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."
After being gone from this thread for over an hour, you show up and still defend your incorrect posts?
It looks to me like you are going reply to reply as you (finally) respond.
Do yourself a favor and READ the entire thread with all replies (especially 26) before you reply any further.
Then - after doing that - come back and admit we all were right, and you were wrong.
Mmm-kay?
So forgive me for not living on the internet and being gone an hour before I logged back in to respond to you. Glad you have nothing better to do with your life.
And I don’t give a flying crap what the read of you think, I don’t base my opinions on what other Freepers think.
Matter of fact, I’m a bit disgusted that you think I should! But it says more about you and less about me.
Perhaps with an OJ type jury. Otherwise, unlikely.
Do you inderstand "At Will" employment?
I don’t base my opinions on what other Freepers think.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nor - evidently - do you base your opinions on facts released after that now prove your opinions were wrong.
Inconvenient things - them facts. But who cares, right? You still have your opinions.
Look, I understand your frustation here. You are embarrassed at being wrong. I know how it is. I’ve been there myself. We all have. We make a call based on incomplete data, and when the truth is out and we were wrong?
Our pride gets in the way.
They can’t. The school’s first responsibility is to its students, and its staff. It really is a shame that the teacher is once again being victimized by her abusive husband by losing her job but there have to be priorities and the diocese made a tough but necessary decision.
I really hope this woman can get the help she needs to get her life back on track. Nobody deserves what she’s going through.
She needs all the prayers she can get. Too many women and children are killed by abusive men.
Dear God, free this woman from her abusive ex-husband. Keep her alive and healthy. Keep her children safe and well, too. Let her find a new and better job where she will be safe and thrive. I ask this in Jesus name. Amen.
“Do you inderstand “At Will” employment?”
There is no such thing in a practical manner, as there are many federal and State regulations, case laws, statutes, etc.
A person cannot be terminated for the acts of others. Colorado has a statute that actually states that, as do many other States.
The one thing about employment law is that there is an implied contract that courts recognize as a binding agreement, regardless of “at will”. A person cannot be fired under federal and State law for various items. And, regardless of statute, civil recognizes the right of a person to sue, and “loss of opportunity”, “breach of contract”, “fraud”, “unlawful termination”, etc. all are used in civil suits to success.
I don't disagree with either of your statements above. I'm sure if I were the parent of one of the kids at that school I might have a different opinion. Seems to me something should've been done to this guy long before it ever got to this point...........
It’s not about merely knowing someone, it’s about the fact that the mess of her life CAME TO THE SCHOOL intending violence. He got 2 felony charges for what happened there, and it only happened there because she was there. What if the guy comes again because she’s there and goes full Newtown? Who are you going to blame then? Who are you going to say should have done something different? If either of your answers include the school you just explained why they chose not to renew her contract. She has defined herself as a source of risk to the school and everyone in it.
For teachers “at will” has much stronger force. Because the vast majority of teachers in this country, including her, are contract employees. Technically she hasn’t been fired, she was informed her contract will not be renewed. Happens all the time. They put her on indefinite leave and paid her through the rest of her contract, then chose not to renew, she’s got no legal ground.
What effective means of self defense are available to Ms. Charlesworth, Holy Trinity School, or the Diocese of San Diego?
<><><><<>><
I’ll answer your question with another question. Should every threatened person in the employ of the Catholic Church worldwide be terminated from their employment if the possibility exists that others may be harmed?
Any threatened person who feels the need to warn their boss that bad things could be happening today and said prediction comes true has established themselves as a threat to the safety of the people in that business. It’s not just that she was threatened, it’s that the threat was followed up on to the tune of 2 felony counts.
I get that he came there, but do we not hire people because they have crazy relative? Where do we draw the line?
What specific actions would you recommend, as counsel to the School or to the Diocese?
Would your legal advice be any different if the business involved were, hypothetically, a small retail establishment which caters to young children and their parents?
“she’s got no legal ground.”
Sure she does. That admitted the reason why. Stupid move on their part.
Lemmings love company.
I expect that the Diocese will settle for a non-disclosed sum rather than go to court.
If this woman is smart, she’ll use that money to make a new life someplace far away and get her name changed.
At the point where they become a threat to the place of business. As I said in an earlier post, employers are always telling employees not to bring their home troubles to work, well her home troubles came to work for 2 felony counts. The minute she felt morally obligated to warn her boss something bad might happen her REAL moral obligation was to not go to work and use the time off to solve her life problems. You don’t bring other people into your mess, especially not in a way they could get hurt, and even more especially the “other people” list includes hundreds of kids. She had a problem she needed to solve outside of work and failed, and in failing brought the problem to work, and that problem caused a lockdown and felony charges. I’ve got a lot of sympathy for abused women and have helped quite a few deal with the problem... and watched many fail. She failed. She failed in a way that could have been the west coast Newtown, no school can allow someone that brings that kind of potential threat to stay in their employ.
And there’s nothing wrong with the reason why. Her life interfered with school business, they had to go under lockdown because she can’t control her life. The punchline is she was at fault, she knew her ex might follow her to the school and make trouble, she warned her boss it might happen, but she went anyway. Incredibly bad judgement on her part, and for that bad judgement they have opted to not renew her contract.
That letter is pretty black and white. Or do you think the school is lying?
<><><>
The question about the school lying is puzzling to me, as there was no hint of that in anything I’ve written. But no, I don’t think they are lying. And I think the question was silly.
As an administrator, would you have called for the expulsion of my daughter from school when I informed the school that my mother, who was seriously off the rails at the time, might show up at the school and try to withdraw my daughter?
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.