The CBS reality show Big Brother recently made headlines when two of its female contestants were fired from their jobs back home due to racist and homophobic comments made towards fellow contestants. Because the contestants have no contact with the outside world while on the show, neither person is aware that they have been fired or that their workplaces have spoken to the media about their terminations.
If you’re not familiar with the show, here’s the low-down: Big Brother follows a group of strangers living together in a house outfitted with dozens of cameras and microphones that record their every move… 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. One by one, the contestants vote each other out of the house until the last person remaining wins a cash prize of $500,000.
Aaryn Gries and GinaMarie Zimmerman were both terminated from their jobs earlier this month after their employers witnessed them making racial comments on the live 24-hour feed offered on the CBS website. At first, the televised version of the program did not address the controversy, but it has now aired some of these comments in recent episodes.
Her employer made the following statement:
We have never known this side of GinaMarie or have ever witnessed such acts of racism in the past. We are actually thankful that this show let us see GinaMarie for who she truly is. We would never want her to be a role model to our future contestants.”
Similarly, Aaryn (above right) was fired from her job as a model for the Zephyr Talent agency in Austin, Texas. The agency released the following statement:
Aaryn…revealed prejudices and other beliefs that we do not condone. We certainly find the statements made by Aaryn on the live Internet feed to be offensive. Upon much consideration, we have decided to release Aaryn from her contract with Zephyr Talent.”
These two statements bring forth a number of questions—Were these employers right in terminating these two contestants? Is it unethical to publicly chastise and fire someone “in absentia”? What options does an employer have when an employee has behaved in an appropriate manner, even if they are outside of the workplace and not representing themselves as an employee of your company?
Were these terminations legitimate?
Because most states in the U.S are in an employment-at-will state, an employer does not need a reason to fire an employee and is free to do so at any time regardless of reason. In this type of employment arrangement, engaging in immoral or unethical conduct outside the workplace could be grounds for termination. (Source: http://work.chron.com). However, according to Clear Path senior consultant Anna Aceto-Guerin, “this is far from reality in Canada”.
If this situation were to take place in Ontario, it is likely that this situation would not even end in a termination. For one thing, each employer would first have to wait until their employee was off the television show before addressing the issue. If the employee’s conduct was deemed so unacceptable that it seriously impacted the organization, the employer would be entitled to “terminate with cause”. However, termination “with cause” is difficult to prove and the onus will be on the employer to show that the employee’s actions were very serious that it damaged the employment relationship or show a pattern of behaviour (Source: http://hrcouncil.ca).
Because GinaMarie’s employer clearly stated that they “have never witnessed such acts of racism in the past from her”, it is obvious that this was not an existing pattern of behaviour or the result of a progressive discipline process. Even if it had been been, because GinaMarie was a long-term employee, the organization would also have to show that the incompetence or misconduct had not been condoned by a lack of action on the part of the employer over a long period of time (Source: hrcouncil.ca).
So what could be done in this case as an Ontario employer? In this case, it would be best for the employer to issue a formal warning and properly document the incident to begin the progressive discipline process. This warning, as well as any future confrontations, should be clear, concise, and in writing. In the event of another incident, the employer would need to show that the discipline was fairly and consistently applied.
Were the terminations handled correctly?
To answer the earlier question, “Is it ethical to publicly chastise and terminate someone “in absentia”?”—the answer is undoubtedly NO.
In Ontario, the manner in which an employee is terminated (namely that it is done in a sensitive manner and that the employee is not humiliated in the process) matters a great deal. By Ontario standards, not only were the contestants wrongfully terminated, they were also dismissed and criticized publicly on an international scale—something that would likely lead to a human rights case. In this province, their employers may be facing financial penalties and/or be required to re-instate the terminated employees. It will be interesting to see how this whole case pans out once GinaMarie and Aaryn are out of the Big Brother house!
Can an Ontario employer terminate someone for behaviour outside of the workplace?
The answer is… it’s complicated. Ontario is not a “fire at will” state and unfortunately there is no blanket answer to this question. You need to look at the facts of each individual case and assess the risk in each situation. It is often challenging for an employer in Ontario to terminate “for cause” even when there are clearly documented performance issues. Attempting to terminate someone “for cause” for behaviour outside of the workplace can be exponentially trickier.
Acts both criminal (arrested for a DUI, possession of child pornography, child abuse or domestic violence) and those deemed “immoral” by an employer (involvement in an extramarital affair, affiliation with a controversial organization) may cause an employer to want to remove someone from the organization, even if the employee’s actions took place exclusively outside of the workplace. The question becomes whether or not they can terminate “for cause” and not have to pay out the appropriate termination pay and/or severance.
Some things for an employer to consideration include:
- Does the employee’s behaviour specifically damage the reputation of your organization or is it simply abhorrent to the employer? For example, was the employee wearing a company uniform while participating in the activity or was your company named in any media coverage related to the incident?
- Does the employee have a known addiction to alcohol or drugs? If so, this is considered a disability in Ontario and terminating them may result in a Human Rights challenge.
- Does your company have written policies regarding terminations for non-workplace behaviour? Do you have an enforceable “morals clause” in your employment agreement? Have you consistently applied this policy in the past?
- Does the nature of the incident hamper the employee’s ability to perform their work duties? For example, a teacher or camp counselor involved in a public scandal may not be able to work with minors. A sales person or truck driver who regularly visits the United States may no longer be able to cross the border with an arrest record.
Long story short, this process should be handled with careful thought and the advice of HR and/or legal professionals.
Conclusion: “Reality in Ontario”
Anna last remark on the matter:
At the end of the day, although it may be interesting to watch how this HR saga plays out in the reality TV arena, Ontario employers should remember that hoping to apply these termination practices in their own workplaces would definitely not be reality.”
So what do you think? Were these terminations handled effectively? Will we be hearing more about these terminations once Big Brother ends? Leave your answers in the comment section below.
Clear Path Employer Services
HR Consultants and Disability Management Experts
Latest posts by Clear Path Employer Services (see all)
- The basics of the WSIB’s NEER system - September 29, 2017
- Summarizing WSIB’s proposed Rate Framework, part 3 - August 25, 2017
- Summarizing WSIB’s proposed Rate Framework, part 2 - July 28, 2017