• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Free Newsletter 📨
  • Get PolicyPro Free Trial 🎉
  • Get HRA Free Trial

First Reference Talks

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

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
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, Ph.D. | 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, Ph.D.

Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, was called to the Ontario Bar in 2002 and has since been 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. Christina obtained her Professional LLM Specializing in Labour Relations and Employment Law from Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in 2013, and recently earned her PhD in Law at the University of Western Ontario on October 23, 2020 in the area of privacy in the workplace.
Follow me

Latest posts by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, Ph.D. (see all)

  • Ontario IPC seeks feedback for strategic priority setting - January 5, 2021
  • Proposed Privacy Changes: Bill C-11 - December 1, 2020
  • Commissioners’ joint investigation on use of facial recognition technology - November 2, 2020

Article by Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, Ph.D. / 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

Learn the 10 essential HR policies in the time of COVID-19

Get the Latest Posts in your Inbox for Free!

About Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, Ph.D.

Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD, was called to the Ontario Bar in 2002 and has since been 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. Christina obtained her Professional LLM Specializing in Labour Relations and Employment Law from Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in 2013, and recently earned her PhD in Law at the University of Western Ontario on October 23, 2020 in the area of privacy in the workplace.

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference Inc. (known as La Référence in Quebec) provides Canadian organizations of any size with practical and authoritative resources to help ensure compliance.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources

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 - 2021 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy