Daugherty's seven tests are as follows:
* Was the employee forewarned of the consequences of his or her actions?
* Are the employer's rules reasonably related to business efficiency and performance the employer might reasonably expect from the employee?
* Was an effort made before discharge to determine whether the employee was guilty as charged?
* Was the investigation conducted fairly and objectively?
* Did the employer obtain substantial evidence of the employee's guilt?
* Were the rules applied fairly and without discrimination?
* Was the degree of discipline reasonably related to the seriousness of the employee's offense and the employee's past record?
Addison was hired in Sept. 2007 to teach graduate students under a one-year contract as an assistant professor of psychology. The following July she was awarded a two-year contract which stated that she could be fired only for just cause, according to the complaint. The contract also held that she would be deemed to have her contract extended unless it was formally canceled. It was not canceled as she never received negative performance evaluations, the complaint says.
I postulate that it wasn't based on gender, it was based on the perceived differences between 'art' (one man show) and 'smut' (burlesque), not the genders of those involved.
According to letters from the administration that are cited in the complaint, Addison needed to be fired because a mere warning and change of behavior would not suffice. “The damage had already occurred,” she was told. Administrators also cited concerns that word of her performances had spread among students, who had lost respect for her and were “shocked and dismayed.”
"In Walker v. Blue Cross of California (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 985, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 184, the court described "good cause" as "relative. Whether good cause exists is dependent upon the particular circumstances of each case. [Citation.] [p] In deciding whether good cause exists, there must be a balance between the employer's interest in operating its business efficiently and profitably and the employee's interest in continued employment. [Citations.] Care must be exercised so as not to interfere with the employer's legitimate exercise of managerial discretion. [Citation.] While the scope of such discretion is substantial, it is not unrestricted." (Id. at p. 994, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 184; see also Crosier v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 1132, 1139-1140, 198 Cal.Rptr. 361, disapproved on another point by Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 700, fn. 42, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373; Moore v. May Department Stores Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 836, 839-840, 271 Cal.Rptr. 841; Malmstrom v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 299, 321, 231 Cal.Rptr. 820; Clutterham v. Coachmen Industries, Inc. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1227, 215 Cal.Rptr. 795.)"
« Older The musical saw is an instrument with close to a 3... | Tour the solar system from a b... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt