• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Blog Signup 📨

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies
You are here: Home / Employee Relations / Another case of school employee working in sex trade – this time, teacher did not lose job

By Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD | 2 Minutes Read September 9, 2011

Another case of school employee working in sex trade – this time, teacher did not lose job

Remember the case where a Quebec school board terminated an office assistant because she was a porn video star on the side? She was terminated because her off-duty conduct was inconsistent with the school board’s mission and the values the board wished to convey to students. Well, here’s another case where a sex-ed teacher who also worked as a stripper and porn actor was allowed to keep teaching! What was the difference in this case?

Yes, Benedict Garrett taught sexual education by day at a school, and was a stripper, porn actor and naked butler with his own website by night. His extracurricular pursuits were discovered when his students found a trailer for one of his promotions online. Some parents objected.

This led to a suspension, and the teacher fought it. He argued that his treatment constituted “moral hypocrisy”. He questioned why a teacher could be permitted to smoke, drink and overeat, but not earn a second salary in legitimate legal activities such as stripping and pornography.

In the end, the disciplinary board held that he was guilty of professional misconduct. His off-duty conduct as a lap-dancing stripper who advertising online for students to see was not the best side job for a teacher.

Notwithstanding this finding, the teacher was permitted to teach again on the condition that he stop working at his side job.

When the office assistant in Quebec offered to stop her off-duty conduct so she could keep her day job, her offer was rejected and she was terminated anyhow.

What is the difference?

One difference is jurisdiction. Garrett’s case played out in Britain. Other than that, I can find no distinguishing factors.

I recently wrote about the trend of employees taking second jobs to make ends meet, and how sometimes, employers have the right to request that an employee quit a second job because of a conflict of interest.

What do you think? Given the fact that decreasing real wages are becoming a serious problem for some and causing them to seek second jobs to make ends meet, do you think that restricting employees’ off-duty conduct is a good idea? Do you think the teacher should have been terminated, or, do you think the Quebec school board was overly harsh when it terminated the office assistant?

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Editor

  • About
  • Latest Posts
Follow me
Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD
Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, is a member of the Law Society of Ontario. Christina worked as an editor with First Reference between 2005 and 2015 working on publications including The Human Resources Advisor (Ontario, Western and Atlantic editions), HRinfodesk, and First Reference Talks blog discussing topics in Canadian Labour and Employment Law. She continues to contribute to First Reference Talks as a regular guest blogger, where she writes on privacy and surveillance topics. Christina has also appeared in the Montreal AI Ethics Institute's AI Brief, International Association of Privacy Professionals’ Privacy Advisor, Tech Policy Press, and Slaw - Canada's online legal magazine.
Follow me
Latest posts by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD (see all)
  • Hefty GDPR fine for Meta - January 20, 2023
  • 2022 report: More data breaches and costs rising - November 1, 2022
  • Bill C-27: a look at proposed AI provisions - August 9, 2022

Article by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD / Employee Relations / allowed to keep teaching, British, discipline committee, inconsistent with values, make ends meet, off-duty conduct, office assistant, Quebec, school employee, second job, sex industry, suspension, terminated because of off-duty conduct

Share with a friend or colleague

Get the Latest Posts in your Inbox for Free!

Electronic monitoring

About Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD

Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, is a member of the Law Society of Ontario. Christina worked as an editor with First Reference between 2005 and 2015 working on publications including The Human Resources Advisor (Ontario, Western and Atlantic editions), HRinfodesk, and First Reference Talks blog discussing topics in Canadian Labour and Employment Law. She continues to contribute to First Reference Talks as a regular guest blogger, where she writes on privacy and surveillance topics. Christina has also appeared in the Montreal AI Ethics Institute's AI Brief, International Association of Privacy Professionals’ Privacy Advisor, Tech Policy Press, and Slaw - Canada's online legal magazine.

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference is the leading publisher of up to date, practical and authoritative HR compliance and policy databases that are essential to ensure organizations meet their due diligence and duty of care requirements.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy