Posted on 05/22/2008 7:04:14 AM PDT by Puppage
Southington (WTNH) _ A second-grade teacher from Southington resigns after appearing on the Howard Stern Show. It turns out she took a sick day to appear on the shock jock's radio show. Wednesday night she wants her job back and she's telling us her story.
Marie Jarry says tonight the only error in judgement was taking a sick day to go to the Howard Stern show in New York. She says she loves her job so much, it's worth fighting for.
For five years, she has loved teaching second graders at Thalberg Elementary School in Southington. She has every intention of coming back. "I'm going to fight to get my job back, and fight against what was done to me, and to show I did not commit moral mis-conduct."
Jarry says this is why she lost her job. Earlier this month, she called out sick. Meanwhile, she and her husband Aaron appeared on the Howard Stern show, winning $5,000 in a contest called "Ugliest guys, Hottest wife."
"I don't feel that I did anything immoral, anything that would have caused harm to my students," Jarry noted.
She says when she walked into school a few days later, she wasn't allowed back in her classroom, and was told to go to the superintendent's office. "I was intimidated and coerced to giving my resignation that day," Jarry said. "They said if I did not give my resignation, they were going to put me on administrative leave, and they were going to start proceedings to get me terminated."
Jarry continued, "If I did not resign that day, they could pursue charges against me for fraud because; I mis-used a sick day, being told all that, I thought my best decision was to resign."
The sponsor of the contest has now given Jarry an additional $5,000 to help in legal fees. She says all she wants to do is come back here and teach.
News Channel 8 did contact the office of Superintendant Dr. Joseph Erardi - who was more than willing to talk to us about the issue, but was out of town today. In previous printed press reports, Dr. Erardi has said Jarry resigned on her own accord and was not pressured.
Staggering . . .
And I guess if I see a woman in the grocery store strutting around in a bikini, I should assume that she is a fine, upstanding woman and not a trollop... They wear them on the beach, you know...
I'm not missing anything. The sick day thing is completely irrelevant; she was coerced to give her resignation not because she misused a sick day, but because she appeared on the Howard Stern Show. The whole sick day thing is chaff.
You're really stretching now, my friend. This was a beauty contest, not a trip to the grocery store. I'm sure even the woman in question wouldn't wear a bikini to the grocery store.
You’re definitely missing it...she used a sick day which gave the school board ammunition. Hence, my comment about her not being very bright. Had she used a vacation day they would’ve had a harder time trying to get rid of her because of the Stern show.
I, for one, sincerely hope that they are, indeed! Thank you, feminism, for making it easy to "score".
“This was a beauty contest”
No, the Miss American pageant is a beauty contest. She was on the Stern show for his exploitive benefit.
Honestly, she’s entitled to do what she wants on her own time like anyone else, but if my son was in her class and I had found out she was on the show for this contest, my opinion of her would drop considerably.
A peashooter in a howitzer fight. Want to make book on who prevails in the lawsuit?
This logic is so tortured I don't even know where to begin . . .
A bunch of people at work, wasting their employers' time, writing posts on how this teacher shouldn't have played hooky.
“A peashooter in a howitzer fight. Want to make book on who prevails in the lawsuit?”
Well with the entire slime-trail of lawyers the union will parade out in her defense, I’d say she’ll win.
That doesn’t make what she did any less misguided.
“This logic is so tortured I don’t even know where to begin . “
Is it? I think giving Stern’s show any credibility at all is tortured logic at it’s most painful.
So what you're really saying is that because a bikini is appropriate for a second grade school teacher to wear on a beach, it is appropriate for her to wear anywhere -- even on a TV show (hosted by Howard Stern, no less) called "Hottest Wives".
(Oh. If this was indeed a "beauty" contest, how did she win?)
It's a goofy entertainment show---it's not meant to be anything else. And as far as "credibility" is concerned, he's been doing his thing on the radio for at least twenty five years---I think his credibility is well-established. If the Stern show is not your cup of tea, then so be it.
But should a woman be fired because she appeared on Stern, and you don't like Stern? That's the crux of the issue.
Good point. I don't know about the other posters, but I requested personal time off to respond to this thread.
No, what I'm saying is she appeared in a beauty contest that required her to wear a bikini. That she wore a bikini is not evidence that she's a skank, as you suggested---as I said, unless you think every woman wearing a bikini on a beach is a skank. And wearing a bikini in a beauty contest that requires a woman to wear a bikini is not even remotely similar to a woman waltzing into a grocery store while wearing a bikini.
Is this really that difficult for you to understand? Or do you simply feel like going to great lengths to prove---in your mind---that this woman is a whore/skank?
Wearing a bikini doesn’t make a woman a skank. Appearing on Stern, would however lend some weight to the argument in favor of her being a skank....
And moreover, an attention-whore who lied to her employer....:)
“But should a woman be fired because she appeared on Stern, and you don’t like Stern? “
Let me ask you...would you be somewhat concerned if the 2nd teacher grade teacher of your child showed up on Stern wearing a bikini?
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.