Perdido 03

Perdido 03

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Sue, Baby, Sue

The NY Post covers the story of Tiffany Webb, a former guidance counselor at Murry Begtraum who was fired for a past job she had as a bikini and lingerie model.

Webb, now 37, had posed for the photos when she was 18-20 and disclosed the job when she was first hired by the DOE.  The photos have shown up on the Internet over the past few years, leading to her being "rubber roomed" twice for a year each while the DOE investigated the case.  There was also a third investigation conducted without a rubber room imprisonment.

Webb received satisfactory ratings every year and was respected by colleagues and students, juggling a case load of 540 students according to the Post.  Nonetheless, she was fired for "conduct unbecoming a DOE employee" on December 23 of last year after a student allegedly showed photos of the lingerie-clad to the principal of the school at the time.

Here is how the DOE decided the case:

 “The inappropriate photos were accessible to impressionable adolescents,” a three-member chancellor’s committee ruled by 2-1. “That behavior has a potentially adverse influence on her ability to counsel students and be regarded as a role model.”

The dissenting member argued, “Her professional work as a guidance counselor has been outstanding, and she should not be punished for something that happened years ago.”

Webb has changed her name and is working in New Jersey as a teacher.  She is suing the DOE for

 wrongful termination, sex discrimination and violation of First Amendment rights. She seeks reinstatement, back pay and punitive damages.

Of course we know that the chancellor and the mayor have both said there is a "No Tolerance" policy for any employee misconduct and even if an arbitrator finds in the favor of a teacher, the chancellor and the mayor want the right to overturn the arbitrator's decision.

In this case, they wouldn't have to overturn any decision - the teacher was fired for lingerie photos she had taken almost twenty years ago.

And of course the kids are the winners here, because they have now learned an important lesson - whatever you do these days on the Internets WILL come back to haunt you and cost you a job in the future - even if it is something as innocuous as taking lingerie photos that could be in a Victoria's Secret catalog.

The other lesson is, it's okay for the Daily News and Post to put up half-naked photos of celebrities like Rihanna and call this "news" but if someone working as a teacher used to work as a lingerie model when she was in college, she's a dirty filthy sex creep and MUST be fired to save the delicate psyches of teenagers who must not be exposed to this sexual stuff - unless the Daily News or Post is showing it.

All I can say is, paraphrasing another former bikini model who once ran for vice president, sue, baby, sue.


  1. You said it so well--this was very unfair. I hope she wins LOTS of money in her court case.

  2. Herr Bloomberg should not emcumber NY city taxpayers with his avowed facist lifestyle. Instead THE HERR Bloomberg, a.k.a. Hizzoner, our well-endowed Fuhrer of NY city should be required by the courts to pay the damages and penalties out of his pants' pockets. Herr uber facist mayor has indeed made much money working on the Street.

  3. Of course NY city taxpayers are on the hook for all of Mr. Bloombergs' idiosyncratic indiscretions.

    When will NY city citizens become informed enough to act responsibly on the important public policy issues that threaten their well being?

    1. Even the Bloomberg Blizzard Disaster of 2010 seems to have faded from people's minds. CityTime has gone from the collective memory banks too. They've destroyed Liu, so any investigation he does into the mayor's mismanagement is mocked by the tabloids and corporate media (all of which are owned by Bloomberg buddies - or by Bloomberg himself.)

      When the oligarch owns the media, he gets his cronies to write his own history. It's difficult to break through that. See David Sirota for more of this:

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. I deleted this comment because the link given in it had some malicious code it tries to put on visiting computers.