[News] Leafs part ways with recently hired goalie coach after social media history comes up

[Erick Estrada]

I'm on the fence. On one hand I feel firing a person for liking some tweets is a little extreme and I'm not a fan of public shaming. On the other hand as I said before you have to be smart these days and keep your opinions to yourself on social media if you have a job that puts your name out there for the public to follow and scrutinize. I don't know Dusty Imoo and can't say if he's a good guy or not but he should have been more careful on social media. He wasn't and here we are.

[PepsiFree]

I also think the notion of someone being "cancelled" and "losing everything" is a bit of a cliche.

I can't actually recall someone (whose value isn't entirely based on their marketability, like movie stars) who got cancelled for non-criminal reasons that hasn't gone on and continued to work. Even Hollywood people bounce back from it pretty regularly.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Except that now it's out there, people are pronouncing severe judgement on him, and nobody else is going to hire him either. He's finished.

The main issue is the Leafs shouldn't have hired him in the first place if this is fireble to them. If he doesn't get hired - none of this occurs and he can continue to like terrible things on twitter.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The main issue is the Leafs shouldn't have hired him in the first place if this is fireble to them. If he doesn't get hired - none of this occurs and he can continue to like terrible things on twitter.

The Leafs basically admitted this in their press release. It’s not the first time a company has done this immediately after an announcement of a hire.

[Fuzzy14]

A few fellow members of the bar in this thread in agreement with MLSE's decision has me a touch confused.

What isn't offensive today might be tomorrow. I'm certain if the loafer was on the other foot... say they were turfed from their firm or large corporation because they liked some tweets... they would be equally supportive of the decision. After all, the reputation of their employer would be paramount and the public tarring and irreparable damage to their reputation would be justified.

It's easy to look at a fate suffered by others and say, "I don't agree with his views so i'm sure he had it coming".

In terms of references to the individual being fireable with reasonable notice or pay-in-lieu... that doesn't make the motivation for the firing justifiable. It just means the employer satisfies his legal obligations towards his previous employee...

[Buff]

Dusty's first billets in Lethbridge were my neighbours. He didn't last long with that family and they didn't have nice things to say about him.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

A few fellow members of the bar in this thread in agreement with MLSE's decision has me a touch confused.

What isn't offensive today might be tomorrow. I'm certain if the loafer was on the other foot... say they were turfed from their firm or large corporation because they liked some tweets... they would be equally supportive of the decision. After all, the reputation of their employer would be paramount and the public tarring and irreparable damage to their reputation would be justified.

It's easy to look at a fate suffered by others and say, "I don't agree with his views so i'm sure he had it coming".

In terms of references to the individual being fireable with reasonable notice or pay-in-lieu... that doesn't make the motivation for the firing justifiable. It just means the employer satisfies his legal obligations towards his previous employee...

In Canada you don’t have to “justify” a firing, unless you are unwilling to give notice.

[RodimusPryme]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I never took a stance on whether or not he should have been fired.
I haven't made a single comment about it in fact.

I didn't assume any of the 3 things you wrote. You're the one jumping to conclusions.

What I did was refute RodimusPryme's claim that he there was nothing transphobic about the tweets he did like.

Then when Rodimus tried to deflect and completely ignored the transphobic slur, I pointed that out.
I've made no assumptions about the intentions of the guy who got fired.

However I have learned that Rodimus doesn't think a tweet that starts with a transphobic slur is transphobic.

Rodimus You're welcome to set the record straight.
Do you think that tweet was transphobic (you know the one that started with a transphobic slur).
If you do, then do you admit that this guy did in fact like at least one transphobic tweet?
If not, would you care to explain why you think a tweet that starts with a slur isn't transphobic?

If ‘chicks with dicks’ is horrific slur that ought never be uttered lest you be lose your livelihood, then someone better tell Martha Wainwright
https://youtu.be/yzPHHpi1bUA

[DeluxeMoustache]

High profile organizations have codes of conduct, often covering inclusivity, equality, discrimination etc

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

[Sled]

Looking at the samples they look like average comments leading up to jokes in virtually any Family Guy episode EVER. Does that mean now that since I watched a Family Guy episode(s) or even the Ted movies that I believe those jokes/comments to be true and now my personal values? Especially since I didn't do my civic duty to be outranged by such things on Social media.

*** by reading the above words a waiver of liability against rage, offense and taken exception with is now presumed between the poster known as Sled and the reader of this post for all time and forever.

[Fuzzy14]

In Canada you don’t have to “justify” a firing, unless you are unwilling to give notice.

Thanks for the employment law lesson, I am forever in your debt. You are correct that I used the wrong word to express what I want to convey, perhaps I can use simpler language: the fact that they don't need to provide a reason for the termination if they're willing to provide pay in lieu of notice does not make the practice of people being fired for their likes on twitter "less bad".

I also note that, in cherry picking my misstatement from my post, you ignored the beginning where I asked what your opinion would be if you were in that position. Care to comment? Say your likes were under scrutiny and you were relieved of your position at your firm. That process was also public so whenever someone wants some legal services and they look you up, they find that you're a "racist" and a "transphobe" on google. No worries, right?

[ResAlien]

First they came for the racists and I said nothing…

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

Thanks for the employment law lesson, I am forever in your debt. You are correct that I used the wrong word to express what I want to convey, perhaps I can use simpler language: the fact that they don't need to provide a reason for the termination if they're willing to provide pay in lieu of notice does not make the practice of people being fired for their likes on twitter "less bad".

I also note that, in cherry picking my misstatement from my post, you ignored the beginning where I asked what your opinion would be if you were in that position. Care to comment? Say your likes were under scrutiny and you were relieved of your position at your firm. That process was also public so whenever someone wants some legal services and they look you up, they find that you're a "racist" and a "transphobe" on google. No worries, right?

People are entitled to hire who they want based on their preferences, so yeah. But then again, I’m not dumb enough to do what he did.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, if his published views are making him unhireable, who’s fault is that?

His published views (or rather, the views of other people that he ‘liked’ on Twitter, but never expressed himself) have nothing whatever to do with coaching goaltenders. So in this case, it's the fault of the people who blacklist thought-criminals.

[Psytic]

Post nothing but vacation or food photos and like nothing. Thats what I do on my social media. You never know what people will be offended by these days. Just a random statement. Not for or against this fellow or his views.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

His published views have nothing whatever to do with coaching goaltenders. So in this case, it's the fault of the people who blacklist thought-criminals.

It’s the fault of people who (a) want to work for a highly visible company with set policies about inclusion and (b) proceed to publicize views the company doesn’t want associated with itself. That’s corporate freedom. So tell me, is there no view you find bad enough to merit firing an employee? If he’d openly supported making interracial marriage illegal, would that be OK, since it doesn’t affect his performance?

But thanks for the over the top characterization.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Post nothing but vacation or food photos and like nothing.

You eat MEAT? You MURDERER! CANCEL CANCEL CANCEL!

Also, was that a picture of a drink with a PLASTIC STRAW in it? You are KILLING THE PLANET! CANCEL CANCEL CANCEL!

And don't get me started about the horrible evil colonialist place you went on vacation 11 years ago.

There are no safe topics.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

His published views (or rather, the views of other people that he ‘liked’ on Twitter, but never expressed himself) have nothing whatever to do with coaching goaltenders. So in this case, it's the fault of the people who blacklist thought-criminals.

You’ve never seen his twitter feed. And apparently to you, if you post nothing but likes of anti-vaxxers, racists, and homophobes, that means nothing about your own views. That defies common sense.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

A few fellow members of the bar in this thread in agreement with MLSE's decision has me a touch confused.

What isn't offensive today might be tomorrow. I'm certain if the loafer was on the other foot... say they were turfed from their firm or large corporation because they liked some tweets... they would be equally supportive of the decision. After all, the reputation of their employer would be paramount and the public tarring and irreparable damage to their reputation would be justified.

It's easy to look at a fate suffered by others and say, "I don't agree with his views so i'm sure he had it coming".

In terms of references to the individual being fireable with reasonable notice or pay-in-lieu... that doesn't make the motivation for the firing justifiable. It just means the employer satisfies his legal obligations towards his previous employee...

For what it's worth, I work in-house for a reasonably large government organization. I like to think I'm relatively valuable to the organization (having worked there for nearly a decade now) but I 100% expect that I would be terminated (or at the very least termination would be seriously considered) if I made public comments or likes or whatever that embarrassed or caused reputational harm to the organization.

I don't even think this particularly new. I've operated under that understanding my entire career (~10 years).

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Post nothing but vacation or food photos and like nothing. Thats what I do on my social media. You never know what people will be offended by these days. Just a random statement. Not for or against this fellow or his views.

Tomorrow you get called into your bosses office. "So our team found a picture you posted and it turns out you've put mayo on a hotdogs. We don't tolerate that sort of thing around here. You're fired."