Posted on 06/13/2013 9:59:29 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
(Newser) – It's bad enough that Carie Charlesworth is dealing with an abusive ex-husband—but now she's also out of a job due to the situation. After a "very bad weekend" involving her ex in January, Charlesworth warned the principal at San Diego's Holy Trinity School to watch out for him. He did indeed show up in the school parking lot, forcing a lockdown. Charlesworth was immediately put on "indefinite leave," as were her four kids, who attended the school. Despite the fact that her ex is now in jail, three months later she was fired after 14 years with the Diocese of San Diego, NBC San Diego reports.
The termination letter from the diocese notes that, though school officials "feel deeply" for Charlesworth and are praying for her, her ex has a 22-year history of documented violence and has not been deterred by restraining orders. Out of fear that he may cause problems upon his release from prison (which they note could happen as soon as "next fall"), "we simply cannot allow you to return to work [at Holy Trinity] or, unfortunately, at any other school in the diocese," the letter states, adding that Charlesworth will continue to be paid through Aug. 9. Charlesworth, who plans to file a lawsuit, says, "That's why women of domestic violence don't come forward, because they're afraid of the way people are going to see them, view them, perceive them, treat them."
Generally speaking, I'd agree. However, you are contradicting the letter, which says "...through no fault of your own."
It's not about fault, it's about responsibility. Crap happens, choices have consequences, sometimes unfortunate, unfair and unpleasant ones. The duty to the students has primacy over their duty to the employee, period. This women has a responsibility to those children also, to keep them safe, even if it means quitting to avoid putting them in a dangerous situation. But she's to self centered for that. She also has a duty to her own children and to herself that she is also not accepting. You have a crazy ex, you move away, far far away on the QT, to a state that allows self defense and keep yourself and your kids safe. If I had a crazy ex, he would not have bothered me at work on Monday after a "bad weekend" because I would have killed Mr. Nutbar when he violated the restraining order. As far as I'm concerned an RO only purpose is to document your need to kill the violator.
So if an angry parent threatens violence because his son got a bad grade or a student vows to retaliate after being expelled for fighting in a classroom, I suppose you would respond by firing the teacher involved.
I’m giving you an “A+” for stretching reality into a very baseless hypothetical that has little to no regard to the matter at hand.
Got any more useless arguments?
Agree.
To do otherwise is to allow the nuts of the world to control hiring/firing of anyone, anywhere.
What next, firing someone because they are a victim of any number of crimes where the victim is threatened with “I know where you live and work and I will be back if you say anything.” So, the victim has a choice: go to the police and risk reprisal from the criminal AND being fired from her job, or to remain silent and keep her job.
Seems they are punishing the wrong person here.
“the court system has obviously been completely unable to “deal with” him.”
Or unwilling. With the record noted in the letter, he should be UNDER the jail by now.
Doesn't seem fair to me that the school is punishing her and her kids for the actions of another (her husband.) She's not forcing the school to go on lockdown when he shows up in the parking lot, he is.
The removed the source that brought that perp to their campus in the first place.
<><><><
Gotcha. All victims of stalkers should be immediately fired from their jobs because they are responsible for their stalker’s behavior.
And let’s face it, it’s not just schools we’re talking about, it’s every workplace.
Any and all victims of domestic violence, stalking or whatever are all selfish bast%^ds for not quitting, and making the world safer for others.
You’ve not thought this all the way through, r2. This is not nearly as black and white as you’d like it to be.
What effective means of self defense are available to Ms. Charlesworth, Holy Trinity School, or the Diocese of San Diego?
Make sure that your answer does not involve violating any of the various laws of San Diego, of the State of California, or of the United States regarding the possession, carrying, or use of firearms or other deadly weapons. Note that your or my opinion regarding the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is irrelevant to this case.
She would easily win a lawsuit. An employer cannot say someone else harassing an employee should mean that employee must be terminated. The employer has the unfortunate responsibility to protect their business just as much as the employee must protect themselves. The employer here is trying to cause harm to the employee every bit as much as the perp.
It's not fair to the school either.
Why should the school have to hire guards to just to continue employing this woman. Why should parents put their kids at risk over this woman?
She chose poorly. It's not the school's problem.
If there's no repeat offender law, the max for 'stalking' or 'terroristic threats' may be something like 5 to 10, which will get you paroled in 2-3 depending on how crowded the prisons are. So the court may be unable, or it may be unwilling.
In either event, how can anybody expect a private school to do what the court system can't?
This is not nearly as black and white as you’d like it to be.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That letter is pretty black and white. Or do you think the school is lying?
And then, when she's indicted for using hired heat to take him out, her defense is ... the Roman Catholic Church made me do it!
Consider the wider implications of the pattern the current case establishes. I am sure the editors at Inspire magazine could turn out many an article exploring the possibilities.
Yep. The nuns should be able to run out in the parking lot and yell,”Restraining order! Restraining order!” (in my best Goober voice.)
Please explain what the school should do to “deal with” this extremely violent man, when the courts obviously can’t....Some people just need killin’.
You’re on your own teach. And take your kids with you. And better not show up at our church either.
Good thing I can think for myself and not go ‘well, everyone ELSE thinks this way, guess I should too!’
If we decided to not hire anyone who knows someone, or has been stalked by someone, etc... you’d have a pretty limited hiring pool.
So you can think for yourself. Big Whoop.
Your problem is you can’t explain why you think its OK to protect the guilty at the expense of the innocent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.