|
Forums >
General Industry >
Fired for having modeled for an Adult magazine
At least by my standards, her modeling images were NOT pornographic images! Her firing had more to do with being associated with Hustler magazine than the images themselves. Rachel Gunn happens to be an active model on this website. https://www.modelmayhem.com/rachelgunn and she is featured in an article in the River Front Times. She has been on the cover twice for River Front Times. This modeling occured while she was working for a previous firm that is smaller, and does not pay as well as the prestigious firm that she was hired and then fired shortly after having been hired as a paralegal. She is back at work at the previous firm. I don't think it is fair that anyone be fired for either having been in a erotic magazine as a model or photographer. That's just my opinion. What do you think? The Article in Riverfront Times https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/st … k-40841623 The Facebook link is to her Fan Page post about this. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=80 … 5162547747 Sep 22 23 06:40 pm Link What exactly is a pornographic image? It's largely a matter of opinion, there is no generally accepted meaningful definition. This is a form of sexual discrimination, it's aim is ultimately to restrict womens' freedom of expression and sexual behavior while degrading their social status by forcing compliance with arbitrary rules, through the denial of employment to women who break those rules. It's time people started challenging the legal right of employers to do this. Sep 23 23 04:16 am Link JSouthworth wrote: The question of "what exactly IS porn?" is something we can debate, but the idea that models (and even photographers) can be discriminated against for the work we do just bothers me. From what I understand, she has done some racy images, artistic images, and some that are posted in Modelmayhem that might mean the death penalty in Muslim countries. Her images of her with another woman is what I'm talking about. The Hustler she was featured in happened to be a UK edition. Sep 23 23 10:55 am Link Are you really surprised that in this day and age in a country filled with angry people, that someone would be fired because of being published in a Hustler magazine ? ? Are you not aware that our country has a large percentage of 'conservative & religious' people who believe Hustler is immoral, Larry Flynt is the devil, and anyone involved with or contributing to their success is to be cancelled, fired, or shunned . . . . ??? Rachel Gunn's firing probably had little to do with anyone's definition of pornography, but rather with the general attitude that any association with taboo businesses that don't meet church standards is to be avoided. . . . . and then again, there's always the unfortunate fact that some men like to be small minded, nasty, vicious, and vindictive towards women . . . . just for the fun of it and because they usually get away with it. Don't expect anything to change any time soon ! I've worked with Rachel Gunn . . . she doesn't deserve to be treated this way . . . Sep 23 23 04:12 pm Link Ken Marcus Studios wrote: ... yet those same people worship the former President as a god despite the fact that he did a porn star (and paid her off to keep it secret).... and there's plenty more romps he had that wasn't in the news. Sep 23 23 04:24 pm Link I know the feeling. In the town where I live just having a camera instead of a phone makes me suspect. "You have a camera AND a business card , you must be some kind of evil monster." Haven't ripped out anybody's throat yet, but i have thought about it. Sep 23 23 05:23 pm Link Under Australian employment law, Rachel Gunn would have a very good case to sue her former employer for wrongful dismissal . Sep 23 23 05:43 pm Link This isn't new. How many teachers have been fired because someone found their Onlyfans page, or their instagram page with them in bikini's? Most companies are allowed to hire and fire anyone they choose. There are even companies that will fire someone for something they say on Facebook, or Twitter. Look at how Trump was handled as President of the US and his Twitter account. Yes I went there, because some of you say this termination was "unfair" and "unjust" and seems to be sexist. Yet our own country is allowing essentially smut books in childrens libraries, and allow teachers to make the decision to encourage a child to change genders without even notifying the parents. What this is, is comes down to morals. This law firm probably has "standards" that say they must adhere to. People make judgement calls all day long. We take one look at someone and the judge them rather than actually getting to know them. Does posing nude in a magazine make this person less of an employee? I doubt it. But this company has the right to make a call based on their standards. Looking the law firm up, their about page says this, "our mission is to provide the highest-quality legal services with integrity, professionalism, and respect for our clients and the greater community." Right there, they are trying to set a precedent that they respect the people they serve. Chances are, they don't want the lewdness of working with Hustler to be brought up in court as a means to lose a lawsuit. Chances are, some lawyer out there will use it against the lawfirm as a reason for them to lose the case because of some sort of judgement as if they aren't working with integrity or professionalism. Does it mean anything? Nope. Honestly, she just needs to just move on and find another lawfirm to work at. Does it mean they are right? Nope, but it is their company and they are allowed to hire who they want. I have been fired from a job because I didn't want to wear a suit and tie to work. I would come in with the jacket on, take it off and loosen my tie. They didn't like that because potentially a "customer" might see me and think that our company wasn't professional enough for them. Even though I work in the IT side of the house and on the third floor in a section of the building that customers are never in due to security reasons. I know one lady who was fired because she was always running late or taking time off because her kids were either sick or to young to be left home alone. Not sure why in our society, we shun women for taking care of their kids and family, or even taking nude photo's or even non nude photos at one point, but this is the world we live in. Is it fair? Nope. But then again, I have played the lottery when it's $1.5 billion dollars and didn't win. Life is unfair. The best way to deal with it is understand that not everyone shares the same sentiment as we do about nudity, the lifestyle, etc. Look at how the LDS church handled that one Onlyfans model that was a Member of their church. They treated her well when they didn't know she was posing nude and doing sex films. Once they found out, they essentially kicked her out of the church. This is not any different than that. Not sure why everyone is up in arms about it. Not everyone is ok with people posing nude. Just like not every model is comfortable or wants to pose nude. They just don't want that, sorry for the pun, exposure and people seeing them like that. That's the whole reason we have photo release forms, and why we have laws against ex husbands from posting sex tapes and nudes. This is the reason why nude dancing is done in buildings that have no windows or dark tint so you can't see in. So to sit there and go, she should sue, is just crazy. Not everyone agrees that nudity is ok. Not everyone is comfortable knowing someone takes photo's of nude models. Not everyone thinks that it's normal. That's life. Not sure why everyone is up in arms about it. There are a ton of other law firms that more than likely would hire her. Just not this one. Sep 24 23 04:39 am Link Most of the time, appearing in Hustler will get a model fired from their full time ordinary job. Nothing unusual about that. That is the way of the world, but those who operate in the film industry have some protections from that. It isn't just nudity, it is blatantly sexual content, and there is a difference. A model I once used, moved to NYC and appeared in Hustler. I do not know what her impact was, following that exposure, but she probably was not known to be working a regular, work day world, job. So I doubt she was terribly impacted, but modeling for Hustler, is certainly not the same as modeling for Playboy. Sep 24 23 06:28 am Link 
Model Posts: 6639 MacMurdo - permanent station of the US, Sector claimed by New Zealand, Antarctica I think we all need to take responsibility for our choices in life. There are plenty of employers who would not have a problem with hiring an ex-hustler model. There are plenty who will. That's their choice. The whole reason there's money in erotica/posing nude is because of the taboo nature of it. Not everyone is willing to or even interested in doing it, but men want to see it. Supply and demand. You take the money, you have to accept the stigma. Like stated above - it's not fair; that's just the way it is. Sep 24 23 07:57 am Link My opinion….she did not actually get fired for posing for adult content. Maybe the law firm has Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby as clients, and so the firm was concerned that one of their morally righteous clients would recognize her from their nightly fap sessions…but that was not the reason, that was the excuse. Depending on where it is, that’s a valid reason for a professional firm to terminate someone. California is an “At-Will” state so you can get fired for any reason or no reason at all. Almost never is there anything that can be done about it. But she didn’t get fired for posing for adult content. She actually got fired because the office manager did not like her, and used the adult content thing as an excuse. I’ve had enough professional clients , law firms and accounting firms, to see this dynamic all the time. A pretty, capable person get hired into a firm. They rock at their job, and beyond that, they are pleasing to look at. The partners start to notice….and office manager sees it as a problem, or more realistically a threat. So they go on a campaign to get the pretty, capable person let go, and start turning over rocks until they something to justify what they already decided to do. Every small firm I have worked with has this sort of underlying dynamic. Sep 24 23 09:05 am Link Studio NSFW wrote: Along with 49 out of 50 states and every territory Sep 24 23 10:24 am Link It's very unfortunate that happened to her. But as others pointed out there are still a lot of people with values which are dramatically different, and feel that such things are inappropriate. Way back in 1987 when I first took my clothes off to model for artists and photographers, one of the experienced people I was posing for told me to be careful about who I told. I've always modelled under an assumed name, because I did not want my employer to know about it even though it was none of their business. People can still recognize you from photos that are published, or from artwork or photos that get entered into contests and gallery displays which are open to the public. I've had that happen more than once, and even hundreds of miles away from home in another country! Sep 24 23 11:48 am Link Well, “Hustler” isn’t exactly known for its artistic portrayal of women. That said, I don’t like the increasing trend of firing people over things that have nothing to do with job performance. Often the alleged immoral behavior isn’t even proven true. Sep 25 23 03:28 pm Link Studio NSFW wrote: "At-Will" works two ways: in an "At-Will" state you can be fired for any reason, but you can also quit for any reason. Both employee and employer have the right to leave the other at any time, for any reason Sep 27 23 10:16 am Link The subject in this thread is a Paralegal who apparently was terminated (hearsay at this juncture) because she had purportedly posed nude and the image(s) were published (and apparently brought to the attention of her employer). Paralegal Career Choices are either Public Service or Private Practice In either paradigm interacting with clients is one of the key (primary) responsibilities of a paralegal. This is an overriding component of this thread. The choice to terminate a paralegal (for any reason) is a Professional Responsibility of the Practice (either Public or Private). I personally worked with a model who lost her career position as a Public School Teacher when nude images she had posed for were discovered on Model Mayhem... She had no recourse here, period. We live in a consensus republic (democracy) thus if there are social norms that one feels concerned about then seeking redress at the ballet box is indeed a viable choice. Because I hold a cosmologist license in makeup artistry therefore in all my commercial work I strive to honor and embrace femininity not exploit it... Bridal makeup is a large component of my revenue stream. To this end I avoid posting any imagery that a MOB may find offensive. Since I chose to pursue commercial assignments in bridal makeup artistry as a result I have had to carefully adjust my public persona to meet the expectations of my clients. btw, my wife worked as a paralegal for many years... enough said. Sep 27 23 05:09 pm Link I know people who've had their previous experience as a nude art model be brought up in custody battles in court. I also knew a woman who was sexually assaulted at a modeling gig (non-nude). She went to the cops, who assumed she was an angry prostitute and got ripped off by a trick. Not only did they not care, but threatened to arrest her for prostitution. I worked as a traveling nude model for many years, including 5 years in adult content work. The society we live in marginalizes people in that community to the point that you're almost not even considered human anymore if you've ever been nude on the Internet. If all a person loses is their job, that's pretty good. Some people lose their kids, or get wrongfully arrested if they try to report abuse. Sep 28 23 06:02 am Link Frozen Logic wrote: It's not quite "any reason". Even in an "At-Will" state you cannot be fired for certain protected reasons (such as race, national origin, etc.). I don't claim that such firings don't happen. Only that the employer must find some other reason. If it can be proved the employer fired someone over a forbidden reason, the employer is going to have some problems. While it is often difficult to prove such a claim, sometimes the employer documents it via email. Perhaps they sent an email to the employee's supervisor ordering the employee to be fired due to their skin color. Oct 03 23 03:07 pm Link Haven't seen the photos of question. It sounds to me that the association with the named magazine is more of the issue than whatever the content may have been. Hustler has always been seen as the porno version of Playboy,, so women who are 'respectable' might have gotten by years ago with a PB photo shoot, but certainly not with Hustler. Either way, unless there was some morals clause in her hiring or contract that she signed, it's totally unfair to her career and her reputation. Oct 03 23 06:56 pm Link Adventure Photos wrote: Well you know I just replied to your comment on another post that I am not objectionable to working with models who have done porn. From the responses to this post I made, I understand that it is more of the employers contract, the State laws, and other issues involved. She may or may not have a case. Even if she were to win a legal settlement, it might not be worth the time and trouble. Oct 03 23 10:55 pm Link Ken Marcus Studios wrote: Let alone those people who think such photographs are sexist and could not be accepted in a feminist evironment... Oct 04 23 02:57 am Link TomFRohwer wrote: An environment in which a woman can be fired from her job if her photograph appears in a magazine is obviously not a feminist environment. Oct 04 23 03:39 am Link Frozen Logic wrote: Michael Fryd wrote: You are correct, I should have written "any legal reason" Oct 05 23 08:09 am Link Given that there are barely any magazines left, I would think the incidences of this happening in the future will drop off. Maybe the sheer number of individuals who participate on OnlyFans will change attitudes. Oct 06 23 04:12 am Link |
