly what the big deal is, because i don’t have the patience!

          Reply ↓
          1. CommanderBanana*

            Hah, right? The problem, it is you.

            If I were sitting in a meeting with a DEI consultancy company I was considering hiring and this guy walked in, any credibility they had would be absolutely shot. That’s reason enough for a company like that to fire a person like him.

            Reply ↓
          2. Hey there*

            Yeah terrible – it’s like the people who don’t care if their attractive date, say, is a complete ass to everyone but them and are fine with it but then are oh-so-surprised when that person turns around and treats THEM terribly. It’s so sad and stupid, we had more than one friend in college who had to be explained to: yeah he’s been a pos the whole time, you just chose not to notice.

            Reply ↓
        3. Nina*

          Imagine your company contracted an external provider whose “mission [is] to help solve complex social issues and increase equity” (that’s verbatim from their website, by the way) to help improve the company’s DEI policies and procedures, and when the external provider’s representative arrives, it’s this guy.
          The external provider’s credibility as a ‘DEI expert’ would be shot.

          Reply ↓
        4. Media Monkey*

          i hadn’t seen the video til now (I’m not in the US). if someone i worked with was as aggressively obnoxious as that, which is far beyond opposing team banter, i wouldn’t be happy to work with them either as a coworker or a client. i have a client-facing role and if my behaviour was even half as bad, i would expect to be fired, even if it was only reported by onlookers.

          Reply ↓
          1. Media Monkey*

            i also think the c-word is much ruder here in the UK than in the US, given that the article wrote it in full and it wasn’t starred out, but for reference, the c-word is probably the worst/ rudest swearword here.

            Reply ↓
            1. Dirty Martini*

              No, it’s really bad here too. If you asked me the worst thing you could call someone, it would definitely be near the top of my list. And to say it to a stranger in a public place who was doing nothing whatsoever to antagonize you, is even worse.

              Reply ↓
            2. IngEmma*

              It’s ruder in general in the US than in the UK! (It’s incredibly rude in both in general and wildly offensive to use ABOUT someone especially if it’s at a woman / about them being a woman.)

              Swearing in general is a know your audience / everyone has their personal feelings thing anyways, with lots and lots of regional and place-specific cultural differences but in general, swearing (and this word specifically) are considered ruder in the US than in the UK. Kind of neither here nor there (and this would be very rude in Australia too, because again, swearing AT someone is different) but certainly not less impolite in the US.

              Reply ↓
            3. Seashell*

              From what I have heard, it’s used fairly commonly in conversation in the UK. It is really not in the US. It’s like the atom bomb of swear words here.

              I am surprised it was spelled out in that article, but I wouldn’t consider Yahoo much of a news source.

              Reply ↓
            4. M*

              Yeah, no. Fairly infamously, the c-word is much less offensive in the UK than the US, and depending on social class and cultural context, is often considered as mild as, say, the f-word (rhymes with duck, not maggot, to disambiguate) in the UK, which is also far less offensive in the UK than the US. The UK’s not quite on the level of some cultural contexts in Australia, where it’d be straight-up punctuation so long as it was used appropriately, but still far from the US, where you might genuinely be fired *solely and immediately* for using it at work regardless of context or form.

              Publisher standards vary on how to handle vulgar quotes, that’s not generally a good guide.

              Reply ↓
            5. ScruffyInternHerder*

              The “C word” is a NO say for the most part in the USA. When you use that, you are agreeing to throw punches, because its THAT rude.

              Reply ↓
            6. RabbitRabbit*

              The C-word in the US is super rude. Unimaginably rude. Like if you call a woman in a bar that and she has a male partner/good friend there, you’re probably getting punched at minimum. (If she doesn’t, you still might get physically attacked by her and/or her friends.) It’s an absolute nuclear option.

              Reply ↓
              1. Media Monkey*

                thanks everyone – i had thought it was rude (especially given the lower US tolerance for swearing in general!) so i was really confused that it wasn’t starred or blanked out in that article!

                Reply ↓
                1. Selina Luna*

                  The news media, in general, isn’t a good gauge of what swear words are socially acceptable in the US. Someone alluded to this above, but each news outlet will have its own standards about what gets blanked in print or “bleeped” on air, with some being quite conservative and disallowing even minor curses, such as “crap” and others allowing all curses, in the interest of clarity. It also matters that the person who currently holds the office of “president” is one of the most vulgar humans in existence. Many media sources that would have censored curse words before found themselves at odds with their standards: to quote the president exactly, even if the president uses curse words.
                  I have a few friends here in the States who are expats from the UK. One is from Nottinghamshire, and the other is from Glasgow. The one who moved here from Nottingham agrees that c— is a terrible word. She moved here in 1995, and it was apparently a worse word then. The one from Glasgow uses c— indiscriminately, for everyone, and really struggled to train himself out of it when he’s not around his friends.
                  Scotland might be different from the rest of the UK in that respect.

            7. Observer*

              i also think the c-word is much ruder here in the UK than in the US

              Eh, it is *bad* here, too. I did a quick google, and one of the first articles that come up is a headline from Fox which describes the rant as “vile”. Given Fox’s leanings, the fact that they used that description says a LOT.

              Reply ↓
            8. Resident Catholicville, U.S.A.*

              I was pretty shocked it wasn’t censored- from what I understand, it’s used pretty commonly in the UK but in the US, it’s almost never used. As in, I’m pretty liberal in terms of what language I’ll tolerate around me (not at me, around me) and I shut down the c-word immediately.

              Reply ↓
              1. Media Monkey*

                i think it’s used more but not generally like that (and not in the media). i am a pretty sweary person (what can i say? I’m scottish) but i would really never say that word.

                Reply ↓
                1. Anonymous for this*

                  Decades-long member of my local kink community here. Among the many types of kink play, there’s “humiliation play” (not kink shaming; shaming is the kink:-). Even when a female potential play partner has initiated humiliation play herself, saying she’s really, really into being talked dirty to and about, and wants to be called pretty much every name in the book, I always ask separately and specifically about using the c word. In my experience, it’s either hot as hell for my partner or drains the erotism out of a scene instantly and completely. There’s no middle ground. That’s how powerful a word it is, and why using it non-consensually has consequences. As it should.

        5. Irish Teacher.*

          I think there’s a difference between not valuing diversity and inclusion (which is not, neutral or minor in and of itself; not valuing diversity and inclusion basically means not caring about the human rights of anybody but straight, wealthy white males from Western countries) and actively behaving in ways opposed to those values.

          It’s like there might be people who don’t value honesty even if they work for a company that promotes that value, but being caught stealing is another matter.

          Diversity and inclusion aren’t some kind of political opinions; they are just…basic decent behaviour. Not valuing them is like not valuing kindness or honesty or reliability.

          And honestly, if somebody doesn’t value diversity and inclusion, it is bound to come out in their behaviour and that will affect non-white straight cis wealthy men who work with them. Not valuing diversity means not being interested the perspectives of any groups other than the one they consider the default. Not valuing inclusion means not caring about ensuring the workplace is safe for anybody else.

          It’s like would you want to employ somebody who doesn’t value honesty because it’s hard to trust them to be honest at work if they have no value on it? Or would you want to employ somebody who doesn’t value politeness? I guess you might say “well, so long as they are polite to everybody at work,” but if they have no value on it, it’s questionable whether they would be.

          Reply ↓
        6. Falling Diphthong*

          If you don’t value something your company promotes as their brand, you probably shouldn’t go viral screaming profanities about how that valued thing is stupid and you hate it. Because that falls into “You’re always a company spokesperson in the sense of publicly calling attention to the company via your out-of-office antics.”

          This would come up, for example, if you work for a tobacco company.

          Reply ↓
        7. OhGee*

          If you look at their site, it goes beyond just promoting DEI internally – it’s a key part of their consulting work. Makes perfect sense to cut ties with him.

          Reply ↓
        8. Totally Minnie*

          Nobody’s saying bigots can’t have jobs. They just shouldn’t have jobs at organizations where the primary focus is inclusion of the people they’re bigoted against.

          Reply ↓
        9. hbc*

          You don’t have to value diversity and inclusion, you just have to not be observed *publicly* taking *action* that is racist/sexist/whatever. I’m an open atheist who has managed to work at a company that is so Christian that it’s first core value is “Faith in God,” and all I had to do was pretty much not get caught peeing on a cross or insulting believers for their faith.

          But if you wouldn’t fire your babysitter who was caught on tape screaming at random children on the playground because she was off the clock, that’s a defensible philosophy, I guess.

          Reply ↓
          1. Observer*

            But if you wouldn’t fire your babysitter who was caught on tape screaming at random children on the playground because she was off the clock, that’s a defensible philosophy, I guess.

            Interesting analogy! I do happen to agree with you. If you cannot behave with even the *pretense* of basic respect to your employer’s entire business model, you really don’t belong in that place.

            Reply ↓
        10. IngEmma*

          Isn’t this just the risk you take in the digital age though?

          I think this guys behaviour is abhorrent, and also we’re talking about someone who got fired for public bad behaviour where they were identifiable and therefore a risk to their employer by association – for something that is antithetical to their organizations policy.

          Even if their company didn’t have a DEI bent, this is pretty bad (and people ime don’t just… become public shouty misogynists because their team loses.) But also: even if the situation was different and, for example, I worked at a cigarette / tobacco company and a video of me giving a soap box speech at a protest about the evil of big tobacco went viral – I’m sure my employer would be upset! (I chose this example because I think big tobacco is evil! But if you publicly do something wildly opposed to your companies mission, it seems bonkers to be shocked they’re upset!)

          Reply ↓
        11. Somehow I Manage*

          Couldn’t disagree more. I’m certain there are many, many people out there who work somewhere because they need a job, not because it is a life’s passion for them. But if you’re in public and spouting garbage that does directly contradict the values of the business you work for, the business has a right to determine that you’re not the appropriate person for them.

          Reply ↓
        12. Lisa Vanderpump*

          Potential liability. If his go to response when getting heated at a game is misogyny it’s only a matter of time that it comes out at work. Remove the future liability issue.

          Reply ↓
        14. Spreadsheet Hero*

          Nah. This isn’t about what somebody cares about in their heart of hearts.

          If you can’t be a minimum level civil to other human beings, by which I mean if you literally cannot stop yourself from screaming bigoted abuse at them in public places, then either you are not an independent adult capable of supporting yourself or you need the learning experience of public shaming. He may not work a Career for a while, but if he works whatever he can find, he’ll be fine — and tbh I’m sure there’s at least one CEO out there who’d prefer a vociferously hateful bigot on the payroll.

          Reply ↓
        15. MK*

          That’s a ridiculously fear mongering argument. No one is saying people who don’t value DEI shouldn’t be able to work, but a) being publicly, abusively sexist is way beyond not valuing these principles, it’s active contempt, b) no one is owed a job at a particular company, so one should be able to fire employees who are publicly against their values, and c) the poor, oppressed dears who don’t value DEI can still work at other companies, which is… most companies.

          Reply ↓
        16. Dek*

          Ok, but the thing is, if people are specifically looking to work with/hire a company that “vigorously promotes inclusion” it could be because they or their clients are part of a minority demographic, or may otherwise be vulnerable, and are looking to work with people that they hope to not have to be intensely on their guard with.

          I suppose it’s one thing to not “”value diversity and inclusion” but it’s another thing to be diametrically opposed to it, to show yourself to be openly bigoted at the drop of a hat.

          It also shows really poor decision making to get that abusive over something as trivial as what sports team a complete stranger cheers for.

          Reply ↓
        17. Observer*

          As long as he behaves well at work I don’t see what the big deal is.

          The idea that employers are supposed to ignore things that they *know* about their staff and potential staff is a myth, and one that is particularly dangerous.

          The issue here is not that he doesn’t quite share the values of his employer. It’s that his *job* is to *promote* these things, while clearly being unable to adhere to even the most basic level of reasonable behavior around people who are not of “his” kind. When (not *if*) things go wrong with this guy, the company will absolutely be roasted for continuing to employ a guy who they *know* is a problem. And, no client in their right mind is going to want to deal with him – or the company! if he’s on any team working with clients.

          Reply ↓
        18. learnedthehardway*

          Someone who displays those attitudes in public holds them in private, and they DO come out in the way they treat colleagues and underlings. Maybe not immediately, but the long term damage to the organization, the culture, and people’s careers – it happens.

          If someone shows you who they are, believe them.

          Reply ↓
        19. Elitist Semicolon*

          DEI isn’t one of those areas where it’s possible to be a stellar employee if you really don’t believe the message, though. It’s kind of like a doctor who’s in it for the money but genuinely doesn’t care whether they’re helping their patients – maybe it will be fine on the surface for a while, but at some point there’s going to be a situation where that indifference (or outright scorn) creeps in and it becomes clear that the investment in the actual mission is minimal. If this guy “just needed a job,” then he’s just made it very clear that he picked the wrong one.

          Reply ↓
        20. Need a new name*

          This is like a logical fallacy extravagance. Someone who can’t work for an organization with strong DEI values does not mean he can’t get a job. And reducing his terrible anti-social behavior to “holds different values” is cherry picking.

          Reply ↓
        21. MigraineMonth*

          I’ve had performance evaluations that include how well I align with the company’s values, even when those values are things like “always innovating” and “striving for an excellent customer experience”, and that always seemed fair. If I wanted to not be evaluated on those things, I could work at one of the millions of companies that didn’t have those values.

          If he didn’t want to have to treat women as human beings deserving of respect both in and out of work, trust me, there are far too many companies that would support him in that.

          Reply ↓
        22. Sacred Ground*

          This is a particularly awful comment considering that right now all the non-white or non-male or non-straight federal employees are waiting to be illegally fired for the offense of being hired or promoted when DEI policies were in effect. So every woman or POC in the federal government is now assumed to be undeserving of their jobs. They’re all facing unemployment and public shaming for no reason than having jobs and not being straight white men.

          This is really happening, right now, to tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of people. For nothing they’ve actually done, just because of who they are.

          But yeah, let’s wring our hands at the imagined injustice of hypothetical bigots losing their jobs because of the things they actually do. Oh the humanity!

          Reply ↓
          2. A contrary thought*

            The point is not to wring ones hands at the imagined injustice of firing bigots. The point is whether it’s a good idea to normalize firing employees for their behavior outside of work — in an environment where values that we might find abhorrent are gaining traction. An environment where companies are rolling back DEI initiatives, to trim their sales to the prevailing winds.

            If you’re comfortable having companies fire people for behavior outside of work that is contrary to the company’s values, you may want to consider what that means when those values change to values you are less comfortable with.

            Reply ↓
            1. fhqwhgads*

              If an employee of PETA is caught cursing out vegans in public, off work time, using verbally abusive language, yes I expect them to get fired for that.
              If an employee of a steakhouse is caught cursing out people eating meat in public, off work time, using verbally abusive language, yes I expect them to get fired for that.

              The issue at hand isn’t just “oops turns out they disagree with what their company stands for”. The “how abhorrent are you whilst expressing it” matters.

              For example, if the PETA employee were simply photographed eating a turkey leg at a sporting event, not firable.
              If the steakhouse employee were photographed wearing an I Hear Veganism hoodie at a sporting event, not firable.

              Reply ↓
            2. Elsewise*

              Okay, but being a woman or a POC is not “behavior outside of work”. That’s the comment you’re replying to. Other people upthread have commented about Big Tobacco firing someone for an anti-smoking PSA or a Christian organization firing someone for peeing on a cross. Those feel like better places to make your point than the person talking about federal employees being targeted for their identities. Putting that comment *here* of all places makes your argument feel disingenuous at best.

              Reply ↓
            3. Kay*

              I think pretending that “those who would fire people for behavior that should not be considered outside of work” are going to do anything different because we apply the same principle to all behavior outside work is a pipe dream.

              We should still fire people who publicly and hatefully abuse others.

              Reply ↓
        23. Middle Aged Lady*

          His company may (don’t know for sure) have a policy that employees conduct themselves professionally in their private lives. Almost all of my jobs had such policies.
          Whether he behaves himself at work or not, he did something very much in public that undermined his company’s mission. Besides the content of his remarks, he demonstrated extremely poor judgement, aggression, and an alcohol problem. Some employers look at those traits and say ‘no thanks.’Besides the hit to their reputation why continue to employ someone like that when there are plenty of others who could fill the role. It could also be true that since it went viral, they don’t want backlash from clients or other employees. I wouldn’t want to work alongside someone like that.

          Reply ↓
        24. whatcha*

          But would you feel the same way if he had broken a law instead of being a jerk to the Nth degree? What if he was previously convicted of embezzlement from a children’s cancer charity or sexual assault or what-have-you…but behaves well at work? Just wondering where the line gets drawn.

          Reply ↓
          1. wendelenn*

            Just a reminder, the guy “we” (not me!) just “hired” who did embezzle from a children’s charity AND did commit sexual assault. And he is NOT “behaving well at work.”

            Reply ↓
        25. Lenora Rose*

          Are you really wringing your hands for the poor unfortunate sexists and racists maybe possibly risking their jobs?

          This wasn’t a guy who said something vague and ignorant about a minor stereotype like “women are so nurturing”. This is a guy who was screaming the c-word in public to a woman.

          Not everything is a slippery slope. This guy was on a rock solid “You’ve gone too far” plateau.

          Reply ↓
        26. Davesgirl*

          Right……I’m sorry you can’t see the big deal. it sounds like men speak to you like that all the time. Sad. So sad.

          Reply ↓
    2. ghost_cat*

      I also agree that firing was appropriate given he worked for a consultancy, i.e. he would be going to other workplaces and working with their employees. It’s one thing to make a decision to accept a risk in your own workplace where you can keep an eye on behaviour, but you can’t if he is offsite and working in a third party’s workplace.

      Reply ↓
      1. Guinea pig*

        What if LW2 bought a ticket for the employee? Would that be offering inappropriate rewards for one person and not everyone or would it be ok because it’s only 10 USD and it’s a charity donation?

        Reply ↓
        1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

          This misnested comment is exactly what I was also wondering.

          “This non-profit I support is having a competition for a prize you’d like, so I got you a ticket. Good luck!”

          The connection to the organisation makes it *more* appropriate, imho, not less.

          Reply ↓
          1. Strive to Excel*

            I’d stay away from that. Unless LW also gives similar gifts to other employees it would come across as mild favouritism. It’s also possible that having someone else buy the ticket might confuse who gets the prize and/or have unexpected tax consequences for someone.

            Reply ↓
            1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

              Yes, that’s fair enough. It would depend on whether it’s a “saw this and thought of you” kind of workplace where $10 is nothing.

              Reply ↓
      1. Ellis Bell*

        There’s something particularly bad about doing this at a sporting event. Fans usually care about their community and being all shocked Pikachu face about their level of offense is naive and thoughtless. To be surprised it’s considered an important public space, rather than a private space to indulge your worst instincts in, is interesting. An attitude of “whatever happens at Fuseball stays at Fuseball” is how some sports teams get terrible reputations.

        Reply ↓
        1. Arrietty*

          And also, wasn’t this the most high-profile sports event of the year? I don’t follow sport at all (and am not in the USA) but even I know who was playing.

          Reply ↓
          1. Dirty Martini*

            It was an NFL playoff game so it was high profile but not THE most high profile but I’m not sure it matters other than the fact that emotions were probably run higher as it was an elimination game.

            Reply ↓
        2. Marion Ravenwood*

          For real. Like if you really hate the opposing team that much, either keep a lid on it in public or watch the game at home/in private.

          Reply ↓
    4. Just say no*

      I dug into this further and it’s apparent that what he said wasn’t an atypical “heat of the moment” type of comment. His language leading up to the “ugly dumb c*nt” comments is typical of misogynists who value women based solely on their physical appearance, including saying at one point she wasn’t attractive enough to be talking to him. After he was caught, he didn’t even give a true apology, writing that his comments were “not without provocation”. This is a man who I believe, at his core, thinks women are inferior and feels emboldened enough to try to intimidate women publicly, and he hasn’t learned even from being kicked out of future games and losing his job.

      Reply ↓
      1. Seal*

        That’s my take on it as well. I suspect his now-former coworkers aren’t surprised that he got fired, either; misogynists seem to rarely fly under the radar.

        Reply ↓
      2. Onomatopoetic*

        “Not without provocation?” Such as seeing a woman rooting for the other side? What is it with sports that make some people that aggressive?

        Reply ↓
        2. KateM*

          Ah, I hope that was it – I had been thinking his provocation was “she was being a woman without trying to be attractive for me”.

          Reply ↓
          1. Eire I am*

            Or alternatively : “she was being a woman I found attractive and she didn’t give me the attention I so rightly deserve because I am a man.”

            Reply ↓
        3. perstreperous*

          I can’t speak for the US but, in the UK, attending a football match has traditionally been where all sorts of outdated attitudes and behaviour can be expressed, there is safety in numbers and “what happens in the stadium stays in the stadium”.

          Everyone having a camera, stadium CCTV, better stewarding of matches, ubiquitous social media and a general shift in attitudes (that what happens outside work is no longer firewalled from what happens in work) has put paid to all that, although some people haven’t yet understood.

          I worked about 100 yards away from a Royal Mail depot where, about 25 years ago, there was an early sign of a shift. A postal worker was fired, and an employment tribunal backed up the firing, for bringing their employer into disrepute by running on the pitch, in a match in Germany, and being arrested, with everything on camera. There were marches, demonstrations and even strikes against the ruling, but to no effect.

          Reply ↓
          2. learnedthehardway*

            Good – it’s about time that nasty attitudes towards other demographics were unacceptable in public and in private.

            Reply ↓
      3. Goldenrod*

        After watching the video, yes, I agree he deserved to be fired. His behavior was shockingly out of line.

        Also – I know this is neither here nor there, but the woman was extremely pretty and way better looking than that guy! I’m sure part of his anger had to do with the fact that she was out of his league.

        Again – irrelevant, but noted. His level of hatred was weirdly all out of proportion to the situation!

        Reply ↓
    5. OhGee*

      Adding to this: it’s highly unlikely that his life is “ruined.” Especially in the current political environment in the US, he’ll probably have another consulting job soon.

      Reply ↓
      2. HRC*

        “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”*

        *unless you’re a mediocre white man, in which case it’s more like “play stupid games, become president of the united states”

        Reply ↓
    6. LaminarFlow*

      I attend a lot of sports games, concerts, performances – things that could capture my behavior on a news-level scale in some way. I 100% feel that it is my responsibility to act in ways that I will not regret. Yes, I dance and sing with wild abandon at concerts, and I always cheer for whatever team I am supporting. However, there is no way I would go off in negative ways about anyone or anything at any event (mostly because that’s not my jam, but also because someone is always watching). Anyone who decides to go off on others in a public setting is setting themselves up for backlash that can follow them for years since the internet doesn’t forget.

      And, while it is fine to not be 1000% aligned with your company’s mission on a personal level because we all need jobs to pay bills, this guy was so clearly standing for the exact opposite of his firm’s mission, in a public setting! Actions have consequences, and firing him was totally appropriate.

      Reply ↓
    8. Susannah*

      OP here. I didn’t know the man worked for a DEI-related company, which makes his firing a no-brainer to me now.
      Honestly I was really pleased when I saw he had been let go – I mean, I sure wouldn’t want to work with this guy, or have him represent my employer. Then I started to wonder if I was being too harsh, and wondering if that general idea, firing someone for behavior outside work, could be used unfairly (not towards this man – others, I mean).
      And who decides? I mean, if someone participated in a drag queen story hour (which I would attend!), would an employer deicide that’s a bad example and fire the person? I’m not equating the two, at all – just worried that in this environment, someone might do that.
      At any rate – I feel now more than ever that we have to stand up to hate and racism and misogyny. I love that Black community members in Ohio chased out the white supremacist “protesters” last week (what were they “protesting?” Equality and human dignity?).
      So glad to know my initial instinct – that this guy deserved to lose his job – was correct.

      Reply ↓
      1. CommanderBanana*

        I mean, if someone participated in a drag queen story hour (which I would attend!), would an employer deicide that’s a bad example and fire the person?

        Then the employer would be in the wrong, and the fired employee would have legal standing to sue them. These types of examples are really disingenuous because, even if it wasn’t your intention, you’re equating attending a drag queen story hour with screaming insults into a person’s face on camera.

        These two actions are not the same. Acting as though they are just because they are both theoretically things that could get someone fired is not ok. I could theoretically be fired tomorrow for wearing a green shirt to work because most Americans work in a dystopian hellscape where you can be fired for anything, anywhere, for any reason. That doesn’t mean that it would be okay to fire me for wearing a green shirt, and that doesn’t mean that if I got fired for wearing a green shirt, that somehow makes wearing a green shirt equivalent to screaming insults into someone’s face on camera.

        Which is pretty much what you’re doing – saying that because the outcome of those two actions could be firing, they are then essentially the same action. They aren’t.

        Reply ↓
      2. Sacred Ground*

        The answer to your hypothetical is a firm yes. Queer people get fired from conservative organizations all the time just for being queer in public. It’s only recently that this wasn’t automatic for most employers, and still is the case in many school districts. And not much longer ago that a drag show even in private would get everyone involved in jail.
        And some states are trying to bring those laws back right now.

        Reply ↓
      3. Kay*

        How do I put this? There is a huge difference between “attacking/abusing an innocent person in public on the grounds of hate” and “participating in an activity that harms no one else” and we should stop equating the two just because a segment of the population has tried to correlate them.

        Violent, hateful, abusive behavior is NOT THE SAME being gay and we shouldn’t stop taking action against one just because we don’t want to have people apply the same consequences to both. The people who want to apply consequences to the latter will never apply it to the former and we need to stop pretending they will.

        I know I’m not saying this eloquently but I think the whole “people can be horrible on their own time” is part of what got us here.

        Reply ↓
        1. Andie Begins*

          Yeah, big “paradox of tolerance” vibes to the question. There’s a fundamental difference between “hurling abuse” (of any kind, frankly) and “participating in public life when some people don’t like who you are” that we all should get way clearer on way fast.

          Reply ↓
    9. JMC*

      He 1000000000000 percent deserves to be fired, he is horrible human. People feel free to act that way in public now and it has GOT to go.

      Reply ↓
    10. MicroManagered*

      Agreed. I would also feel differently if the video were a heated, two-way argument where both parties were out of control and maybe saying things they’re not proud of later.

      This guy was just calmly (psychotically) harassing a woman who was completely minding her own business.

      Reply ↓
    11. Someone Else's Boss*

      If all it takes for someone to behave that way is their team losing, that is indicative of who they are at their core and would turn me off as a customer. I think the company is basically forced to fire him – what other choice do they logically have?

      Reply ↓
    13. Wilbur*

      Imagine being a college grad and getting coached by this guy on soft skills and building relationships.

      For those that aren’t familiar with the game, also keep in mind the Eagles had the lead the entire time. The Eagles forced some turnovers (3 interceptions, 1 fumble). The guy is a sore winner, which is even sadder than a sore loser. No sympathy for jerks.

      Reply ↓
    14. Momma Bear*

      I have unfortunately been privy to situations where someone tracked down an employee who said something unpleasant and they have not been fired yet. That was an HR/management call, not mine. I think Alison is spot on that it rose to the level of egregious that the company had to act, and you also don’t know what his work situation was. Was he already under investigation? It might have been the last straw.

      Reply ↓
    16. Typity*

      I find I agree, in these specific circumstances. Though on the whole I very much dislike this business of trying to turn employers into hall monitors/social enforcers over their employees outside work.

      But if I were this guy’s female co-worker, I’d find it very difficult to work with him.

      Reply ↓
  3. Cmdrshprd*

    OP3 IMO saying you retired isn’t necessarily wrong. You did quit the company and retired from the company.

    I’ve known plenty of people who put in 20-40 years at a company retired from the company, both in getting a retirement party and getting fed up with the company, and then went to work somewhere else.

    Saying you retired is saying you were the one who chose to leave the company, rather than the company firing/laying you off.

    Reply ↓
      1. Alz*

        Yeah…and “retiring” comes off as a little ageist. No one would talk about a 20-year-old “retiring” when they left their job- To me it defiantly implies a slowing down if not stopping of work completely. I don’t expect it would be a big problem but, I do think it is worth correcting the record in case there are people who would approach you to assist but think you have stepped back from work/are only doing passion projects now.

        Reply ↓
        1. just a random teacher*

          I did once work at a school that decided that I’d “retired” when I quit with nothing lined up in my 20s!

          Granted, that school was completely full of bees, but certainly one of the memorably buzzy moments was sitting through a “retirement party” complete with speeches and being given a framed photograph of the school (to help me remember my wonderful career and all of the heartwarming memories of being repeatedly stung by bees) and a live plant (since I’d need something to nurture now that I was no longer working with children).

          Over half of us being “honored” at the “retirement party” were in our 20s or 30s. This was not acknowledged in any way by the campus principal as she gave her stirring speeches about all of the lives we’d touched in our long careers and the wonderful things to look forward to in retirement. This was entirely in keeping with her approach to reality generally, which may in turn explain why so many people were leaving.

          Reply ↓
          1. Clownshoes Nonsense*

            This is…absolutely wild. Like, the idea of holding a mass “retirement party” for a whole bunch of folks in their 20s and 30s, and playing it completely straight…this is absurdist comedy. I swear, I might have been looking for the hidden cameras.

            Reply ↓
          2. MigraineMonth*

            That’s amazing absurdist comedy. I’m sorry you had to live though it, but thank you for sharing it with all of us!

            Reply ↓
      2. Snow Globe*

        I’ve known plenty of people who say they are retiring, and then after a few weeks/months decide to get back into work doing a few consulting jobs or looking into another job because they are bored with retirement. The point is that if people hear the LW is retiring, that doesn’t mean they would be surprised or confused if the LW reaches out about work.

        Reply ↓
    2. allathian*

      That’s a voluntary resignation, not retirement. Certainly lots of people continue to work when they retire, but the general expectation is that when you retire, you stop working.

      Employees quitting is part and parcel of doing business, but quitting without anything else lined up almost always happens because the person had enough of working for that company.

      Sure, someone could quit because they won the lottery or because they got a windfall inheritance, but the sums involved have to be substantial to compensate for the loss of earnings, and the younger you are, the larger they have to be. For example, I’ll be 53 in a month and expect to work for another 15 years before I can retire with full benefits, I earn about 50k a year and my husband earns three times that. My husband can increase his earnings further but I’m pretty much topped out at my current job. I might consider quitting without anything else lined up if I somehow got 5 million or more. Good financial planning would ensure that I’d be able to maintain my current standard of living for the foreseeable future, with something saved up for if/when I need to move into assisted living.

      Clearly in this case the employer thought that telling people the LW retired looks better for them than saying she quit.

      Reply ↓
    3. Übersetzungstranslator*

      I must respectfully disagree. The concept of retirement has a very clear meaning in the professional sphere, and – especially depending on LW #3’s age – could certainly become confusing for potential clients (at least until, as Alison mentioned, LW #3 sets the record straight).

      Reply ↓
    4. Metal Gru*

      Even if it’s “technically correct” (which I don’t think it is, the only not-actually-a-retirement I can think of is someone leaving for health reasons and not intending/able to work afterwards) – the org has deliberately misrepresented it here for their own reputational purposes. The answer says this doesn’t warrant a correction being sent out on its own, but was the “retirement” notice sent as its own communication (unclear but sounds like it could have been?) in which case I would want a correction to be sent on its own also.

      Reply ↓
      1. bamcheeks*

        The other way it’s used is retiring from a high stress or physically active career but still expecting to work in another function / setting / sector / second career. “Retired from the police force” can easily mean mid-forties and planning to pursue a second career as a security consultant, and I’ve known doctors take early retirement from full-time practice but still intend to do things like consultations for occupational health or insurance companies.

        I can squint and see that the board may have meant it in this sense, but it still suggests a slow-down, shift-of-pace, reduction of stress / activity / etc that doesn’t seem to be at all what LW is thinking, so I can see why they’re annoyed.

        Reply ↓
        2. HonorBox*

          I think most people understand that “retirement” from (often) government jobs – police/fire/military doesn’t mean that person is just going to ride off into the sunset.

          The board was at fault in this because the vast majority of the time, when someone retires – even if they’re moving to a new field – they also say that they’re retiring. Others don’t get to create that narrative.

          Reply ↓
    5. Katie*

      Well, I do contract work for a company where a whole slew of people just ‘retired’. I knew that it was not really retirement for any of them and so did basically anybody. It was just the buzzword they wanted to use to lay off people who made a lot of money.

      I honestly assume it’s the same for this person. That people are going to think the same thing.

      Reply ↓
      1. Sloanicota*

        Unfortunately, in my experience, companies set the message when someone leaves, and the only options for the employee are back-channels like what they post on LinkedIn or what they tell their colleagues. You can certainly ask the board to always say “resigned” not retired, and correct it anywhere it says retired, but in my org they fired two people for cause and claimed it was the budget (kind instinct I suppose but a blatant lie, and made us look bad in the community like we were running out of money when we weren’t) and made it sound less like our ED quit in protest which she definitely did.

        Reply ↓
    6. HonorBox*

      “Saying you retired is saying you were the one who chose to leave the company, rather than the company firing/laying you off.”

      Then the appropriate wording is “resigned.”

      When people retire, they use that word themselves.

      Reply ↓
      1. Cmdrshprd*

        But resigning is part of retiring. when people retire even if it’s to no longer work the are resigning their position.

        I think there are two types of retire, first is completely stoping work, and the other is retiring from a specific company, but still continuing to work.

        When I worked retail, I worked with lots of people that were retired, they used the word retired, some said they wanted something to do and earn some extra pocket money, others said they didn’t have enough money to stop working but they didn’t want to do previous career/company anymore.

        I still think that “retiring”= stoping work 100% is wrong. People often use it to mean that, but that is not the only meaning.

        Reply ↓
        1. Heidi*

          I think that you can use “retire” to mean stop working entirely or to stop doing a particular occupation. You can retire from blacksmithing to raise llamas, but it doesn’t seem quite right to say that someone retired from being a graphic designer if they just moved companies and continued to be a graphic designer.

          Reply ↓
        2. Myrin*

          I mean, this is pretty clear-cut, actually: do they get a pension (or whatever the local equivalent may be; in my country’s case, it’s money from the state you paid while still working, other countries might do it differently), yes or no?

          But also, this is literally the first time I’ve ever seen, heard, or read a discussion like this so I feel like you might be an outlier in this – people are not typically confused about what “retiring” means even in a colloquial sense.

          Reply ↓
          1. doreen*

            Oddly , it’s not the first time I’ve ever heard it. I have an acquaintance who has been talking about “retiring” at 62 since he was 40 – but what he means is he plans to quit his current full-time job and get a different full-time job. ( Why, I don’t know) I can only assume it’s because most of the retired people he knows get an actual pension from their employer so they will describe themselves as a retired police officer or whatever even though they are working full time. I’ve never known anyone working full-time while collecting Social Security ( the equivalent of a state pension) who described themself as “retired”

            Reply ↓
          2. Cmdrshprd*

            I don’t think that is always the case. Under the FIRE people retire early in their 40/50’s (some even 30’s) before they are anywhere close to being able to collect their social security (minimum age is 62 I believe) but they draw on their “personal investments” to live, even official retirement accounts (like IRA/401k) have a minimum age of 58 to withdraw penalty free.

            I know plenty of people who “retire” draw on their social security/retirement accounts, but keep working either for “fun” or because they can’t afford to not work.

            I worked retail with lots of people who self-described themselves as “retired,” usually meaning either from their prior profession, and/or from the company they worked for 20/30 years.

            I had a teacher who “retired” (he used the word retire) from his original profession of business person at 40something, went back got a teaching degree and has now been teaching for 20ish years.

            I still think that “retire” does not mean never working again.

            Reply ↓
            1. Myrin*

              That might be a language issue, then – the word “retirement” translates to in my language definitely can’t be used the way you’re using here (you wouldn’t say someone “retired” from being a teacher or a police officer or whatever, you’d say they changed careers or they “used to be a [profession]” or something like that).

              I would agree that it doesn’t necessarily mean “never working again” but I absolutely would say that it means “never working again in the career you’ve worked in up until now”. I know some – not many – people who are retired who work a few hours a week in retail, but they still have the “legal status” (for lack of a better expression) of being retired and literally aren’t allowed, by law, to work more than that and still be retirees. That’s the framwork I’m coming from.

              Reply ↓
        3. MigraineMonth*

          Retiring doesn’t mean stopping all work, but it usually does mean ending one’s current career. If you retire from being a professional baseball player at 35, that doesn’t mean you don’t do any work for the rest of your life, but it does mean you’re no longer going to be a professional baseball player. If you just switch teams, that’s not a retirement.

          If OP had tendered their resignation and indicated they were switching careers/getting out of the space entirely, it could be described as retiring (though I’d still take the person’s cue on whether to call it a retirement or career change). The fact that “retiring” is a narrative that serves the board much better than “resigning in disgust and going on to found a competing nonprofit” makes their motives suspect.

          Reply ↓
      2. Sacred Ground*

        To resign is to leave a job. To retire is to not work anymore.
        If the company you resigned from is telling people, including potential clients, that you retired, that’s both untrue and potentially damaging to your professional reputation.

        Reply ↓
        1. ChattyDelle*

          my understanding is LW resigned to make a point about the direction of the non profit. claiming they retired is papering over the reasons LE chose to left

          Reply ↓
    7. metadata minion*

      Plenty of people retire and then un-retire and go on to work other places, but just leaving the company voluntarily isn’t retiring.

      Reply ↓
      1. MigraineMonth*

        My aunt and uncle built a houseboat in their backyard, retired and tooled around the Caribbean for a few years. Then they got bored, retired from their retirement and went back to work.

        Reply ↓
    8. Username required*

      The company said LW retired to avoid pesky questions about what went wrong and why did the LW leave. Now people think the LW is off enjoying retirement and her pension. If the company had told people that the LW had resigned then there would have been questions about why she resigned and where she was going to work next.

      Reply ↓
    10. doreen*

      The difference is that ( at least in the US) “Retired from the police force” or ” Retired from the phone company” and similar phrases generally involve collecting a pension , even if the person is 42. ” Retired from the police force” doesn’t include the 30 year old who leaves the police force after 8 years and joins the fire department. Professionals are sometimes referred to as “semi-retired” if they work less than full-time. Others who work less than full time and are not collecting any sort of pension are usually referred to as working part-time. But it is absolutely incorrect to describe someone who resigned from a job and plans to find a new job or go into business for themself as simply “retired” whether that person is 30 or 60.

      Reply ↓
    11. Susannah*

      Nah, LW quit. The employe is trying to make it sound like they are retiring from work overall – not specifically leaving that job. And it’s pretty clear they did it so no one would say, hey, how come this person quit?

      Reply ↓
    12. Kay*

      Words matter, words have meaning – this is why we have different words for retiring and resigning, they mean different things. While some words, like quitting and resigning, can be used interchangeably, retiring and resigning can not.

      Reply ↓
    13. Starbuck*

      Oh come on, they clearly chose retired vs resigned because one doesn’t possibly make them look bad and makes the departure all about the employee and not the company. Let’s not be coy. It’s meant to prevent people questioning why LW chose to leave, if there might be issues with the org.

      Reply ↓
    14. fhqwhgads*

      That is not what the term “retiring” is generally used to mean. This isn’t like the difference between a tennis playing retiring from a match vs retiring from the sport entirely.
      When someone quits to go work elsewhere, or quits with nothing lined up but the intention to work elsewhere, that’s resigning. It is not at all common to call that “retiring” in US English. It’s straight up misleading. Can it technically meet the dictionary definition? Sure. But in context it’s a very odd choice of words.

      Reply ↓
  4. Temperance*

    LW2, don’t overthink it. It’s a wonderful org and a once in a lifetime chance for him. It’s also not like you’re asking for a liver for your brother, $10 to help families dealing with medically fragile and Terminally ill kids.

    Friends of mine stayed there for their daughter’s Make a Wish trip, and the memories they made are so special.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      The important rule for LW2 is let them know ONCE and *do not follow up with the employee.* Totally fine to let them know, send them the link etc – but the minute you follow up, now that’s going to feel like pressure. Even if you think it’s harmless like “so did you decide to get those raffle tickets?” I also like the idea above of buying a ticket as s gift and then letting them know they can certainly decide to buy more or not (once) (and not following up about it).

      Reply ↓
      1. Annony*

        And frame it as an FYI without mentioning the personal connection to the charity. FYI there is a raffle for the thing you want is casual and has zero pressure.

        Reply ↓
      2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        do not buy a ticket as a gift. that will be favoritism. Even if its for charity. A charity that the Boss supports and maybe the employee doesn’t. If you buy this gift for your employee, what are you getting the other employees? Oh nothing, then why did this person get a gift? Will the person feel pressured now to support the charity because boss bought the gift?

        Send the link and let it go.

        Reply ↓
  5. MK*

    OP1, I think we tend to tend to think of any penalty as consequences for our actions, but in reality very often the impact is an important factor also, though it may be outside of our control and intentions. If you run a red light and no one is coming from the other direction, you get a fine. If someone happens to come from the opposite direction and you hit them, you get a much more severe punishment for the exact same action. Someone recorded this guy and that gave his action a much wider reach; that wasn’t the result of his action, but it was a consequence of it. Also, in this day and age everyone should be aware that anything you say in public can go viral.

    Reply ↓
    1. PineappleColada*

      This is such a great way to look at it.

      And, he KNEW he was getting filmed and chose to double-down on his language. How much worse can we expect him to be when he doesn’t believe it’s being recorded?

      Frankly, I would fire him if he worked for me, even if I wasn’t a consulting firm. I can’t imagine working with someone so hateful.

      A lot of companies give themselves an easy way to fire someone like this in their employee manual, there’s verbiage around “representing the company in a poor fashion” that can be pretty broadly construed.

      Reply ↓
      2. TeaCoziesRUs*

        I see very little real difference between this idiot and the woman in Central Park a few years ago who called the cops on a Black birdwatcher because he had the temerity to tell her to leash her dog. Bad behavior in a public place can get you mocked at best, and in the US employers have a right to fire you for your idiocy. I wouldn’t want to work with either the blowhard or the Central Park woman, and I understand why companies would decide they don’t want these individuals representing them.

        Reply ↓
          1. Elle*

            It’s interesting that you chimed in to support the white lady racist when it was so easily avoidable to…. Not do that. Yikes.

            Reply ↓
          2. A Cita*

            Wow, no. To give context, that is not an off leash area because its where birds nest. That’s why many bird watcher are there, including him. Her dog was disturbing and potentially harming a bird area. And that is why keeps treats for dogs to lure them so their fur parents can leash them up. Not egregious behavior. He didn’t have her dog when she called the cops; she had the dog in her possession. And when she called, she suddenly turned on a very frightened person voice (voice different from her angry, insulting voice) saying she was in danger from a *black man* knowing how police typically respond to that. And that is the horrible part. She weaponized anti-black racism to get him potentially harmed or killed.

            Reply ↓
          3. Cookie Monster*

            He didn’t like “harassing folks” who had their dogs off leash. He just told them it wasn’t allowed. Confrontation does not equal harassment.

            Reply ↓
          4. Festively Dressed Earl*

            That is.. not at all what happened. The woman’s name is Amy Cooper if you want to search for the video and context.

            Reply ↓
            1. boof*

              This was based on an interview with christian cooper who i like as an artist and support his work – I’m a comics fan. I think what he did was generally understandable it and amy cooper was in the wrong on many levels – I just want to be clear I do not support what amy cooper did at all. I just question the level of backlash she got vs this guy’s situation seems way more aggressive and prolonged than that.

              Reply ↓
        2. Nobby Nobbs*

          And if either of these bigots pulled something similar on a coworker, that coworker would be within their rights to blame the company who knew who they were employing and continued exposing employees to them anyway.

          Reply ↓
        3. Pizza Rat*

          From the Living Well is the Best Revenge Department, Christian Cooper has published a memoir, been interviewed by Terry Gross on Fresh Air, won an Emmy for his show on NatGeo, and is on the board of the Audubon.

          Reply ↓
      3. Alucius*

        Reminds me of a story up here from a few years back when there was a trend of boorish sports fans coming to female reporters who were live on camera and shouting a sexually explicit phrase into their live mics. One guy got fired from a six-figure job as a result, and you know, pretty hard to have sympathy for him.

        Reply ↓
        1. AnonInCanada*

          Oh, yes, the “FHRITP” guy who ended up getting rehired after an arbitration process with said employer. Link to the story below. How that ended up was pretty reprehensible. That guy should’ve never have gotten his job back!

          Reply ↓
    4. MigraineMonth*

      Very good perspective!

      I’ve been reading a bit about the use of shame and public shaming in particular in our society, and I think that it’s a pretty destructive tool, particularly since it’s so easy to turn against the least powerful of us. It’s tempting to shame/punish particular symbols of greater societal problems, but it’s not actually effective to make examples of individuals. Men aren’t going to stop being aggressive towards women for daring to be in “their” spaces because this one guy lost his job. (Not saying he shouldn’t have, just that the question of how we collectively want to punish this particular individual is kind of derailing.)

      Reply ↓
  6. Nodramalama*

    I don’t think company in #1 is out of line we all. If he’s a misogynistic asshole to people who are just minding their own business how can he be trusted to work with women?

    Everyone concerned about people being cancelled… Billions of people manage to go about their lives and don’t get filmed saying heinous things. It’s a pretty low bar to clear imo.

    Reply ↓
    1. LouLouisana*

      100%! When I read the article, I was appalled. To know that his yelling/vocabulary/gestures were directed aimed at one woman in particular – who he does NOT know IRL is disgusting, deplorable, and obnoxious behavior.
      I would even call it abusive.
      Glad he lost his job.
      Now he has time for therapy.

      Reply ↓
      1. PineappleColada*

        I agree! I was also pretty shocked about the specifics of the situation, when I first read about it—I thought he probably yelled these obscenities at her while passing her by in one of the arena common areas.

        Then watching the footage, and realizing he is sitting basically right next to her for the 3 hour game…horrifying.

        He deserved all the consequences, IMO. I hope the arena he was banned from is his home teams.

        Reply ↓
        1. DeliCat*

          It’s also worth noting that this wasn’t just a ‘hot mic’ moment that happened to be caught on camera (not that that would be ok either) but he had been continuously abusing and harassing her long before her partner chose to get his phone out.

          I’d feel incredibly uncomfortable being around this man as either an colleague or a client. The employer made the right call.

          Play stupid games……..

          Reply ↓
        2. Irish Teacher.*

          I initially read this as “I hope he was banned from his home,” like that you hoped his partner or parents or whoever he lived with also banned him from their lives.

          Reply ↓
      2. N C Kiddle*

        Therapy isn’t the answer to people who don’t really believe they’ve done anything wrong. Worst case scenario, he learns how to make his next abusive incident quiet and coded so it doesn’t go viral, which isn’t a great outcome for society or the person on the receiving end.

        Reply ↓
        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          going to therapy and listening and learning — cis white men’s get out of consequences free card for anything racist and/or misogynistic they say.

          Reply ↓
        2. Observer*

          Therapy isn’t the answer to people who don’t really believe they’ve done anything wrong.

          Sometimes that’s not really the case. Because even though it’s not the job of a therapist to change a patient’s mind and beliefs, it can be useful to teach them a couple of things. Firstly, simply how to behave around other people, including managing your alcohol intake, avoiding triggers etc. Because this guy is going to wind up working *somewhere* so it would be a good thing for the world if he at least learns to behave himself.

          The second thing is essentially the ability to take perspective. That it, it could be helpful to understand why others have this “wrong” opinion. That kind of thing won’t necessarily change his mind, but it can be useful in keeping his behavior in check.

          Reply ↓
      3. Marion Ravenwood*

        I mean, even if he did know her in real life it’d still be pretty appalling. It’s one thing to maybe crack the odd joke about rooting for the opposite team but it’s quite another to constantly go in on someone like that, whether you know them or not.

        Reply ↓
    2. duinath*

      Yep. Actions have consequences, and that applies when we say dumb stuff on social media, and it applies when some of us go on hateful harassing diatribes.

      I don’t know why there would be an out for “non-work related” hideous behavior. Why would you get a “get out of jail free” card just because you showed your worst self outside the office instead of in it?

      If that feels unfair, please keep in mind that most people do not behave like this in any arena. This is not normal behavior, and it shows his underlying beliefs and values in stark relief.

      For most people if they were filmed in their worst everyday selves nothing much would happen, beyond some commentary.

      Reply ↓
    3. Alz*

      There is an interesting book called “So you have been Publicly Shamed” by Jon Ronson that goes through want happens after something like this happens (both for people like this guy who I think deserve the shame, and with people who were much more of a bad day/poor phrasing moment. I think there was a podcast too that went with it. Anyway, it is pretty fascinating if you want a nice easy read

      Reply ↓
    4. Bob*

      “Everyone concerned about people being cancelled… Billions of people manage to go about their lives and don’t get filmed saying heinous things. It’s a pretty low bar to clear imo”

      Great comment!

      In my youth several times I got completely hammered drunk, like stumbling home vomiting til I wished I was dead and hungover for 3 days drunk. Somehow I managed to never drive, never got in a fight and never harrased anyone.

      Sports or no sports, he’s a tool who deserves it.

      Reply ↓
    5. Artemesia*

      If he had just been unpleasant to a server or frustrated and rude – then I think it would be an overreaction. Who hasn’t behaved in ways they aren’t proud of when frustrated? But gross misogynistic ranting at another human? No one wants their business portrayed that way. It is akin to the woman who tried to get a black guy killed by police by reporting he was assaulting her when he just asked her to leash her dog.

      Let normal human failings go and don’t post them on line. But racist, misogynist rants —

      Reply ↓
    2. NotTheLW*

      If you google “raffle to stay in cinderellas castle” it will come up with the organization, or at least an article about the raffle that tells you the organization!

      Reply ↓
  8. Heidi*

    For Letter 3, the part that stuck out to me was the six years with no performance review. No matter what this episode with HR turns out to be, the LW might find it helpful to find ways to track their own performance if the company does not. It might not be as straightforward as how much money they bring in sales, but how many projects they’re working on, number of clients, the number of tickets resolved may also be ways to show productivity (or at least show that all this work was done successfully without mistakes). If there is a way to figure out how the LW’s productivity compares to others in similar roles, that’s also useful information.

    Reply ↓
    1. LW3*

      Thanks for this advice! It’s unfortunately a bit difficult to track my performance, as this is a non-profit and I’m in something of a back-end role, but I’ll try to see what I can work out as a kind of objective quantitative metric.

      Reply ↓
      1. Ms. Eleanous*

        And, LW3, create a timeline of your work there,
        Including the date you complained about the bully, and dates of all the subsequent actions or non actions.
        And, consult a lawyer – it could be a retaliation case.

        Reply ↓
        1. MigraineMonth*

          Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but in the US I believe it is only illegal to retaliate against the employee for exercising their protected rights or complaining about harassment / hostile workplace based on protected characteristics.

          So if the bullying was based on any protected class (gender, race, nationality), actual/perceived disability, or age (40+ years old), the bullying and retaliation for reporting it would be illegal. If not, it’s a crappy workplace with crappy HR, but not illegal.

          Reply ↓
          1. anon here today*

            I think it’s still worth talking to an employment lawyer. If the bullying was over, e.g., a safety issue, LW3 could be covered by whistleblower retaliation, etc. etc.

            LW3, most plaintiff-side employment lawyers I know would offer a free consult and would accept a case like this on contingency if they thought there was a there there. They would also shepherd you through this process with an experienced and knowledgeable eye.

            –not an employment lawyer, just appreciate the good ones

            Reply ↓
      3. Cookie Monster*

        Without any performance reviews, have you had any raises or promotions? If so, how were those judged without the performance review?

        Reply ↓
        1. LW3*

          I’ve had no raises or promotions. People here generally only get raises when they’re promoted, and promotions tend to happen when someone replaces a supervisor who leaves/retires. I’ve seen a few colleagues also get title bumps when it was decided to give them more authority.

          Reply ↓
      4. Artemesia*

        You are smart to think they are out to get you; so calmly thinking how to present your worth is important, but even more important is to start looking for something else.

        Reply ↓
    2. el l*

      Yeah, this is what happens when management doesn’t do their job and give regular feedback on performance. Reasonable paranoia.

      6 years with no performance review? Not being willing to – even as a courtesy – give indication of the priority-level of a particular task? Not closing the loop on an HR complaint about a senior? This is basic.

      The question is not whether to leave, it’s how long you can stay till you find a job you can tolerate. Play for time. Meaning to start, tell them you’re taking it seriously, document everything you possibly can, and insist upon that follow up meeting.

      Reply ↓
  9. Kisa*

    for lw1, im actually torn…

    i mean, we have people who behave BADLY in public, all around us all the time. should we record and fire them all? we would run out of employees…

    and i get the company’s reaction on individual level.

    but you say something out of line in public, get immediate consequence (banned from games, thats fair, good). But then people SEE A VIDEO, and based on that, track down your employer and get you fired? yeah, thats a no from me…

    isn’t this what happened in the soviet union, where eventually people were selfsencoring themselves even among family?

    this is too much.

    Reply ↓
    1. PineappleColada*

      No, it’s not too much.

      We really don’t have that many people behaving like this on a regular basis.

      And frankly, we would have less if people knew that there were consequences for it.

      This isn’t someone just behaving generally poorly. It’s not a personal squabble. It’s not petty drama, or simply embarrassing. This is someone harassing a woman for no reason, using misogynistic and degrading language.

      We actually used to live in much smaller societies, where people regulated their behavior because they figured disreputable actions would get back to their social groups and potentially employers.

      This new phenomenon of feeling completely anonymous and unbeholden to anyone is fairly recent to human history (and can clearly lead to these antisocial behaviors).

      A lot of what social media is doing is bringing accountability to our global village. I don’t see a problem in that.

      Reply ↓
      1. Totally Minnie*

        We really don’t have that many people behaving like this on a regular basis.

        And frankly, we would have less if people knew that there were consequences for it.

        This is what I was thinking too. The only way we get a society with fewer screaming bigots treating people like this in public is for some of those screaming bigots to have visible consequences for their behavior

        Reply ↓
      2. learnedthehardway*

        Agreed – there’s a common observation that people’s behaviour in public has gotten a lot worse lately. You hear it from hospital workers, retail workers, call centre workers – practically any publicly-facing position. I think it is the anonymity that lets people think they have a license to be abusive towards others.

        As far as I’m concerned, consequences are needed to ensure a level of civility in public. And when you don’t live in a tight-knit community where those consequences are more organic because everyone know everyone’s character, being publicly shamed for truly uncivil behaviour is a pretty good way to restore some civility to public discourse.

        Reply ↓
    2. allathian*

      I think there’s room for some nuance here.

      In this case, I think the firing was okay because the employee’s behavior was so out of line when compared to the employer’s values, and I can easily see that this employee couldn’t continue to work for a consulting firm that called themselves “DEI champions.” They’d lose credibility with customers and stakeholders who share those values if they continued to employ a proven misogynist who didn’t hesitate to voice his opinions in public.

      I might feel differently if his employer hadn’t been a DEI advocate.

      I also think that it’s unreasonable to expect perfect behavior from people all the time, and that party photos or videos from spring break posted on social media shouldn’t affect people’s chances of getting hired when they graduate. (But I realize they might, and that’s why I’d advise all young people to firmly lock down their social media and to curate a public profile they’d be happy for their parents to see as soon as they’re old enough to go on social media without parental supervision.)

      Reply ↓
      1. Major Marjorie*

        I might feel differently if his employer hadn’t been a DEI advocate.

        But aren’t all major employers DEI advocates these days? With the possible exception of manual labor, anyone who doesn’t want to work for an organization with diversity, equity, and inclusion listed among its goals is probably going to have to become either self-employed or unemployed.

        Reply ↓
        1. Marion Ravenwood*

          I think this is different though in that (as I understand) this guy was a consultant going into businesses and telling them how to improve DEI within their business – things like looking at recruitment processes to ensure they’re not excluding candidates from certain backgrounds, or having more diverse representation at senior levels etc. That’s not the same as the company having a DEI policy about how all staff and clients/customers should be treated equally and with respect, which most still do.

          Reply ↓
        2. Nina*

          His employer’s website is linked in the Yahoo news article, and with that context, this is… really pretty egregious.

          It’s like an employee of a health and safety advisory consultancy getting caught on video shooting fireworks at people, or an employee of a food safety consultancy getting caught on video pissing in a soup pot. The immediate reaction is ‘how the heck did a company that claims to be the expert on this stuff hire, and not fire, this guy?’

          Reply ↓
        4. LaurCha*

          No? Have you been paying attention to the news? Major employers like Target have actually ended their diversion, equity, and inclusion programs in response to the Republican administration’s erasure of policies, history, and programs within the federal government.

          Reply ↓
        5. JB (not in Houston)*

          No, not all major employers are DEI advocates. And there are many, many employers in between “major” and self-employed, and they aren’t all DEI advocates, either. If someone wants to work for a company that doesn’t have DEI as a goal, they defintely don’t need to be self-employed.

          Reply ↓
        6. The Gollux, Not a Mere Device*

          Not remotely all. Especially now that Trump is back in power–companies have been publicly dropping their support for DEI programs because they don’t want to upset the new administration and its followers.

          Bear in mind that the federal government is a major employer, and federal employees are being threatened for any involvement in DEI.

          Reply ↓
      2. Observer*

        I might feel differently if his employer hadn’t been a DEI advocate.

        Given his behavior, any company would have to be concerned, though. His behavior was so out of line, so frankly unhinged, and so *normalized* for him (he claims that somehow there was provocation for it!) that an employer has to worry about how he interacts with clients (even if the business has nothing to do with DEI) and is on notice if he ever misbehaves in ways that create liability for the company. Like, if he harassers a woman at work, the first question any halfway competent lawyer is going to ask is “given that you know that he’s a raving misogynists, why did you not protect your female staff from him?” Or if he winds up doing some sort of damage when he’s drunk (apparently he’s claiming that some this had to do with too much to drink) the question is going to be “Knowing that he clearly has an alcohol problem, why didn’t limit his ability to do damage.”

        I also think that it’s unreasonable to expect perfect behavior from people all the time

        Sure. But unlike you example of getting throwing up drunk at a frat party, this is not a matter of less than perfect behavior. This is full on terrible behavior from someone who is supposedly already a full fledged adult.

        Reply ↓
    3. hmmm*

      Your strawman argument about the Soviet Union is very intriguing to me: personally, I actually DO think mysogynists should censor themselves and refrain from saying sexist things! That would be ideal!
      Especially around family, where they might make their female relatives uncomfortable (or worse), and teach these wrongheaded ideas to young ones around.
      Sure, we’ve got freedom of speech here, but not freedom of consequences.

      Also, no one MADE the company fire him; that was their prerogative upon receiving the information, and they have the agency to make that choice.

      Reply ↓
      1. Spooz*

        I don’t think this guy should experience no consequences. But reasonable consequences are already available. He got banned from the game, he could be arrested for hate speech. Reasonable, RELEVANT consequences.

        But where does it end? Is it OK for his landlord to evict him? For his bank to close his account? For local shops to refuse him service? For his car registration to not be renewed? For the train companies to ban him from travelling?

        You do have to draw the line somewhere. I find it hard to believe that anyone here would defend the idea that he should legitimately receive any amount of social punishment that we can possibly imagine.

        The question is just where we do draw the line, not whether or not there is a line.

        Personally I can understand why the company did what they did after the mob had been whipped up and made its demands, but I think people should stop trying to destroy people’s entire lives when other reasonable, lawful consequences already exist.

        Reply ↓
        1. Matt*

          Yes, this. I know I won’t get much agreement on AAM, but for me that’s a modern version of witch hunting.

          (I once got a complaint to my employer because of critical comments about public transport reliability on the local public transport company’s Facebook site. They tracked down my employer and suggested it should be checked if I had written those comments on the clock. I’m aware that my case involved no hate speech or whatever, but it could have gotten me into trouble easily and it was way out of line to want someone get fired just because of venting about subway disruptions)

          Reply ↓
          1. Grizabella the Glamour Cat*

            “But where does it end? Is it OK for his landlord to evict him? For his bank to close his account? For local shops to refuse him service? For his car registration to not be renewed? For the train companies to ban him from travelling?”

            None of these things happened, and no one has said that they should (or should not) happen. Please do yourself a favor and Google “straw man fallacy.”

            Reply ↓
            1. Matt*

              None of these things happened, but getting fired is a pretty severe, potential life destroying sanction well in line with the others.

              Reply ↓
              1. bamcheeks*

                So I have to ask– do you support stronger worker protections? Because I feel like the conversation around this stuff is always that it’s super important that employers can fire people for any reason when the conversation is “person becomes disabled and employer might need to support them”, or “person objects to an ethical issue but not in the perfect 100% approved right way”, but suddenly becomes an unacceptable and potentially life-ruining consequence when it’s someone caught on video repeatedly calling a woman a c*nt.

                Reply ↓
              2. Eire I am*

                Sometimes things happen that impact lives forever. In some cases the bad choices are made by 3rd parties (someone drives drunk and causes a different person to be paralyzed). In other cases, the bad choices affect the people who make them (someone makes a choice to harass an innocent bystander repeatedly and on camera and that goes viral).

                I’m not sure we can or even should protect people from the consequences of their choices. Or why it’s even an issue here.

                Reply ↓
              3. Disagree*

                It is the prerogative of his employer to fire him if he shows severe lack of judgement.
                Please consider the possibility that the employer actually fired him because they consider his behaviour as not acceptable. Not because of media coverage or because of public pressure, but because they find his behaviour irreconcilable with what the company stands for.

                Reply ↓
              4. Totally Minnie*

                Is there anything a person can do outside of their workplace that you think would warrant their being fired?

                Reply ↓
              5. doreen*

                And maybe they should happen – maybe the landlord renting him an apartment in small owner- occupied building or a room in the landlord’s home shouldn’t be forced to live in such close proximity to him. Maybe the employees in that local shop shouldn’t have to deal with him – who knows what he will say or do if they make a mistake.

                Reply ↓
          2. Irish Teacher.*

            But it’s not a modern version of witch-hunting because he did it. The point about “witch hunting” is that it is based on lies. It’s not “witch hunting” if somebody is fired for something they did. It’s only “witch hunting” if a company say started firing anybody who was accused of doing anything against equality and came up with the most flimsy of evidence to support it. “John said no when I invited him to a gay bar; clearly he’s homophobic. Fired!” “Mary sent her kids to a private school. She hates poor people. Fired!”

            The problem with witch hunting is that it is based on lies. If it were people facing consequences for things they actually did, it wouldn’t be a problem at all.

            There is a genuine issue with internet vigilantism because yeah, it can be used for revenge on people and can turn into the court of public opinion, but it isn’t really comparative to lying in order to get people killed.

            Reply ↓
            1. hbc*

              Seriously. “I think that lady poisoned my cattle! A bunch of people witnessed her feeding them before they keeled over, there’s nightshade in her pockets, and she has a map from her house to my field with skulls drawn on it.”

              “Hey, calm down, let’s not start a witch hunt.”

              Reply ↓
            2. JB (not in Houston)*

              Yes, all this. But also, the torture and executions, that historically was another problem with witch hunts. That’s not what happens when someone behaves appalling in public and then gets fired for it.

              Reply ↓
          3. Caramel & Cheddar*

            The point of something being a “witch hunt” is that the person being “hunted” is innocent. This guy did the things he’s being accused of, so it literally cannot be a witch hunt and it’s unhelpful to frame it that way unless you’re attempting to recast the behaviour as something that isn’t a big deal.

            Reply ↓
            1. Phony Genius*

              “Witch hunt” can also refer to cases where the person being hunted did do what they’re accused of, but that thing is perfectly fine to do, except in the eyes of the hunters.

              Reply ↓
          4. NigelsMom*

            It depends on the context though. I work in health policy, so subway talk doesn’t usually affect my professional reputation. Maybe there is leeway for me to be a little more vocal about my city’s poor transit options. If I worked at a nonprofit aimed at increasing use of public transportation, then yes, I subway comments potentially affect my professional credibility. This is no different than an employee ranting online how much they dislike their store’s products or have philosophical objections to their value proposition.

            It’s not an over-reach to say that this guy’s personal reputation negatively impacts his professional one.

            Reply ↓
          5. JB (not in Houston)*

            Good God, this guy getting fired is not at like witch hunting. Let me know when we start executing people for this kind of thing and then maybe I’ll agree with you. In the meantime, this kind of argument is how we avoid letting people experience the natural consequences of their awful behavior.

            Reply ↓
          6. juliebulie*

            It’s not “witch hunting” when the people are screaming at someone on camera. There’s no hunting involved. They proudly advertise their presence.

            Reply ↓
            1. Starbuck*

              Yes, the point about “witch hunting” being bad was because witches were never real! 100% of the victims were innocent. However modern witches like to call themselves and think of their practice – there were never any people who made real pacts with the devil that actually harmed anyone. That’s the point of the phrase.

              Reply ↓
          7. Wilbur*

            “We should tolerate bad behavior because I didn’t get in trouble for something I did that was fine” is a wild take.

            Reply ↓
        2. bamcheeks*

          I mean, this is what workers’ rights and renters’ rights are for, right? It’s easy to fire people for misogynist, homophobic, racist or other gross behaviour because it’s easy to fire people.

          Overwhelmingly, an at-will hiring culture privileges people who belong to majority groups. I feel kind of *eyeroll* about it when the media decides that it’s a big deal that a misogynist lost his job and that this is a problem of ~~cancel culture~~ rather than a lack of workers’ rights.

          Reply ↓
          1. Spooz*

            Maybe I have a different perspective on it coming from the UK? Firing someone seems like a huge deal to me. Like, really on a par with evicting someone. (Which is also a big deal!) Maybe it isn’t so much in the US?

            We also have hate speech laws that would easily make this a potential police matter. I think its much more appropriate that this guy should be arrested than that he should lose his job.

            Reply ↓
            1. Emmy Noether*

              I actually agree that it would be more appropriate to arrest him than to fire him. But that’s not because firing is a bigger deal than criminal prosecution – it’s about who has the power to sanction what behaviour, and about due process.

              That’s if you perceive the firing as primarily being for punishment.

              Reply ↓
              1. Wilbur*

                In what world would it make more sense to arrest him? Being a jerk is not a crime. The company has a right to decide who represents them. If the company did project management rather than DEI consultancy, I’d still have a pause about hiring him because the company I work at has a diverse employee base.

                Reply ↓
                1. Sacred Ground*

                  And there are plenty of jobs where simply being arrested for anything can and will get you fired, whatever the offense. So in the UK as described by Spooz, this guy could be arrested AND fired from their job.

                  In the US, the only consequences are professional and social, not legal. He couldn’t be arrested here just for acting like a jerk. Free speech is baked into our laws via the First Amendment, but it only restricts the state and has never protected anyone from professional or social consequences of doing something stupid.

                  (If he’d said these things while also committing another crime like assault, then that could be charged as a hate crime. But not just for saying things, no matter how disgusting.)

            2. bamcheeks*

              Also in the UK, but having read AAM for a while I feel fairly confident saying that firing is much, much easier in the US. But obviously that doesn’t mean it’s less of a big deal for the people being fired!

              Reply ↓
            3. Ellis Bell*

              I’m in the UK public sector, protected by a really strong union, and I have never had a job where I didn’t have it explicitly spelled out in my contract that I cannot bring my organisation into disrepute online or publicly. I would be fired in a heartbeat for pulling a stunt like this.

              Reply ↓
              1. Susannah*

                To be clear – you can’t get arrested just for “hate speech;” that’s First Amendment protected. It only come into play if you are actually violating someone’s civil rights.
                So – this guy could not be convicted of hate speech.

                Reply ↓
                2. Ellis Bell*

                  Reply to metadata; misogyny isn’t currently classed as a hate crime in the UK, but let’s just say for the sake of argument that it is and this guy was to get prosecuted. You won’t necessarily get fired for being charged or convicted of a crime, if it’s not directly affecting your job, and your employer would have to justify that it does. However this guy’s company markets themselves as DEI champions and it’s probably integral to the work that they not be anti-women. It would be common in the UK for a company like that to have some kind of digital behaviour code and not bringing the company into disrepute baked right into the contract; a massive section usually that you sign on your first day. So TLDR, you wouldn’t need it to be illegal it would be classed as gross misconduct in your contract.

            5. Tea Monk*

              Oh in the US, it’s really easy to get fired, but he’ll probably get a new job before the month is out. The folks in power love that stuff. Now if he was disabled or had a legitimate issue, yea, life destroying

              Reply ↓
            6. doreen*

              It’s not that being fired or evicted isn’t a big deal in the US for the person it happens to. It’s that for the most part *, it’s perfectly legal in the US to fire someone because you didn’t like the tie they wore today, or to evict a month-to-month tenant with 30 days notice for no reason at all ( as long as it’s not an illegal reason) *. And it doesn’t make a lot of sense to object to a person being fired or evicted for making misogynistic comments in an environment when they can be fired or evicted for no reason at all.

              * Some reasons are illegal – if it’s based on race , gender , etc or retaliation for filing a complaint.

              Reply ↓
            7. Sacred Ground*

              Really? No employment contract ever includes wording about representing the organization and not bringing disgrace to it? If, say, a police officer went on an hours-long racist tirade in public and it went viral, there’d be no professional consequences? Or a teacher started yelling obscenities at a stranger’s kid in a playground for hours, their school would have nothing to say about it?

              And why is it more appropriate for the consequences for this guy’s boorish behavior to be arrested by the police rather than fired from his job *at a DEI consultancy firm*? And do UK people never get fired as a consequence of *being arrested*?

              Reply ↓
            8. Starbuck*

              You definitely don’t have a clue about the US, because “he could be arrested for hate speech” is not a thing at all here.

              Reply ↓
            9. Selina Luna*

              Hate speech laws exist in the US, but they work completely differently. He would never be arrested for just saying stuff. It’s something they add on to another crime to make the punishment worse, not a crime in and of itself.
              This guy will be able to get another job. I doubt he’ll even struggle. It probably won’t be as a DEI consultant.

              Reply ↓
        3. Roland*

          Yeah, it’s really rough and like my emotions feel “haha you lost your job, you deserve it” but my brain thinks “is it ok that he might never be able to get a good job again outside of companies who think the video was cool of him?” I do think that consequence might be one way to discourage people from doing/saying these things in the future… But it doesn’t mean he deserves to not have an income going forward. I’m not blaming his (former) company but I think we can and should acknowledge that it’s a complicated issue on a societal level

          Reply ↓
          1. Dek*

            No one said he doesn’t deserve an income going forward. But *this* job in particular is one that is antithetical with his actions in a public space.

            And let’s be honest…in a world where murderers get speaking tours, and “cancelled” comedians still make millions, the odds that he won’t eventually find a good job after the hype has gone down is pretty slim.

            Reply ↓
            1. Sacred Ground*

              In the current environment, this may actually work out well for him. He’s probably already getting offers from anti-DEI organizations, as well as invitations for interviews on conservative media. He might have a podcast and a book deal by the end of the month.

              Reply ↓
          2. Nobby Nobbs*

            Let’s not round the consequences up to “might never be able to get a good job again” when there’s nothing in that video that would prevent him from being elected president. Vile misogyny doesn’t disqualify you from a lot in our society.

            Reply ↓
          3. Observer*

            but my brain thinks “is it ok that he might never be able to get a good job again outside of companies who think the video was cool of him?”

            So even if this wee not a total straw man, I would say that the answer is yes.

            As long as he’s ok with acting this way, I think that sensible employers really *need* to be cautious about him. This is not about “cancel culture”. It’s about companies needing to use some sense and factor in what they *know* about a person before hiring them.

            Reply ↓
          4. Kay*

            I mean – who doesn’t want to work with a guy who unleashes hateful vitriol on innocent bystanders?!

            You know it is a sad day when the hiring manager says something like “I know Wakeen can be a verbally abusive misogynist but the poor guy still needs to eat! Lets hire him instead of… checks notes… the other guy who has managed not to go public for viral hate rants.”

            Reply ↓
        4. Myrin*

          The question is just where we do draw the line, not whether or not there is a line.

          Well, thankfully, it isn’t on random internet commenters on a work advice forum to figure this out. And I don’t mean this in a condescending way – I think you made your point very eloquently and I agree with your overall point – but in a completely earnest one: there are people whose job it is (and was) to figure out this line and to shape rules and laws following it.

          Where I live, the rules around eviction are incredibly strict and it’s only allowed in a handful of specifically defined cases, everybody has the legal right to a bank account, train companies wouldn’t generally have a way to know you are travelling at all unless you have an account with them and through that account and even then, they can’t throw you out/ban you unless you already have a train-related black mark on your record, and so forth. It doesn’t even get to the point where his landlord could just decide to evict him for this because it would literally be against the law.

          I’m not sure if you’d even be able to fire him here but that’s because it’s pretty hard to fire someone, fullstop. So, like bamcheeks says below, this is a matter of workers’ rights and employment law moreso than where each individual employer draws their line.

          Reply ↓
        5. Insert Clever Name Here*

          One of the services his former employer offers is to “help your organization accelerate your initiatives in diversity, equity and inclusion” — they list DEI assessments, HR policy and procedure evaluations, literal courses on DEI.

          So yeah, it definitely feels relevant that a company that advertises their services for increasing and supporting DEI would want to part ways with a dude who spent hours yelling profanities at someone sitting next to them. If I found out my pediatrician was standing at the park screaming at kids for hours it would be completely reasonable for the practice to fire her. If I found out my financial advisor stole money from tip jars at coffee shops it would be completely reasonable for his firm to fire him.

          Reply ↓
        6. Colette*

          The details matter.

          Is he in a position of authority over anyone? If so, he can’t fairly manage women based on what I understand his behaviour to be. Firing is reasonable.

          Is he teaching others how to make their workplaces more inclusive? He can’t credibly do that, so firing is reasonable.

          If neither of those apply – i.e. if he’s a cashier at a grocery store who treats customers and coworkers civilly – firingly probably wouldn’t be appropriate.

          Reply ↓
          1. Sacred Ground*

            Except even as a cashier, management can’t be sure he does treat customers and coworkers civilly. Based on what they know of his behavior outside work and his actual beliefs, he’d require closer supervision to ensure he’s being professional at work. They might reasonably decide not to employ someone who requires that level of supervision to avoid a costly lawsuit.

            Reply ↓
        7. Anon for This*

          From a legal standpoint, the only item on your list that is legal (at least in my state) is local shops refusing service. Also, possibly being refused train service, but only if it’s a 100% privately owned train.

          A more interesting question is how much effort should be put into tracking down the employers of such people? If their employer can’t be readily identified on the spot, it takes quite some effort. I remember one where it took nearly a week to find out who they worked for (which turned out to be government, so they couldn’t legally do much). And then, what if they’re self-employed? Or retired?

          Reply ↓
          1. Observer*

            And then, what if they’re self-employed? Or retired?

            If someone is retired, then they are not going to harm colleagues and clients. And if they are self employed, at least people who are customers for their service can know not to hire that person.

            Reply ↓
        8. Totally Minnie*

          As a woman, I don’t want to work with someone who is comfortable treating women this way. If he was my coworker and he hadn’t been fired, I would be asking my managers to never assign me to projects with him.

          A company that hires employees has an obligation to those employees. All of them, it just the loud white men. It would be a dereliction of duty for this company to continue to expose their other employees to a known harasser.

          Reply ↓
        9. Dek*

          “But where does it end? Is it OK for his landlord to evict him? For his bank to close his account? For local shops to refuse him service? For his car registration to not be renewed?”

          This is just such bonkers gymnastics.

          The guy specifically worked at a company that actively tries to fight the attitudes he espoused. No one’s saying he should be denied government services (what) or be made an unperson. Hell, no one’s even saying he shouldn’t have a job at all. Just probably not that one, and the company agreed.

          “I think people should stop trying to destroy people’s entire lives…”

          Yeah, no one did that though. And *he* was the one who chose to behave like that. This is, in fact, a reasonable consequence.

          In a different job, maybe it wouldn’t have been as reasonable. But in this situation, it is. You can’t remove the relevant context.

          Reply ↓
        11. JB (not in Houston)*

          Yeah, I really don’t care about him losing his job or if shops don’t want to serve him, and I’m tired of having these slippery slope arguments for why people shouldn’t suffer any real consequences for their behavior.

          As a woman, I don’t want to work with a guy who can’t stop himself from saying things like this publicly, and I shouldn’t have to. Do you think a guy like this is going to be a good coworker to women or treat them fairly? I don’t. Do you think this guy is going to be an effective worker at his DEI firm? I sure as hell don’t. This wasn’t two people having a small spat over a fender bender or something like that, this is a guy spewing hateful, offensive things at someone for no reason other than she was supporting a different team. And apparently doing it for hours. So yeah, if a local shop doesn’t want to serve him, I’m fine with that.

          As for your other hypotheticals, he’s not going to get evicted unless it’s a breach of his lease–which it won’t be, but if it was, then he knowingly breached his lease, and that would be on him. His car registration isn’t going to be declined, come on, that’s ridiculous. But if individuals choose not to associate with him because of his appalling behavior, then they have that right.

          Maybe if people actually suffered consequences consistently for this level of bad behavior, people wouldn’t behave this way.

          Reply ↓
        12. Cookie Monster*

          Well it’s a good thing none of those things happened! So we apparently we DO draw a line as a culture before we start banning them from trains and banks.

          Also a) his life is not destroyed b) he saw he was being filmed and CONTINUED calling her awful things TO THE CAMERA.

          Reply ↓
        13. Jennifer Strange*

          Okay, I’ll one-up your strawman argument. Let’s say you force the company to keep him on. Their clients, not wanting to work with him or folks who would continue to employ him, leave. Now the business is failing and all of the employees there might be out of a job. Or would you then force the clients to not seek business out elsewhere? At what point are people (including employers) not allowed to make (perfectly legal!) choices?

          You also seem to think the company only fired him because of pressure from social media. Did it ever occur to you that they fired him because they found his words and actions abhorrent? Because they decided THEY did not want to employ someone like him?

          Reply ↓
          1. Sacred Ground*

            “Did it ever occur to you that they fired him because they found his words and actions abhorrent? Because they decided THEY did not want to employ someone like him?”
            **THIS**

            As well as clients leaving over this, the firm would likely also be losing key staff who don’t want to work with him and/or want to protect their own reputations by not associating with him, as is their right.

            Instead of “cancelled”, people should replace it with “disgraced.” The idea of being in disgrace because one has said or done something others regard as disgraceful isn’t exactly new. Being in disgrace has always meant professional and social consequences.

            Don’t want to be disgraced? Conduct yourself accordingly. When has this ever not been true?

            Reply ↓
      2. Michigander*

        I find that people seem to get confused about what freedom of speech entails a lot, especially in the wake of someone saying something offensive. Freedom of speech means you can’t get arrested for your opinions. It doesn’t mean that no one can judge you based on them, and sometimes that judgement is going to have real world consequences. Like maybe, shockingly, people don’t really want to work with a man they’ve seen screaming horrible things at a stranger.

        Reply ↓
        1. Matt*

          Yes, but one can still argue that consequences should reflect actions, and in my opinion, reporting people to their employer in order to get them fired is a severe consequence that is sought way too easily and carelessly in today’s so-called “cancel culture”. (Not necessarily in this case, I’ve yet to come to a clear opinion on this one.) I got angry about a driver in city traffic? Find their employer, report them, get them fired. I got angry about a social media post? Find their employer, report them, get them fired. And so on.

          Sometimes freedom of speech just means that I have the freedom to express my opinion and you have the freedom to disagree with me. But that doesn’t have to mean that you should be able to destroy my life just because you disagree with me.

          Reply ↓
          1. Michigander*

            Two things:
            1) You’re assuming that an employer WOULD fire someone because a stranger called and complained about something minor, like their driving. It’s possible but pretty unlikely that an company would say “Our employee cut you off? We’ll fire them immediately!” This is a very big thing, not a minor traffic annoyance, and the company responded as they saw best.
            2) You have the freedom to express your opinion, and I have the freedom to disagree with you, AND other people in your life have the ability to enforce consequences to your actions if they also disagree with you. If you scream hateful things at another person in public, you’ve destroyed your own life. That’s all on you.

            Reply ↓
          2. Irish Teacher.*

            I see your point, but you can’t really “get somebody fired,” at least not if they have a reasonable employer. You can report them, but it’s up to the employer what they do with that report. Most people, if they are anyway reasonable, aren’t going to fire somebody just on the report of a stranger unless the behaviour is so egregious that it really means they don’t want any association with the person.

            Would you fire somebody because a stranger contacted you and said their social media post upset them? I wouldn’t and I’d imagine most employers wouldn’t either. Unless maybe I looked at the post and found it expressed either really worrying views like racism or sexist or it threatened violence or something like that.

            We aren’t able to destroy somebody’s life just because they disagree with us. What you are talking about isn’t being able to destroy somebody’s life but being able to tell the truth about what happened.

            And that’s all part of freedom of speech. If you don’t want people to be able to tell other’s employers what they said or did, you want to restrict people’s freedom of speech.

            Now, like bamcheeks, I do think there should be restrictions on what employers can fire people for. I don’t think they should be allowed to fire somebody for something like “he annoyed my brother when driving” (which is the only way it would happen; nobody is firing somebody for that if the report comes from a stranger) or “he was out drinking at the weekend,” but I don’t think you can really prevent people from simply telling the truth on the grounds that “but what if their employer fires them?” I think there should be laws to prevent people being fired for minor things but not to prevent people…telling their boss about those minor things.

            Cancel culture just…isn’t a thing. It isn’t possible to just decide “this person annoyed me so I’m going to make their employer fire them.” When people do get fired, either it’s because their behaviour is worthy of being fired for or because their boss was being unreasonable and…that would be the same issue if the boss himself or herself witnessed it.

            Reply ↓
          3. Unpleased*

            I am a consultant. I vehemently disagree with you. Reputation is everything. If you FAFO with one of the most basic principles of the business there are consequences. And more importantly someone who behaves this way most likely already has a track record of things that are squishy or toe the line or have come close to causing loss to the business before. A person like this eventually causes legal exposure for the company. There is no business case for keeping him.

            Reply ↓
            1. Agree*

              I completely agree. I work with consultants frequently and I would not feel comfortable to continue working with somebody that hostile and misogynistic. And it would not make a difference if I saw that behaviour from a few seats behind him or if I happened to see the behaviour.
              He really did this to himself, not some ominous “cancel culture”

              Reply ↓
            2. Ginger Baker*

              I super recommend everyone google and read The Al Capone Theory of Sexual Harassment, which also makes your (very reasonable!) point – I share this article with everyone I reasonably can.

              Reply ↓
          4. Jennifer Strange*

            See, I don’t view this as reporting people to their employers in order to get them fired; I view it as informing employers of the actions of their employees so that they can make a conscientious choice. The video was already exploding, so it was likely they were going to see it at some point. They could have shrugged and said, “We don’t care”. The fact that they didn’t indicates that they didn’t agree with his actions.

            Reply ↓
          5. SnackAttack*

            I wish people would stop framing hate speech as “something you disagree with.” It’s super insulting that you think getting angry at someone’s driving skills in traffic is the same as getting angry because someone called a woman a super degrading word. What if he had called someone the N word? Would you say that was “just his opinion?”

            Also, FWIW, it’s highly unlikely that an employer would fire someone because a rando called them up and said he didn’t like how the employee drove. There’s a huge difference in seeing someone acting like a bigot on camera and hearing one random anecdote that can’t be proven. The latter is unlikely to get you fired.

            Reply ↓
    4. Myrin*

      i mean, we have people who behave BADLY in public, all around us all the time. should we record and fire them all? we would run out of employees…

      I realise you’re probably talking hyperbolically but I personally don’t encounter people who behave in such a way that firing them would be warranted on a regular basis (and I encounter a lot of people – I work in local government and take public transport).

      People behaving obnoxiously or boorishly? Absolutely, I’d be hard pressed to go a day without that in one form or another. But downright “bad” behaviour, whatever that may mean in context? Definitely not.

      Reply ↓
      1. PineappleColada*

        Yeah, I’m thinking the same thing. I’ve lived in 3 different parts of the US and I would say most of my interactions are quite positive to neutral, some occasionally negative. But BAD behavior? No, I really don’t think it’s that common.

        Reply ↓
      2. Michigander*

        Personally I don’t find myself surrounded by people yelling misogynistic comment in public all the time, but if I did then I’d probably agree that they should all be fired (if their companies wanted to).

        Reply ↓
      3. JB (not in Houston)*

        Yeah, it’s hard for me to imagine why anyone would have a problem with this *particular* guy getting fired for what he *actually* did unless they think what he did was not a big deal.

        It seems like whenever something like this happens, instead of discussing the actual situation, people want to imagine an entirely different situation and talk about whether the consequences in *this* case would be fair in that imaginary situation. But there’s no reason to start creating hypotheticals to worry about because this is a real situation where we know what he actually did, and we can discuss whether what he actually did deserves consequences. We don’t need to panic about whether it would be fair in your imaginary situation because it did not happen. We don’t have to do the “BUT WHAT IF SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT HAD HAPPENED” discussion. Let’s talk about THIS guy and whether him getting fired is fair. Don’t try to distract the discussion by focusing it on something you made up.

        Reply ↓
    5. MK*

      I don’t know where to live, but I personally don’t see people behave badly in public all around me all the time. Most people are perfectly capable of being polite, or at least inoffensive, and most of those who behave badly are rude and unpleasant, not abusive. So, no, I don’t believe we would run out of workers.

      Also, if you can’t see the difference between state oppression and facing the consequences of your actions, I don’t know what to tell you. You say “see a video”, as if that’s gossip or hearsay. People saw this man being aggressive and sexist, indisputably, and they brought it to the notice of his employer; you seem to think this is snitching, as though this was kindergarten and they owe him to not reveal his behaviour. His company decided to fire him because his behaviour gave them concerns.

      Reply ↓
    6. TerrorCotta*

      “People aren’t allowed to express political opinions that question an oppressive regime known for imprisoning all opponents” is WILDLY different from randomly spewing virulently hateful speech in a public arena, with full knowledge you’re abusing marginalized people on camera.

      I personally do *not* want to patronize companies that endorse that kind of behavior, if I were an employer I would not want that person representing me, and as an employee *I* shouldn’t have to WORK with people who are comfortable treating others like that.

      If you think people shouldn’t have wider consequences for hateful or bigoted attacks, you really need to think about whose livelihoods you are prioritizing.

      Reply ↓
      1. Jackalope*

        Your last paragraph really sums it up. This guy was being verbally abusive in an ongoing way for an extended period of time. He was making deliberate choices about how to behave towards a stranger that did nothing to him. And yet people are crawling out of the woodwork to say, “But who will think of the misogynists?” He’s lost his job. That’s not – or doesn’t have to be – a life-ruining event. People lose their jobs all the time and move on to work somewhere else. For that matter, we’ve had thousands of USAID employees and people associated with scientific research lose their jobs in the last few weeks for doing absolutely nothing other than being caught in the crosshairs of a political fight, to say nothing of plenty of people on the regular who lose their jobs for no reason other than the company has budget issues. But sure, the flaming misogynist who, again, spent hours yelling at and insulting a random stranger next to him, yeah, that’s the person whose life is ruined because he’s facing a consequence for his actions.

        Reply ↓
    7. Kella*

      I think we can both agree that there is an incredibly wide range of “bad behavior” in public and that not all actions are created equal. Someone cutting you in line is very different to someone assaulting you, for example.

      In this case, the company needs to consider the potential ramifications if they don’t fire him. If this man displayed even a fraction of the behavior he showed in the video at work toward female colleagues, those women would be harmed through no fault of their own, they’d have an incentive to leave the company and the company would be liable for a hostile workplace lawsuit. And as Alison explained, if blatant, aggressive misogyny is associated with a company for whom diversity, equity, and inclusion are some of their primary values, any clients they’ve acquired as a result of their DEI reputation would have a motivation to cut ties, and future clients would know that this is a company that doesn’t back up its stated values with aligned actions.

      And yes, misogynists should “self-censor” themselves. Even among family. No one deserves to be dehumanized on basis of their gender.

      Reply ↓
    8. Daria grace*

      You really think we’d run out of workers? Not sure what kind of events you’re hanging out at but I go to big public events and travel on public transport very regularly and I’m very rarely seeing people badly abuse others in public. Replacing a staff member is a super annoying, often expensive task, most employers are only gonna do that for seriously bad public behaviour.

      Frankly people inclined to abuse strangers SHOULD be self censoring that temptation. That’s kindergarten level maturity we can absolutely expect grownups to have mastered. If I was an employer I’d sure want to know if a current or prospective hire was incapable of not behaving in ways that would cause immense legal liability if repeated in the workplace.

      Reply ↓
    9. Ellis Bell*

      I think people are getting all levels of bad behaviour mixed up with each other, and that’s a mistake. There are wildly varying levels, from criminal behaviour and hate speech, to thoughtlessness and slightly less than professional behaviour. Look, I’m a teacher, so I know all about being expected to be my work self at all times and this is NOT that. This isn’t someone who was being unfairly surveilled in regards to unreasonable standards without any control over the situation. This isn’t just out of work context behaviour – it’s flatly unforgivable behaviour that has no place in any context.

      Reply ↓
      1. Resentful Oreos*

        When I think “fired unfairly” I always think of someone seeing a social media post of a teacher with a cocktail or at a bar and tattling, and the teacher gets fired. Now THAT is some unfair behavior on the part of the person reporting and the school. It’s not wrong for someone 21 or over to have a drink at a bar. It doesn’t mean you’re going to show up drunk for work.

        Reply ↓
    10. bamcheeks*

      we would run out of employees…

      Or people would stop behaving badly in public? It’s wild to me they that isn’t one of your options!

      Reply ↓
    11. Nodramalama*

      Stalin killed up to 1 million people in the Great Purge. So no, shaming misogynist, abusive language is not like being in the Soviet Union.

      Reply ↓
    12. Despachito*

      I am torn exactly the same as you, for the same reasons.

      Strangers seeing a video of another stranger and tracking him down to his employer, sound very scary. This man possibly deserved it, but the same principle can be used against anyone, and it is the principle that scares me.

      It seems tempting because sometimes bad people can get their just desserts but I find it extremely dangerous because it can so easily get out of hand.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dek*

        Was he really tracked down by strangers? Or is there a chance that folks who knew him, or even who worked with him, saw the video and reported it to HR?

        This isn’t even about “getting just desserts.” This is someone whose actions showed that they were a liability for their specific company.

        Reply ↓
      2. JB (not in Houston)*

        But can it “so easily get out of hand”? Would your boss fire you if you accidentally cut in front of someone in line? Mine wouldn’t. But I’d sure get fired if I did what this guy did, and I’d deserve it. The principle here is that you might get fired if you say *vile* things to someone in public, especially when those vile things *directly* contradict the mission of your employer. I’m fine with that principle.

        Reply ↓
        1. Resentful Oreos*

          If your boss fires you because someone videoed you cutting in line or flipping off another driver, they were probably looking for an excuse to fire you in the first place. OR it’s the kind of job where presenting a squeaky-clean image 24/7 is demanded. But under normal circumstances no.

          The man in question at the Super Bowl was behaving in a really *deliberately* misogynistic and nasty way, not merely thoughtless and ill-tempered.

          Reply ↓
    13. Jane Anonsten*

      No, I don’t see people shouting misogynist slurs all the time in public. I see people behaving impolitely (watching a video with sound way up in the waiting room, being terse with a cashier, etc) not shockingly-poor-judgement-harassing.

      Reply ↓
    14. Irish Teacher.*

      No, that is not what happened in the Soviet Union. There is no comparison between people lying about somebody committing treason in order to imprison or execute them and…firing somebody for something they did.

      It’s one thing to argue that people shouldn’t have made her employers aware of it, but it is not the same as reporting people in a dictatorship. The problem in the latter isn’t the reporting; it’s that the people being reported had done nothing wrong. There is a huge difference between reporting somebody like Anne Frank in Nazi Germany and reporting somebody to a reasonable authority for something they have genuinely done.

      You are also equating too much. Either we have to fire everybody who does anything wrong or we can’t fire anybody for anything outside the workplace. There are different levels of offence. Yes, everybody behaves badly sometimes but very few people behave like that. Most “bad behaviour” wouldn’t get people fired, at least not by reasonable bosses.

      Reply ↓
    15. Silver Robin*

      How familiar are you, with the good ol’ USSR? My family fled there and it was the focus of my undergraduate degree, to provide my context.

      What happened here is not at all like what the USSR was doing. There, an anonymous report from a random person to the police could get someone sent away to a gulag. There, the *government* was spying on people to find the least excuse to imprison them, and if they could not find an excuse, they fabricated some. You had to be careful not to waiver from the ever changing, mysteriously determined party line.

      Here, the man clearly did it. No fabrication. And he did something very clearly offensive by majority standards. No weird party line. His actions were very public. No anonymous report. He was fired by his employer. No government involvement. He was fired because his actions are in direct opposition to the focus of his company and can easily be seen to harm the company’s reputation in a reputation heavy industry. Again, no weird party line.

      Your straw man is ridiculous and though your hyperbole did not go unchallenged by others, I wanted it to be very clear how off this was.

      Reply ↓
    16. Dek*

      “isn’t this what happened in the soviet union, where eventually people were selfsencoring themselves even among family?”

      No. It’s not.

      And conversely, what’s been happening *HERE* is that people are so utterly opposed to self-censoring that they refuse to do it at all, anywhere. And what would maybe just be a bit of poison festers and grows. Because every day on the news we see evidence that you can say utterly heinous things and not only face no consequences, but be REWARDED for it.

      Also, look.

      I WISH my mother would self-censor around me. I really do. I don’t need her to send me transphobic articles or talk about how my horrible generation destroyed everything by embracing diversity etc etc. I *really* don’t need her saying racist things about China as just a matter of course.

      Reply ↓
    17. Allonge*

      Self-censoring is part of being in a society. Most of us have days when we swallow an inappropriate comment or five. This is a good thing, and has precisely nothing to do with the Soviet Union or any other dictatorial system persecuting people for their political views.

      Yelling abuse at others is not a part of self-expression we should encourage. If someone has so little self-control that they do this in public and continue to do so while being recorded, well… sometimes that will have adverse consequences beyond getting kicked out from an event. This guy can find a job in one of the thousands of places that don’t have DEI as their main focus.

      Reply ↓
    18. Temperance*

      People should censor themselves if their first thought is to use that kind of language to insult fans of the opposing football team.

      Reply ↓
    19. Jennifer Strange*

      If you’re comparing someone losing their job because they were needlessly harassing someone to what folks went through in the Soviet Union, you have already lost your argument.

      Reply ↓
    20. Generic Name*

      It makes me really sad that you think that the vast majority of people in the world (“we’d run out of employees”) behave badly when they think they can get away with it. And you think it’s “self-censoring” to…..not shout obscenities at a stranger??

      Reply ↓
    21. CommanderBanana*

      …we really don’t, and isn’t this what happened in the soviet union, where eventually people were selfsencoring themselves even among family? no it isn’t, and comparing this guy to victims of the Soviet Union’s reprehensible policies is pretty insulting to those people.

      Reply ↓
    22. Observer*

      isn’t this what happened in the soviet union, where eventually people were selfsencoring themselves even among family?

      Good grief!

      Is this serious, or is this trolling?

      1. This guy did not just “say something”. He behaved in an objectively atrocious manner.

      2. No one “snitched” on him about something he did in public! He was in a a*highly* public space where he *knew* people have cameras and record stuff, and he knew *specifically* that someone was recording.

      The comparison the the Soviets Union is appalling, ignorant and offensive. It’s also based an a version of events that has no relationship with reality.

      Reply ↓
    23. Sacred Ground*

      This is what has always happened through history. Say or do something disgraceful and live with the disgrace afterwards. Do you think there has EVER been a time or place, anywhere or any time, when this wasn’t true?
      The only recent change is that gross misogyny is considered disgraceful. And it has never been acceptable to hurl disgusting insults at a stranger in public.

      Reply ↓
    24. Artemesia*

      If they were rude to the check out clerk, or cranky to the waiter — I agree with you. We are have our moments. This is different. This is a misogynistic attack on another person. This kind of over the top verbal assault on someone that is race, ability or gender based is not business as usual. People like this should suffer full consequences. They now run the government and we will all be suffering consequences.

      Reply ↓
    26. Starbuck*

      How many people are you around in public that are yelling bigoted slurs?? For me the answer is almost always zero, can’t even remember the last time it happened. I’ve honestly never felt the need to self-censor myself in public when people are filming.

      And if you ARE around people who are constantly behaving badly, still, even after over a decade of this kind of stuff getting filmed and having consequences… please tell me when I can expect the self-censoring to start already!!

      Reply ↓
    27. TMarin*

      Thanks for your comment. I agree. For a long time we have been becoming like Stalinist Russia, where neighbors would spy on neighbors, and children would spy on parents, and report them to the secret police (or in our case “the populace”). Social media has gone way beyond “out of control”.

      Reply ↓
  10. LifebeforeCorona*

    LW1. There’s a big difference between “Boo, your team is terrible” and “You’re an ugly dumb c*nt” This guy took the difference and ran with it. It happened to be at a football game but the guy could have easily said to it someone at the grocery store who got the last carton of eggs. The misogynist insult came out very easily.

    Reply ↓
    1. Despachito*

      If he is like that:

      – how likely is it that it does not shine through at work?
      – if he is not an expert in masking at work, how come that the employer only fires him out of fear of being publicly shamed because of him, not because he behaves atrociously to his coworkers ?

      Reply ↓
      1. Jennifer Strange*

        A) He could be very good at hiding this at work. Some folks are!
        B) We don’t know that the employer only fired him out of fear of being publicly shamed.

        Reply ↓
  11. Michigander*

    The first letter makes me think of all the people who say things like “Whatever happened to free speech?” whenever there are consequences for saying something offensive. Free speech just means you can’t be arrested for your opinions. It doesn’t meant that you can say whatever you want and no one is allowed to judge you on it.

    Reply ↓
  12. Spooz*

    #1: I think these internet mobs leave the company stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    I tend to come down on the side that your private life is your private life and it shouldn’t have an impact on your work life. I mean, what if it was a right wing mob who found out someone was a controversial LGBT advocate and they got fired for that? Would that be OK? I often find asking “but what if it happened to my “in group”?” a helpful question to ask – turning the tables, as it were.

    Yes, maybe the guy is an awful misogynist who can’t work with women. Well, maybe he can keep a lid on his private feelings at work and behave professionally. If he can’t, I would expect to see evidence of it at work which could be dealt with accordingly.

    But now that he’s been filmed and publicised, his private life (OK, not very private at a football match, but his non-work life) is now a matter of public comment. The company is involved in a scandal. If they fire him, they’re being unfair. If they don’t fire him, they’re “that misogynistic company”. Unfortunately I think the sensible thing to do is so fire him in order to make a point.

    But ideally this never would have got back to the company in the first place. It’s nothing to do with them. We hear all the time on this blog about how work should respect your private life – such as not prying into medical information or family situations. Unfortunately it was shoved right in their face and they have to react.

    Again, think of something that you have done that you would rather not get back to your workplace. It doesn’t have to be awful – maybe you bitched about your boss at a dinner party. Then your friend films it and it goes viral and you get hauled up in front of said boss and fired. Does that seem fair? I do, even though the behaviour here is bad, think that this is a comparable situation.

    Reply ↓
    1. bamcheeks*

      I often find asking “but what if it happened to my “in group”?” a helpful question to ask – turning the tables, as it were

      I think the thing about this is that is DOES happen. Whenever people are like, “But what if an trans person, or a Black person?” — like, you think people DON’T get fired from jobs or experience other professional consequences because they were filmed at a Pride event or spoke at a protest? That people aren’t making the decision not to publicly support things they believe in or take unpopular political stands because they are worried that it would impact them at work? It’s just usually not getting anything like the same public profile because the people who make editorial decisions in the media aren’t hearing about it and thinking, “wow, that could be me or my friends!”

      This isn’t so much “this isn’t fair because it would be awful if it was the other way around” as “we should protect people who belong to majoritised and privileged groups”.

      Reply ↓
      1. Spooz*

        I mean… yeah? That’s the point I was trying to make. It happens the other way around and is rightly criticised when it does. I think therefore we should also criticise this instance. As my father used to say, its six of one and half a dozen of the other.

        I don’t think this guy should suffer no consequences. But appropriate consequences exist (an arrest for hate speech) and I think that trying to impose extra societal consequences is wrong.

        Reply ↓
        1. bamcheeks*

          is rightly criticised when it does

          I don’t think it is. I think it mostly happens under the radar, or it’s fudged and justified as “poor performance”, or it’s technically illegal but the only way to fight back is to go to employment tribunal, etc etc, and people just lose their jobs or lose opportunities without any recourse or any fuss. People talk about *the idea* of it as a terrible thing, but don’t have any clue how frequently things like that happen because it doesn’t go viral or get media attention.

          Reply ↓
        2. Not A Manager*

          I don’t think you can be arrested for “hate speech” unless it’s inciting violence. Saying hateful things isn’t a crime.

          Reply ↓
        3. hbc*

          I disagree that it’s criticized. If you work for an anti-abortion group and someone sees you fundraising for Planned Parenthood, the reaction when you get fired is basically “What did you expect?”

          Reply ↓
        5. Colette*

          It’s highly unlikely this would qualify as hate speech.

          But there is a difference between someone living their life as a member of the LGBTQ+ community or as a person of colour – which affects no one else – and someone actively abusing someone different than them, in public, on camera.

          And I really doubt that someone who insults and abuses a woman for cheering for a different sports team will provide a woman who works for him with equal work opportunities, or support promoting her, or otherwise treat her fairly.

          Reply ↓
        6. Dek*

          Okay, first of all, it’s absolutely bonkers that you think that being arrested for hate speech wouldn’t have gotten him fired from his specific job. No one would’ve even needed to let his employer know about that–it would’ve just happened.

          Secondly, “six of one, half a dozen of the other” doesn’t make sense in that context. You might be thinking of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

          Thirdly, even THAT doesn’t really make sense in this context, because being fired for going to a protest or a pride parade isn’t the same as being fired (again, from a job specifically about supporting and promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace) for spouting verbal abuse and bigotry.

          And frankly, it’s REALLY weird to equate the two.

          One is something causing and perpetuating harm. The other isn’t.

          Reply ↓
        7. Susannah*

          In the US, you cannot get arrested for hate speech. It only is a factor if you are violating someone’s civil rights. Otherwise – one’s spoken hate is First Amendment protected.

          Reply ↓
          1. Dek*

            That too.

            It seems really wild to me that they’re advocating that someone be *arrested* and *charged with a criminal offense* (which doesn’t exist in the US) as a More Reasonable punishment for their bad actions (as if it wouldn’t lead to them being let go as well).

            It makes it feel a bit in bad faith. Like, “Well, if it’s illegal, then they should be punished by the law, but if it’s not THAT bad, then…nothing?”

            Reply ↓
        8. CatDude*

          “It happens the other way around and is rightly criticised when it does. I think therefore we should also criticise this instance.”

          Why? What this fan did was wrong. Protesting or being at a Pride event are not wrong. There is absolutely not equivalence.

          So you can absolutely criticize someone being fired because they were, say, at a Pride event, while supporting firing a misogynist like this guy.

          Reply ↓
        9. CommanderBanana*

          Please stop equating screaming insults into someone’s face on camera with going to a Pride event, because intentionally or not, that’s what you’re doing.

          Reply ↓
        10. Observer*

          That’s the point I was trying to make. It happens the other way around and is rightly criticised when it does.

          But the thing is that the fact that it’s “the other way around” *matters*. Because in these scenarios people are being penalized for who they are or for minor behavior.

          It’s just bizarre to me that people can’t seem to see the fundamental qualitative difference between identity / minor misbehavior on the one hand and grossly problematic behavior on the other.

          But appropriate consequences exist (an arrest for hate speech)

          Not in the US. Also the idea that there should never be “social consequences” for behavior is kind of delusional. Most societies would fall apart if the only consequences for misbehavior were legal. Either that, or the government would have to be *far* more intrusive and draconian, with *far* less room for nuance.

          Reply ↓
      2. Dek*

        “But ideally this never would have got back to the company in the first place.”

        That’s also a pretty bonkers claim.

        It’s a massively televised event.

        Reply ↓
    2. Michigander*

      I feel like there are some false equivalencies here. Complaining about your boss is not the same thing as screaming hateful, misogynistic insults at a stranger. One is something that most people do at some point in their life, and one is something that most people do not. Unless you’re saying misogynistic or racist things about your boss at that dinner party, it’s not the same.

      Reply ↓
    3. Emmy Noether*

      While I think “what if it happened to my in-group” is a good test, the result in this case is that it’s not the same. It’s the old “do we have to tolerate the intolerant?” problem. Hate speech and speech advocating for minorities are not the same! It’s ok for one to have consequences that the other doesn’t!

      And the form also matters. If someone whose opinions I agreed with used slurs and personal insults (or violence), I’d be fine with there being consequences.

      Reply ↓
      1. Grizabella the Glamour Cat*

        Preach!

        Personally, I find it appalling that so many people here seem to think that harassing a woman and calling her an ugly c*nt because she was rooting for the “wrong” team = e pressing a difference of opinion. No, it’s not. Not even close.

        I’ve seen so many straw men in these replies that I feel like I’m at a scarecrow convention!

        Reply ↓
      2. Irish Teacher.*

        Yes, in this case, it’s more like saying “but if it’s OK to take the car keys from a friend who is drunk, isn’t it equally OK to take the car keys from a friend who is sober and refuse to let them drive until they get drunk?” It’s not because drinking when drunk is harmful and driving while sober is not. Equally, shouting abuse at somebody is harmful. Advocating for LGBTQ rights is not.

        A more equivalent “what if it were my in-group?” would be something like “what if they were shouting abuse at a group I disagree with?” Like if you are a Christian, imagine they were shouting “you’re going to hell” at an atheist or if you are an atheist, imagine they were shouting about “invisible sky daddies” at a Christian.

        Those aren’t great examples as they are nowhere near as offensive, but I have no intention of making any suggestions that are.

        Reply ↓
    4. MsM*

      So I had a friend in grad school who said some very stupid, admittedly not nice things online. Some of the people hurt by their comments tracked them down and demanded they get fired/expelled. Their boss and the school’s reaction was basically “meh, it’ll blow over.” And it did.

      Internet mobs are intense, but they tend to have a very short attention span. If your company thinks it’s a problem, then either you’ve done something they recognize isn’t going to go away that easily, or they never had your back to begin with.

      Reply ↓
    5. Elk*

      It’s a little frustrating to see advocating for one’s own marginalized identity (an LGBTQ+ activist) being equated with perpetuating existing structures of inequity and bias (misogynistic jerk). Those two things aren’t the same and it’s entirely reasonable for a company, or us as a society, to differentiate. Which doesn’t even get into the difference in tone—most activists aren’t out here being nasty and rude just for the sake of being unpleasant. It’s not a reasonable equivalence, and saying it is legitimizes the people who want to go on being hateful and prejudiced in fairly unhelpful ways.

      Reply ↓
    6. Ellis Bell*

      I think you’re forgetting that this was a very public situation, he knew it was a very public situation and he didn’t care that the people he worked for might see it or be concerned by it. He thought people would give him a pass, and he thought he was above being civil to a woman. I’ve never met anyone from a vulnerable group like, LGBT people who work in a right wing environment who were that cavalier about offending their employer. Nobody did this to him but himself.

      Reply ↓
    7. Irish Teacher.*

      Again, think of something that you have done that you would rather not get back to your workplace. It doesn’t have to be awful – maybe you bitched about your boss at a dinner party. Then your friend films it and it goes viral and you get hauled up in front of said boss and fired.
      Honestly, I can’t think of anything I have done that would get me fired if my boss found out about it. Are there things I’d be embarrassed to have my boss see? Sure. But you could send my boss a video of literally anything I did in my life and I am pretty sure that the worst that would happen is that he’d think less of me. There’s nothing he would care about enough to haul me up in front of him, let alone fire me, because the bar for that is pretty high.

      And this isn’t that I am an angelic person. I can be impatient and have a temper and can be selfish and thoughtless but there is nothing near the bar for firing. I’d imagine there wouldn’t be for most people.

      I agree “if it happened to my in-group” is a valid question but it has to be comparative. In this case, the way to ask that question would be “if it were part of a majority group I belong to abusing a different minority group,” not “if it were somebody behaving completely reasonably and being targeted by a racist or homophobic or sexist boss” because then you aren’t talking about “what if it happened to my in-group?” You are talking “but what if the situation was completely different than it really is?”

      It would be equally bad if somebody were fired for advocating LGBTQ rights within the workplace as it would be if they were fired because somebody reported them for doing it elsewhere. The problem there is not “your private life is your private life” but that “it should not be allowed to fire people for advocating for basic human rights”. Whereas it would be almost required to fire somebody for doing this within the workplace. So those two things are not comparative.

      Nor is it about in-groups. The difference between those two things isn’t what group each person belongs to. It’s that one was fired for doing something wrong and the other would be being fired when they had done nothing wrong.

      You can’t really say “but what if they were fired for doing something that wasn’t wrong?” and try and compare it to this, because my objection there would be to them being fired unjustly, not to being reported.

      Reply ↓
      1. Great Frogs of Literature*

        Yeah, somebody could give my boss an itemized description of arguably the worst thing I’ve done in the past ten years, and he’d shrug and go, “Yeah, you were a little tactless, but I can see why you were annoyed at her,” and there wouldn’t even be a conversation about it. (And that’s not to say that things I did eleven years ago would be worth firing me over, I’m just not sure what the earlier worst thing would be.)

        Reply ↓
    8. boof*

      If it was someone in my in group was caught/recorded verbally abusing someone in my “I don’t like them so much” group, I’d still think they potentially should be disciplined/fired, depending on the level of the abuse, their actual job (ie, customer facing?), etc.

      Reply ↓
    10. Silver Robin*

      Is the stuff my in group is saying directly counter to the mission of the organization that work for? Then yeah, no surprise they get fired.

      My in group: if a synagogue got a viral video of one of their non-Jewishnemployees proselytizing in their time off, it would make sense to fire them. (Yes, synagogues have non-Jewish employees sometimes.)

      My out group: If the NRA gets a viral video where one of their employees is advocating publicly for guns to be outlawed, that employee is probably getting fired.

      If this guy wanted to keep his job at the DEI consulting firm, he should have refrained from actions that show him as a raging misogynist.

      Also, your example was people acting in accordance to a deeply held belief/core political value. So the examples I gave were of similar consequence. However, the big expectation here is for him to not go on a vile tirade against a woman cheering for an opposing team. Is that really so core to his identity? If it is…then maybe these are the consequences he gets for breaking the “do not be an unmitigated ass” part of the social contract; which means the social contract where we try to be reasonable about things goes away.

      Reply ↓
      1. Anontoday*

        A synagogue with a non-Jewish employee wouldn’t have reason to fire them for (say) evangelizing for their own non-Jewish religion (unless it’s an anti-Jewish Christian sect or something. But just being say Christian or Muslim and advocating for their own faith? No.) (Source: I’m involved with some interreligious groups including a synagogue that has non-Jewish employees.)

        They would IMO be *well* within their rights to fire someone who attended a white supremacist rally and had a big sign advocating for making non-Christian religions illegal. (That’s a fictional example.) Or if they found out an employee was sending hate messages to a Jewish organization, or harassing another religious group.

        Reply ↓
        1. HannahS*

          Proselytizing is not the same as advocating for your religion. If a Christian employee of a Jewish organization was spending their spare time trying to convert Jewish community members to Christianity, that would be an entirely valid reason to fire them from working at a synagogue.

          Reply ↓
    11. metadata minion*

      Your comparison truly isn’t equivalent. I think that if a queer person were acting abusively, they should also face consequences! Your example about someone complaining about their boss has the same problem — 1, that actually would be in private rather than at a major televised sporting event, and your friend would be a bizarre sort of jerk to secretly film you; and 2, unless you’re making death threats against your boss or something, complaining about them isn’t hurting anyone.

      Yelling slurs at someone *is hurting them* by any reasonable definition. There are going to be edge cases, sure, but “are you harming other people by your actions” is I think a very reasonable line to draw and doesn’t have to lead to a slippery slope of “but what if other people are upset by your existence”.

      Reply ↓
    12. Dek*

      ” I often find asking “but what if it happened to my “in group”?” a helpful question to ask – turning the tables, as it were.”

      This just makes me think of all the folks who responded to leftists wanting trump investigated for Epstein stuff et al with “ok, well, Clinton was friends with him too. You want use to investigate Clinton??” Like…YES?

      What if WHAT happened to my “in group?” “It” is such a vague thing.

      Because the “it” that happened here was: A person was fired from a job with a DEI mission because they spewed vile and bigoted abuse at a complete stranger, in a very public space, because she supported a different sports team.

      And if someone from my “in group” did something similar? Then…yeah, I mean it doesn’t matter if they’re in my “in group.” If they start shouting bigoted abuse and face consequences for that…good? People should have consequences for being open and abusive bigots.

      Reply ↓
      2. CommanderBanana*

        Right? Like, cool that you think you’re doing a neat little rhetorical trick, but all you’re doing is equating this guy’s behavior with things like…going to a Pride event? You don’t have to set up some mythical, completely different scenario as part of some thought exercise when things like this happen, and you definitely don’t need to act like this (again, screaming insults into someone’s face on camera) is somehow equivalent to going to a Pride parade.

        An employer firing you for going to a Pride parade would be wrong.

        Reply ↓
    13. Totally Minnie*

      The problem with trying to flip this to “what if a right wing mob tried to do this to an LGBTQ+ person” is that even the most prominent advocates for the LGBTQ+ community are not spewing verbal abuse at strangers they disagree with in public in the way that the man in this story did. That man wasn’t fired because of his bigoted *beliefs*, he was fired for his bigoted *behaviors*. There’s really not an analogue for how an LGBTQ+ person could treat a straight person. That level of abuse just by and large does not happen.

      Reply ↓
    14. Cookie Monster*

      “We hear all the time on this blog about how work should respect your private life – such as not prying into medical information or family situations. Unfortunately it was shoved right in their face and they have to react.”

      This is nothing like medical information.

      If I’m vocally, aggressively pro-LGBT then I probably shouldn’t choose to work for a publicly anti-LGBT company. This guy chose to work at a company that publicly touted its DE&I values, and then he CHOSE to yell awful things to a woman while he knew he was being recorded.

      This wasn’t private information. This wasn’t a private setting. This wasn’t one slip of the tongue that he then apologized for. (In fact, he defended his actions later.)

      Reply ↓
    15. Jennifer Strange*

      But ideally this never would have got back to the company in the first place.

      Yes, because ideally he wouldn’t have acted that way in the first place. But he did, they saw it, and they acted appropriately. All of it still comes back to him.

      Reply ↓
    16. Elbe*

      I think that the way that you’re framing this is not 100% accurate.

      When some people see someone fired for bad behavior, they tend to assume that the motive for the firing was to harm this person as a form of punishment. They think of it like retaliation or some form of vigilante justice.

      But the truth is that most of the firings are about protecting other people. Protecting the business’s reputation, its clients, its other employees. Someone who feels entitled to behave this way cannot be trusted to, say, fairly assess the performance of female employees or do their best work for female-focused clients. And female coworkers and customers should not be forced to work closely with someone they know is capable of this level of bad behavior.

      And when you look at it this way, it’s clear why this scenario is so different than your example of LGBTQ+. No one is being harmed because two men want to be in a relationship or because someone wants to use different pronouns. There’s no such thing as protecting people from something that doesn’t negatively affect them in any way.

      Reply ↓
    18. Hell in a Handbasket*

      Do you really think that this is comparable to bitching about your boss? Wow.

      “I often find asking “but what if it happened to my “in group”?” OK, so to turn the tables I’m imagining this person works for, say, an evangelical church and was caught spewing vile, as-offensive-as-possible insults at Christians. Do they deserve to be fired? Absolutely.

      Reply ↓
    19. Kay*

      Well – if you spent a few hours of the dinner party dropping comments about your boss being an ugly C unextTuesday into your friends video feed that they said they were uploading to TikTok, then yeah, you should expect some problems. If you didn’t, well, what does that say about your judgement? About on par with your comments? Yeah – I can understand wanting to get out of any consequences of your actions there, but I sure as heck should expect them and I would absolutely be worried my dumb self just ran my mouth out of a job.

      Like everyone else has said – there really is no comparison here and lets not twist ourselves into pretzels in order to protect misogynists from their bad behavior.

      Reply ↓
    20. False equivalents*

      These things are not the same.
      First, it wasn’t bitching about somebody, those were aggressive misogynistic slurs directly into the face of another person. This was actively intended to hurt another person, not a slip of words. Second, this behaviour is directly opposing the mission of the company, thus making the employee a business risk.
      A more suitable comparison would be, say, somebody working at an animal shelter seen actively hurting animals or somebody working in sex education boasting about unprotected intercourse.

      Reply ↓
  13. Stained Glass Cannon*

    To LW1’s concerns, I actually think that *not* imposing workplace consequences can lead to a slippery slope: how bad must the behavior outside the workplace become before an employer ceases to tolerate it?

    I’ll share an example that happened near me: someone posted on a social media platform, using their real name and photo and profile with all their personal details, about how much they hate non-cishet people and how they enjoy harassing such people if they run across them in public. That subsequently evolved into posting publicly about how they wanted to take their military-issue rifle to a rally in support of the LGBTQIA community and gun down supporters. Not related to work. Not anywhere near the workplace.

    People who saw that last post were horrified and doxxed the perpetrator, demanding that they be fired from their job. A lot happened after that which I won’t go into detail about, but the pertinent questions here are: If those consequences had come after the first round of hate posts, would it have stopped the threat of violence? If the consequences hadn’t come at all, would the person have really done what they threatened? Of course the stakes here are hugely different from what LW1 describes, but it absolutely shows how social media behavior can lead down a terrible slope, and how an employer could have to make a call in a hurry when they find out about something like this.

    Reply ↓
  14. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

    1. I’d have fired him too. Even with the sheer amount of paperwork it would involve. No way am I am having hateful people on staff.

    When you allow people who publicly hurl hate speech around into your house/firm/table there’s a knock on effect that you’ve just made it very unsafe for everyone else who isn’t them.

    We cannot tolerate the intolerant. If you’re kind to the cruel then you’re being cruel to the kind.

    So I’m fine with kicking bigots out of their jobs.

    Reply ↓
  15. Worried*

    To the new mother LW concerned about keeping her federal contracting job I was in a situation similar to yours several years ago after the government made drastic reductions in their Medicare reimbursements towards therapy providers and was part of the 30% who survived layoffs in my department. Like you, I had skills that I wasn’t currently using but could be utilized to help my employer as it sought out alternative contracts. Talk to your employer today and best of luck. The same to all who are affected by the events of the last three weeks. You are the canaries in the coal mine. Most if not all of us will be affected in some way eventually.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      The last time I wanted a promotion and realized my boss wouldn’t understand that I was credentialed for it, I printed out an updated copy of my resume (with some things she probably hadn’t seen, since I had tailored it to this job when I applied) and gave it to her. I think she took it with her into a meeting with the higher-ups. So OP, maybe you can create an updated resume that shows all the skills and experience you could bring to other roles, ask for time to discuss with your boss, and leave it with her.

      Reply ↓
      1. LW5*

        Thanks for this idea – I was just updating my resume and I have de-emphasized a lot of the non-research work in the interest of keeping it to a page, but I could probably grab an older copy from before this role, update that and have it in hand.

        Reply ↓
        1. AnonAnon*

          We recently went through a company acquisition and were asked by our existing management to put our resume on a slide — highlighting our best accomplishments so they could take this slide and “sell” us as needed to the new company.

          Definitely update your resume, but maybe have an “elevator speech” version as well.

          Best of luck!! My partner is in the same boat and will be losing his job in a few weeks.

          Reply ↓
          1. Lady Lessa*

            But, please be careful if it gets you into the age discrimination area. The last I read it was when the applicant was in their 50’s.

            Reply ↓
  16. TeaCoziesRUs*

    Wouldn’t LW3 be protected as a whistle-blower? She reported a star after tolerating repeated bullying, now she’s getting the well-papered shove out the door?? Something’s not right in Denmark…

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      It’s worth checking into. Bullying isn’t really a protected thing in my workplace but is a big deal in public workplaces I think, particularly outside the US. And it *was* eight months ago. OP, read the employee handbook and see if there’s anything you can hang a hat on, the word you’re looking for might be “retaliation” – but, in an at-will state, I doubt it will get you much TBH. It’s certainly worth asking your boss, “am I being targeted because I complained about Cersei?” Maybe they’ll give you some severance or something if they realize this is where your mind is.

      Reply ↓
    2. Aggretsuko*

      From what I’ve heard, you aren’t protected. It’s one thing to openly say, “we fired her for whistleblowing,” it’s another to say you fired her for poor performance. Which they can absolutely do, and now are trying to do. There are a million ways to fire someone without citing something that you’re not supposed to cite in doing it. I took an online class with a whistleblower who openly said it ruined her life/career to do it, and odds are high that you’ll get harmed more than the perpetrator.

      The thing I learned from being driven out of my job was if they want you gone, THEY WILL MAKE SURE YOU ARE GONE. Even if you can’t get another job, you need to look for another job, because once you’re targeted, you’re going to lose your job one way or another. (One book on bullying I read specifically said that people who can’t easily get another job are who get targeted.) They can make up a long list of ways you are failing–I gotten written up for stupid things–and then can you.

      Reply ↓
    3. ferrina*

      LW probably isn’t protected. “Bullying” is really hard to define, and I don’t think you’re protected just because someone treats you badly (it has to involve a pattern of treating you badly because of a protected class, like gender, race, religion, country of origin, or if you are over 45).

      I absolutely think that LW’s current treatment is connected to their earlier complaint about the bully-star. I think LW should keep their head down and play nice with the boss and the star, and work on getting out of there. This is not a good organization for LW. LW is not going to win by playing by the rules, or convince anyone based on logic. This is about egos and emotions (which is a terrible way to run a business). Soothe the egos, make them think you’ll play ball. A commentor in an earlier thread wanted LW to push for the follow-up meeting- I wouldn’t do that. I would try to make myself un-threatening to Boss and Bully-star and wait for the moment to pass and for them to pick a new target. And ramp up that job search in a big way.

      Reply ↓
  17. Student*

    Yelling slurs on TV is telling everyone that you hate the group you are yelling slurs about. It’s not an insult toward an individual, it’s an insult to group.

    Therefore, the consequences are larger han an insult toward an individual would be. Yelling slurs is a problem in all aspects of life, including work, because everyone in the group is insulted, not just the person being screamed at.

    In this case, this guy’s insults hit women he works with and women clients, so yes, it does impact his work. And so yes, a workplace penalty is fair.

    This guy needs to learn how to live in society if he wants the benefits of living in society, and it’s going to take some harsh consequences before he gets there.

    Reply ↓
  18. pally*

    For #1: Do we know that the video or the online call for job termination were the reasons for management firing this guy? Correlation isn’t always causation.

    Maybe management were already moving towards job termination due solely to job performance (i.e., he was a jerk at work). And it is coincidental that the ex-employee’s boorish behavior was caught on camera.

    Reply ↓
  19. boof*

    LW1 – while I think to a certain extent we are all flawed humans and the bad things we do don’t negate the good things we do, and there’s some divide around our “work selves” and our “non work selves” – I do think egregious behavior that crosses those lines (ie, reaches bosses attention) is worth considering by said bosses. If they agree it’s too inconsistent with their profession that’s what it is. Plenty of other ways this can play out ie many people are required not to “disgrace the brand”, leak trade secrets, etc. Sometimes it’s stupid ie a teacher *gasp* goes to the beach or drinks alcohol in their time off, and the employer really ought to defend their right to do so, but sometimes it’s so at odds with what you want your employees known for it’s hard to salvage.

    Reply ↓
  20. bamcheeks*

    I am always kind of fascinated when discussions like Letter 1 come up how easy people find it to empathise with and get concerned about “person who is fired from middle-class professional role because of egregious behaviour on social media”. And I don’t think it’s a “people secretly think it wasn’t so egregious” thing: it’s often people who 100% agree and believe it was egregious, but also believe that being white, middle-class and professional is supposed to ensure a level of insulation from the consequences of egregious behaviour.

    People get fired for absolutely shitty reasons all the time: people lose their jobs because they got pulled over and arrested for minor (or non-existent) driving offences; because of ill-health; because they spoke up against dangerous or unethical or discriminatory behaviours; because they were late or couldn’t make a shift because their transport or their childcare fell through. And it’s just as potentially life-ruining and disastrous as “guy who works as a business analyst on a misogynist rant”. But it’s less “relatable” to the people who make stuff go viral or decide the media new cycle because, you know, that kind of precarity and insecurity is supposed to be normal for those kind of people in those kind of jobs and those kind of communities. But once you’re middle-class, you’re supposed to keep that privilege and security and it’s a shocking and extraordinary and deeply worrying thing if it appears that might not be the case.

    I mean, if you’re defending this guy on the basis that nobody should lose their income without some level of due process and recourse, I am right there with you. But when it looks more like, “a business analyst on $200k shouldn’t lose his $200k business analyst job just for threatening a woman in public on camera! that kind of insecurity is for the other kind of people!”, not so much.

    Reply ↓
    1. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

      Oh now I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here.

      When you’ve lived a life of privilege you don’t have to worry about being fired for your race/gender/disabilities/religion etc. And I’ve seen enough entitled people pass through my life to know that when their downfall hits it generally results in disproportionate reactions. Sometimes even violence.

      When you’ve been shat on by society day after day you tend to be VERY careful about what you say and do and there’s always that fear that you’ll be treated badly. But as the less privileged we’re expected to just shut up and deal with it.

      I can’t identify with guys like that at all – I cannot imagine spewing hate (even in my worst days I never hurled slurs at people) and expecting to not see consequences.

      Reply ↓
    2. Falling Diphthong*

      I think this is a very reasonable point, about who is supposed to experience their security as precarious and who is not.

      Reply ↓
    3. Emmy Noether*

      bamcheeks, I just want to say, you’ve made a lot of excellent and thought-provoking posts today (as you often do), but this one I’m going to sit with for a bit in particular. It’s an angle I hadn’t considered before.

      Reply ↓
    5. Llama Turner*

      NAILED IT. You said it perfectly: In essence, those objecting to “person [being] fired from middle-class professional role because of egregious behaviour on social media” are being influenced, however subconsciously, by their own privilege.

      Reply ↓
    6. Ms. Eleanous*

      All of those no-due-process-for-firing examples are Wrong.

      I have no sympathy for the fired guy, though.

      One thing about professional jobs, though, your employer is likely to demand a level of professionalism in your outside activities.
      A blue collar worker probably – I can only guess- not be fired for being a jerk off-site. (and they have unions to protect them – plug for unions)

      Btw, WHYY – the Philadelphia NPR — tried to fire an employee
      for his side gig comedy routine which included some non-woke jokes. SAG-AFTRA lawyers took them to court..( and won).

      Reply ↓
    7. Qwerty*

      I am worried about the precedent we set with the internet mobs. The internet tide has turned to be MAGA orientated and there have been a shocking number of changes in the US gov and major companies in the last month. I do not want someone losing their job for doing things in non-work hours that violates the values of the powerful. Dressing in drag, going to DEI related protests, participating in Pride events – these are all things that could quickly put someone on chopping block. Those are the people I want to protect, rather than someone being awful in a Target.

      So I have a high bar – though the example in this letter does clear. His job in DEI is what makes it reasonable. If he’d been a paper pusher in a giant corporation it would be different. I find it more in line with someone being filmed bashing their company’s product, since DEI improvements is apparently the product they sell.

      I’ve had people come for my job over petty non-work things, so I don’t trust the internet mob. One of this was a disagreement over who won a game in college. Other times it is a way to silence minorities who start getting invovled in the community or public speaking. Employers don’t want to deal with negativity or risk their bottom line, so its easy to just get rid of the person being complained about. I want strong workplace protections for marginalized people, which means I have to support those protections for everyone.

      Reply ↓
      1. Kay*

        You don’t have to support workplace protections for people who abuse others in public in order to support workplace protections for marginalized people. Those are two very different things and we shouldn’t treat them as the same.

        Reply ↓
        1. bamcheeks*

          I don’t agree, actually. When it’s easy to fire someone with no recourse, the bar to prove that the firing was actually because of a protected characteristic is *very* high. When every firing requires documented evidence, it is *much* harder for an employer to disguise

          Marginalised workers are much better protected by strong workers’ rights, tenants’ rights, citizens’ rights etc than by rights which depend on them proving their status as members of a protected minority *and* that the employer knew about their protected status, *and* that the decision was made on illegal grounds.

          Reply ↓
    8. CommanderBanana*

      ^^ This. This is the latest in a long string of letters to Alison from writers that are so ~concerned~ about (white, middle-class and professional) people experiencing the consequences of their actions.

      Why are these the people and circumstances that these writers are so concerned about? Is it because you think one day you might be unable to resist screaming slurs into someone’s face and you’re worried about what will happen when your inside thoughts become your outside thoughts and someone gets it on camera?

      Reply ↓
    9. CatDude*

      This is an excellent point. This kind of ‘concern’ is indicative of a place of privilege, and fear that that privilege may not protect them from consequences of their actions as it often does.

      Reply ↓
    10. Hey there*

      PA-REACH! Where is the sympathy for the VICTIMS in these situations?! No one even cares, too busy worrying about a completely toxic, unhinged psychopath having a job. Guess what they fire and layoff all kinds of NICE people every damn day and yall worrying about this POS. It truly is incredible, smh

      Reply ↓
    11. Ellis Bell*

      That’s why I don’t even think the people most worried about this stuff are even concerned about people being able to pay the bills. If you took one guy who got fired after a public shaming, but who got a second job really quickly and put him next to a guy who lost his job because he had no childcare one day, and he can’t get another job easily… some objectors to “cancel culture” will still say the guy who was publicly shamed is the worse off because they think his entire identity is now forever cancelled. Public shame is serious stuff of course, but when it’s just accurately describing what someone went out of their way to do publicly, you have to wonder if the problem is actually a lack of shame. But apparently other people aren’t allowed to notice the harm someone is doing, even if they’re loud, hostile, obnoxious and literally doing everything possible to prompt an adverse reaction. It’s really awful to notice that, or object to that, is it? It’s like that Margaret Atwood quote “Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.” Privileged people aren’t actually afraid of the worst case scenario, but much lesser outcomes get talked about as though they are the worst case scenario.

      Reply ↓
  21. Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate*

    So if the virality of someone’s behavior affects how important it is for their employer to fire them over it, what does that imply for people posting or reposting a story? Setting aside this particular example, there are a lot of things a person could do where we would merely shake our heads and say tsk tsk if we saw it in person, but which might produce so much negative publicity for the employer if it went viral that the person might get fired. Does that imply that you should only publicize stories if you think the person should get fired for their behavior? And is a social norm of “we will create a media firestorm around things we don’t like” a wise idea, given that there are a lot of people who dislike things that the commenters here are fans of?

    Reply ↓
    1. different seudonym*

      You’re basically asking “what if people have power that doesn’t come from traditional institutions?” And you’re heavily implying that any such exercise of power will necessarily be misguided or evil, though you do not have any serious evidence of such. That’s a reactionary argument.

      Reply ↓
      1. Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate*

        General opinion appears to be it’s good for people to get fired for doing bad things and it’s bad for people to get fired for doing good things. Unfortunately, there is disagreement (not so much here, but in general) about what’s good and what’s bad. It seems like the options are either embracing some set of value-neutral social norms about expression or an increasingly brutal culture war between differing visions of good and bad.

        Reply ↓
        1. Colette*

          As far as I’m concerned, it’s pretty simple.

          – Is the behaviour harmful to others?
          – Does it or is it likely to affect how the person behaves at work?
          – If the behaviour happens at work, will it harm other employees/clients or open the company up to legal or financial problems?

          “Living your life while gay” means all three questions are no; punching someone in the face means at least 2 of them are yes. In this case, all 3 are yes; the behaviour was harmful, it is likely to consciously or unconsciously affect how he behaves at work, and if he behaves that way at work, it will harm others and potentially cost the company money.

          Reply ↓
        2. Irish Teacher.*

          But that was always true. There will always be disagreement as to what people should be fired for. Yeah, in the last 100 years or so, there have been some legal restrictions on what people can be fired for, but I would imagine even before that, many people thought it was wrong to fire people for certain things.

          But it’s not about what people like or dislike. It’s about whether behaviour is harmful to others or not. A good rule for life is that my rights stop where yours start. If something harms somebody else, authorities, whether they be the police or one’s employer have the right, in some cases, one could argue, a duty, to step in. If your behaviour doesn’t harm somebody else, it’s generally your own business.

          Somebody might dislike others drinking alcohol but if they are simply drinking, well, that isn’t really anybody’s business. If they are shouting around drunkenly and disturbing everybody else, then it becomes reasonable for somebody to intervene.

          Yeah, there are some things which one can debate whether or not they harm people, so it’s not always clear cut, but it’s not just about “what people like.”

          Reply ↓
        3. The Gollux, Not a Mere Device*

          “Don’t scream abuse at a stranger because she cheers for the other team” is value-neutral, even if you choose to ignore that the abuse was specifically misogynist. So is the broader “don’t scream abuse at someone who has done absolutely nothing to you”–I wouldn’t think it was OK for anyone to do that, regardless of the target.

          Reply ↓
    2. Colette*

      Generally, I think the bar for filming other people and posting it should be high. People should be able to go about their day without being concerned that they will be filmed and the recording shared with the world.

      But … someone harming someone else in public meets that bar, and that’s what this was.

      Reply ↓
      1. Caramel & Cheddar*

        Yes, this. I wish people would stop filming random folks in public just minding their own business, but this guy absolutely was not minding his own business in a major and detrimental way.

        Reply ↓
    3. nonbeenary*

      This may be a controversial take, but: In the age of smartphones, perhaps don’t do things in public that you wouldn’t want recorded, inasmuch as you’re able to prevent it (obviously having an embarrassing medical event in public falls under different rules, i.e. perhaps show some compassion by not recording and posting a video of someone having a seizure).
      Yes, the virality is what made it his employer’s problem. After so many people saw their employee behaving badly–and not just badly, but in a manner that would damage the company’s credibility and reputation–they couldn’t afford to continue employing him. Maybe that means that, if there were no video, he wouldn’t have been fired – but I don’t think that’s unfair. He chose to act badly in public, knowing he was being recorded.
      Moreover, I think a guy who harasses and yells bigoted abuse at someone for having the temerity to root for a different sports team *should* be fired, or at least experience some very real consequences, because frankly that’s often the only way people like that learn to keep their cruelty to themselves.

      Reply ↓
    4. boof*

      While ideally everything would be handled equally in call cases, that’s not possible unless we are under constant surveillance, and probably not how we really want to live. While it’s a little “unfair” that attention to this kind of stuff is going to be uneven and only those who happen to be recorded, then happen to be connected and go viral, are going to face much consequence, once you as an employer see your employee acting that way I think it’s very reasonable to take appropriate action if it reflects badly on the company and/or makes you question their ability / judgement for the work they are doing.

      Reply ↓
    5. Ellis Bell*

      I don’t think it’s necessarily as simple and linear a thought process as “let’s make this viral and get this guy fired”. Like, I’m sure some people will have had that objective, and it happened to be met, but there would have been other causes behind why it went viral: 1) Sports fans probably don’t want this guy on their team, or in their crowd. By sharing their objections, they were casting their vote. 2) Women don’t want to go to public events in this city and get heckled for how they look and for their loyalties. Fired or not, they want this guy, and the people who provide event spaces to know that. 3) People being massively offended and not being able to help saying so. It was quite offensive. 4) It probably made a really good video? People being epically stupid in public usually do. 4) People like an anecdote where it’s really, really easy to pick a good side and just be on it along with other people. There will have been other people who would have been disgusted, but who would never dream of forwarding it. Basically there’s a mix of good and bad reasons, ethical and otherwise why people made this go viral. That’s why there’s no way to control how an entire crowd feels. Even if we made an ethical ruling today on trying to prevent people making stuff viral, it would never stick. Besides, I don’t necessarily agree with you that losing a job is actually a great punishment, and everything working as it should, even though I won’t cry any tears for someone who lost it this way. I would much prefer it if people gathered a clue about how to treat others long before it gets to that point. I think it was much more an unfortunate necessity than ‘Yay that guy got fired’.

      Reply ↓
  22. Hiring Mgr*

    I would have fired the Eagles fan in a heartbeat. It’s not the “mob” whipping up hatred for the guy – his own actions did him in. No two ways about it in this case.

    Doesn’t mean he’s an irredeemable evil person, could have just had way too many and was being an idiot. I’m sure he’ll get another job at some point but hopefully this is a wake up call for him

    Reply ↓
  23. Eagles Mike*

    I’m an Eagles fan, and I love the FO consequence for his FA! Philly fans deserve our rep, but most of us are human beings. We may boo Santa Claus, but most of us don’t throw batteries or behave like a Neanderthal to opposing fans.

    I love that he got fired. What DEI services company wants to be officially associated with him?

    Reply ↓
  24. learnedthehardway*

    OP#4 – I would leave it alone and let your old employer tell everyone you retired. You’re going to be contacting former clients to pitch consulting work. They will know you and will be able to get information on your performance from your former employer. If your former employer tells them you retired, that avoids all kinds of questions about what led you to leave. You don’t want to badmouth your former employer – this gives you a very nice ability to say that the timing was right for you to retire and pursue your dream of being an independent consultant.

    I would roll with it – the “retirement” benefits both you and your former employer.

    Reply ↓
    1. SnowRose*

      I agree. It’s really normal in the non-profit world (and I’m sure elsewhere) to retire or otherwise leave direct employment and go into consulting, and I doubt anyone will be anything more than mildly surprised.

      Reply ↓
  26. Wellie*

    LW3:

    I agree with some of the questioning of your employer that other commentors have done, and I do want to emphasize that “do your work better” is not actionable feedback.

    I want to pull on the example you gave:
    “They just said that I had to be more proactive and ask for that info myself.:

    That is a lesson I had to learn for myself over several years by occasionally prioritizing things incorrectly. Someone gives me work, and I say yes. I *still* forget to ask when they need it. It would sure be better if they would tell me up front, but that doesn’t exempt me from needing to ask if they don’t.

    Is it possible that there are other areas where you could improve your performance by being proactive?

    Reply ↓
    1. so tired*

      I’m inclined to agree on this one — LW #3, listen to the feedback and take it to heart, don’t just assume it’s a vague brush-off. You are being asked to take responsibility for prioritizing your work and ask for help on that point when you’re unsure, rather than being passive and waiting for someone else to tell you.

      That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be looking for opportunities to move on, as Alison suggests, but in the meantime, don’t assume the feedback is disingenuous. Are there similar nuggets in the rest of the feedback that might actually mean something if you strip that assumption?

      Reply ↓
    2. LW3*

      I do think so! In some ways, it was a good wake-up call (even if it scared the bejeepers out of me). For instance, I have a tendency to contact people and then go, “phew, now the ball’s in their court,” and forget about it until someone else asks me for an update; I’m adding “follow up with X” to my planner for 2-3 days after that contact to make sure I get answers.

      Reply ↓
      1. Kay*

        Oooo – yeah OP. Definitely really think through your work because this kind of thing, in my experience, is indicative of much larger problems – especially if you are in any kind of support, deadline, teamwork heavy roles.

        I would also add “communicate back to original asker of where things stand” to your list as well.

        You didn’t mention what the bullying was about, but if it had anything to do with work product I would also take a look to see if there was any merit behind it.

        Reply ↓
  27. Observer*

    #1 I have a lot of thoughts, but for the most part, I’m going to try to read the responses before I weigh in. But I do want to make one comment.

    It is high time we stopped measuring the appropriate level of reaction based on pre-social media. Because, on the one hand, we’ve been in this situation for long enough that people can’t really claim that they could not have imagined the backlash or potential effect. On the other hand, the fact is that social media does objectively change the effects of the behavior. I understand that it’s a problem, but nevertheless it’s a reality that we can’t ignore. It’s like power tools. Handle a saw carelessly and you could get hurt. Be careless with a power saw, and you could easily lose a limb.

    This guy did something over the top in a venue that is highly public, visible and *full* of people taking videos. Which is to say that he did the 70’s and 80’s equivalent of getting on Network News and pulling this behavior.

    Reply ↓
      1. Hey there*

        Not even, because only a subset of ppl watch that. This guy was full national news all day every day. And I say, if someone wants to display for all what a hideous entity they are, then let them receive the consequences of that. They’re literally asking for it.

        Reply ↓
  28. Hiring Mgr*

    I don’t know how nonprofits work, but can LW 4 just reply herself to say that no, I haven’t retired, just stepping down from this org? Might be much faster than having to rely on the board

    Reply ↓
    1. MsM*

      Faster, yes, but best case it results in OP having to field a bunch of questions they may not want to deal with, and worst case triggers a bunch of drama that potentially puts the nonprofit’s existence at risk. If OP doesn’t want to see all their hard work go up in smoke and/or protect the remaining employees, I can see why they’d want to at least try and get the board to agree on the best way to publicly frame this first.

      Reply ↓
      1. Hiring Mgr*

        It sounds like the Non-profit’s existence is already at risk if they’re having problems meeting payroll and have had to cut LW’s salary.

        Reply ↓
  29. Dido*

    The guy in #1 absolutely deserved what he got and I wish this kind of thing happened more often to abusive people. If he’s acting so unhinged and sexist at a football game that literally has 0 real life consequences, he’s most definitely also unhinged and sexist at work, no matter how well he’s managed to cover it thus far.

    Reply ↓
  30. el l*

    OP1, yeah, here’s a deliberately-old-fashioned restatement of the facts of the case:

    1. The guy behaved badly, and there’s proof.
    2. Not only did he behave badly, but he did so in a way hypocritical to company values.
    3. Not only was there hypocrisy, he did so in public.
    4. Not only did he do it in public, he did it in a place festooned with national TV cameras.

    He would’ve gotten fired 30 years ago, too. Because this is just company reputation management. Tales as old as time.

    Reply ↓
  31. CubeFarmer*

    LW#1, if I have a choice between a company with a publicly misogynistic employee and a company without that, guess what choice I’m making.

    Otherwise I remain confused about Eagles’ fans reaction to their team’ victory. “Yay, our team won, so let’s riot and destroy our city!” I saw footage of people carrying traffic signals that they’d ripped out of the ground. How…how does that make sense?

    Reply ↓
    1. JustaTech*

      It doesn’t make sense, but it’s not actually all that uncommon.
      Like, it’s not just a Philly thing, and it’s not just a American football thing. There are cities (Denver? Vancouver?) where there are riots if their hockey team wins.

      As far as I can tell (as a non-sports fan) it generally starts with lots of people in very high spirits who are often drunk and the first thing to go is “common sense” and then the crowd/mob mentality takes over and there seems to be some critical mass and then something inevitably gets set on fire.

      It doesn’t always reach that critical mass in all locations and for all sports (when the Seattle Seahawks won the Super Bowl there were plenty of videos of screaming fans waiting for the crosswalk sign before dancing in the street), but it’s a very human thing.

      Reply ↓
  32. Maggie*

    #1 I watched the footage Alison linked to and was horrified. I would be afraid to work with this person and think their behavior crossed a line that makes complete sense that their employer fired them. Especially since it went viral (though even if it hadn’t) publications like Patch named both him and his employer!

    Reply ↓
  33. Sneaky Squirrel*

    #1 -I don’t love the concept of doxxing, but I am not against the idea of an employer taking action when it does learn of behavior that may paint the company in an unfavorable light.

    Think of all the steps that had to happen to have the employer hear about this:
    1. The person had to choose to do the unwelcome behavior in a public setting.
    2. The behavior had to go on for so long or be so egregious that it garnered attention.
    3. Someone had to decide that the behavior was so egregious that it was video-worthy.
    4. The person who took the video had to choose to post it on social media, putting not only that person in the spotlight, but also other video participants (i.e. the woman in this instance). For that woman, imagine how vulnerable she had to feel to share a video of her receiving that hate.
    5. The video had to get attention of others either through a large enough following or by being posted on a public enough page that had a lot of traffic.
    6. Enough people had to be interested in the video that they chose to take their time to re-share it. An interesting study in its own on how people choose to interact with social media.
    7. This video was on news sites, which is where I found it when I searched, so news sites had to see that there was enough of a response to the video or that the video was so egregious that it would garner attention.
    8. The employer had to somehow be put on notice of the video.
    9. The employer had to evaluate the video and response to it and decide that they cared enough to take action. They alternatively could have chosen to ignore the video and decide they didn’t care, or wait to see if attentions died down.

    Reply ↓
    1. Elbe*

      This is a great point. How egregious must the behavior be in order to go viral among so many strangers? It’s not really a “slippery slope” when the situation hinges so much on it being exceptional and particularly appalling.

      Reply ↓
    2. Aggretsuko*

      By comparison, we have a famous local bigot in our town that reacted poorly to having a trans child, and she runs around town harassing people, making a spectacle of herself at public events, and yes, recently she made social media for screaming at drag queens while on vacation. She works at an organization which is big on DEI and people have been publicly complaining that she isn’t following the principles of the org and should be fired. However, the organization refuses to fire her. Frankly, it makes them look terrible to keep her, but people have posited that she’d cause enough drama if she was fired that maybe they just don’t want to bother.

      Reply ↓
  34. YesPhoebeWould*

    Regarding #1, there is nothing wrong with hunting down this guy’s workplace and getting him terminated. Glad he lost his job. As have seen from the side that opposes decency, equality and conclusion, direct action (like this works). Hopefully, when this guy gets another job? Somebody will remember and get him burned at that one. And the next one.

    There is a movement of direct action underway by some folks in positions of hiring and authority. They have essentially decided that they will not hire or employ people who support racists, other bigots and misogynistic filth. How do they know who these people are? Well, they vociferously supported somebody who made this hatred a cerpiece of his office.

    The good thing is that many of these folks have shown us who they are on social media. they are PROUD of this.In many cases, it’s simple enough to do a little research and come to a conclusion as hiring manager.

    “Oh, I’m really sorry…..yeah, you were a great candidate, and I’m really sorry that you’ve been out of work six months, but we’re going to go with a difference candidate. I’ll keep your resume on file, of course if anything comes up. Bye!” – then throw their resume in the trash.

    It’s harder to me a misogynistic pig or anti-equality maggot if you have to spend all of your time looking for a job.

    Reply ↓
  35. I should really pick a name*

    For #3, I don’t see a problem with having the employee being the one to ask for priorities.

    Now that it’s clear that that’s the expectation, it seems straightforward to just do it.

    Reply ↓
    1. I'm just here for the cats!!*

      I think it really depends on the company and how they typically handle this. If OP is the only one they don’t proactively tell what prioritize are then they are trying to make it so she fails

      Reply ↓
    2. Coffee Protein Drink*

      I’d say I was surprised this hasn’t come up in the LW and their boss’ past interactions, but no performance review in 6 years? No regular check-ins? That goes a bit beyond laissez faire.

      I’m a manager who says, “X is more important than Y, please do it first,” when I assign work. I think it’s my responsibility to make that clear to my reports. Expecting them to read my mind doesn’t do anyone any good.

      Reply ↓
  36. Kristin*

    I too agree the man OP1 refers to should have been fired, but I really appreciate the thought and concern OP1 gave this question, and to raise it here. Being morally torn and/or skeptical is uncomfortable, and necessary. Raising questions and being genuine about not having all the answers is something the workplace could use more of!

    Reply ↓
  38. DE*

    I think LW 1 is looking for a one-size-fits-all answer where none is available. It really depends on the specifics of the situation, which is not a satisfying answer. In this case maybe it’s justified but in some other case it isn’t.

    Reply ↓
  39. Amber Rose*

    I’m not American, but I think you probably have similar laws around proactively protecting workers from harm, including harassment and violence.

    If I am made aware that a man I employ poses a hazard to the women around him, I naturally have to take steps to protect them. Otherwise if there’s harassment or violence at work, it is proven that the company knew the danger existed and did nothing, there’s possible some liability there.

    Reply ↓
  40. MCMonkeybean*

    For the first letter, the thing to remember is that firing someone over behavior like that is not done as punishment. The issue at hand is not about whether or not he “deserves” it.

    When you fire someone for offensive and harmful behavior you do it to protect your other employees and/or clients. If someone is known to be horrifically misogynistic then you fire them to make sure the women in your company don’t have to deal with him. The same goes for people who are known to be horrifically racist/homophobic/transphobic or anything else that would make other people uncomfortable or even afraid to have to interact with him.

    Reply ↓
    1. Irish Teacher.*

      Great point. I think some people are seeing this as revenge when it’s really about this guy being a liability the company doesn’t want to have on their hands.

      Reply ↓
  41. CommanderBanana*

    But I also chafe at the idea that someone’s entire life falls apart because of behavior outside of work.

    This is a really strange take. If I robbed a bank outside of work, or murdered someone outside of work, my life would fall apart, right? Actions have consequences and we often don’t really have control over what those consequences are.

    This guy literally worked for a DEI consulting firm. If he walked into a client meeting as a rep of that firm, that would immediately and absolutely trash that firm’s credibility. Obviously the ability of information to spread over social media and everyone having a video camera in their pocket is a relatively new phenomenon, but personally, I’m glad this happened. I wouldn’t want to hire someone whose outside of work hobbies included screaming slurs in people’s faces. It’s actually a good thing that people think twice about their behavior in public because of the chance that someone may be recording them.

    Reply ↓
  42. CatDude*

    LW1 – How would anyone at this guy’s company feel safe around him? How would clients feel about him? So there’s a very good business reason to fire this guy, even if you put aside the moral imperative.

    Frankly, I want to see things like this happen more, not less. Since US law rarely does anything about this kind of bigotry (and in fact now is being twisted to protect it) – social consequences like this are one of the main tools we have to fight against bigotry.

    Reply ↓
  43. Lisa*

    #4, If you really want people to know why you left, this is a good use for the Whisper Networks at your former employer. If there are either people you’ve worked closely with, or people who can’t resist spreading gossip, make sure they know the truth. It’ll get around.

    Reply ↓
  44. I'm just here for the cats!!*

    #3 it’s time for malicious compliance. Every task that is given to you you need to email asking it’s importance. Is X project more important than Y and when is it due by? If this project is due then I will have to push this other project back.
    Do this in email or chat. Something where you can have a paper trail. If they tell you in person just email or chat them saying, just for my own reminder, this project takes precedence over the others.

    Reply ↓
  45. Elbe*

    Letter #4 reminds me of a former coworker I had. When she quit the company, they wanted to announce her departure by saying she wanted to “spend more time with her child”. She told them point-blank that if they did that, she would correct them… to everyone… loudly… in public.

    If anyone mentions LW 4’s “retirement”, it is perfectly fine to respond “Oh, they know I’m not retired. I’m not sure why they would say that.”

    Reply ↓
  46. Sparkles McFadden*

    I’m always amazed at the long discussions that occur regarding people being “canceled.” The actual question is pretty simple: Can someone be fired when their employer discovers that that person is a terrible human being? The answer here in the U.S. is yes.

    For those of you who think this is a more nuanced subject, I can assure you that some guy who is caught on video screaming vile things at a complete stranger has likely said all of those things to one or more coworkers. The weirdos who do crap like this are very good at making sure no one who “matters” catches them at it. That’s part of why action comes swiftly when a verifiable complaint comes from an outside source. Most companies won’t care about something that can be waved away with labeling internal events as “he says/she says” but the company sure will care when the outside world sees something that will make the company look bad, and HR departments are relieved when they can finally fire the guy who is the source for a pile of complaints no one allowed them to act on.

    Reply ↓
  47. Ari*

    LW1, my company’s code of business conduct includes statements about behavior outside of work. I can absolutely be fired for certain remarks/actions off the clock. While I sometimes struggle to decide whether that’s “fair” or not, I also understand that companies don’t want to be associated, however slightly, with bad behavior. It can come across as condoning the behavior if they don’t do something.

    Reply ↓
    1. mreasy*

      And it will lose them clients, as well as employees who have multiple options of workplaces. It is the right business decision, not just an ethics decision. (Even if the CEO of the company is as sexist as the day is long, he could still make the call that keeping this man on payroll is a bad move.)

      Reply ↓
  48. Andy*

    Re #1: I recognize that my view is perhaps out of the mainstream but the person who was fired deserves every single bad thing that happens to him. We’ve treated bigoted public behavior far too softly for far too long. Yes, he should be fired. Yes, his spouse should divorce him. Yes, scammers should empty his bank account on false pretenses. Yes, he should be shouted out of every public business he sets foot in for the rest of his life.

    Our society is better without these people. I don’t care if it’s fair.

    Reply ↓
  49. e271828*

    OP3, you have been in this job for six years and took two years to find it. I do think it’s time to investigate what the market is like for your position and see if you can’t move out, even if it’s lateral. Your nonprofit is probably not keeping up with inflation for your pay and your management seems a bit vague. It is always a good idea to know what’s open where in a small field, if you’re in one!

    Reply ↓
  50. Jules the 3rd*

    LW1: For any public- or client- facing role, he had to be fired. Once it went viral, there’s no way his current company could keep him, it was just too blatant.

    LW3: Sure looks like retaliation to me. Be proactive at work and put out applications for other companies, cut your spending as much as you can and conserve your cash. My first instinct was ‘check with a lawyer about whether you can prove retaliation’ but with 8mo in between, I suspect it’s not provable. If you can stand it, don’t quit without another job – make them fire you. It helps a lot with the unemployment paperwork.
    Hold tight to this: It’s not your fault. This is because of that bully, not you.
    My deepest sympathy, it sucks to be the target of abuse.

    LW5: Good luck, and also my deepest sympathy. If you do get laid off, consider asking whether they can continue subsidized COBRA for six months, even if there’s no other severance. Cut your spending now if you can and conserve your cash.
    Hold tight to this: It’s not your fault. This is because of the industry, not you.
    My deepest sympathy, it sucks to be the target of abuse.

    Reply ↓
  51. Beth*

    I have season tickets to my local sportsball team, and for 10 years I have miraculously managed to attend all home matches as an enthusiastic fan without hurling a single slur or getting into arguments with opposing fans. Because I’m the same person in life as at work: not an asshole. It isn’t a high bar to clear.

    Reply ↓
  52. Anonforthis*

    1) He’s facing proportionate consequences. He engaged in public abusive and discriminatory behaviour toward a woman in a way that brought his company into disrepute.

    At least y’all don’t have ridiculous laws like we do in Britain. A company declined to renew a person’s contract after she was hateful to transgender people online. A tribunal eventually found in the transphobe’s favour, on the bizarre basis that the company had ‘discriminated’ against her ‘gender critical beliefs’ (transphobia).

    It was a sickening situation. The hateful person you describe – he faced deserved consequences for deliberate, malicious bad behaviour. *That is a good thing*.

    Reply ↓
  53. 2BeorNot2Be*

    I work in a male-dominated industry. Around 10 years or so ago, back in the dark ages, one of the senior guys in the local absolutely HATED women. But the guys all liked him, you know, “he’s just having a bad day, poor fella..” Nothing was ever done about his nasty outbursts. He would just lose it and start screaming at the nearest woman, calling us “stupid c-s”…. we often weren’t even working with him (and most of us refused)…we would file, nothing would happen. Excuses woud be made. Eyes would roll. Again, this was over 10 yrs ago, when this kind of behaviour was swept away, ignored, accepted…. Until one fine, beautiful day, a new supervisor had enough and had him removed from the jobsite, as he had called a female client the c-word. Well to be accurate, he screamed it at her in front of the rest of the crew and supervisor.

    We, the women in that local, cheered. We never saw him again. What a RELIEF.

    It’s horrible what happened to that poor woman at that game; the look she gave the person filming, I recognized and understood. I’m glad buddy lost his job. He did not care he was being filmed, either, he felt entitled to his opinion of her, just based on her being a fan. I’m glad his employer took a stand.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS