Blogs can be hazardous to your employment

In case you weren't sure, blogging can be hazardous to your employment.  Case in point: a Delta Airlines flight attendent who blogged as the Queen of Sky was fired because she posted mildly provocative pictures of herself in flight uniform on her blog:

Since then, Ms. Simonetti has filed a sex-discrimination complaint against Delta with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and is threatening to sue Delta for $10 million, claiming other employees, primarily men, have their photographs posted on the Web in uniform and are not fired for it. The airline declined to comment on the case.

Uh, yeah.  Since the stated reason for termination was, apparently, "inappropriate photos in a Delta uniform," I think she's going to need more evidence than the mere fact that other employees posted pictures of themselves in uniform; it would help if she could show that there were other pictures that Delta was aware of that were equally inappropriate.

In case you are curious, the photos are here.  I can kind of see Delta's side here.  There's nothing terribly racy about the pictures, but taken together, they aren't professional and may create an unintended image of Delta flight attendents as, well, playthings.  Firing seems like a harsh punishment, though, when the airline could have simply asked her to remove the photos from her blog.

Comments

[David]

Wouldn't she have a disparate impact argument? Most (I think) Flight Attendants are female, so the rule would apply to mostly women. In the google cache, the pics I saw were pretty tame (one grabbing her but at a costume party, and her sitting cross-legged on top of the seats). What would a guy have to do to get fired and still be in his uniform? It is, after all, Delta issued garb.

[g]

I think I'd be more likely to fly Delta after seeing her pictures, so I'm not exactly sure why Delta thinks that her pictures are a bad thing.

[Bren]

To prove disparate impact, though, wouldn't she have to show that it is a pattern or practice of Delta to fire people (in general) for dressing provocatively in their uniforms, a neutral rule which has a harsher impact on women b/c, as David says, there seem to be generally more women flight attendants? That would require, as Tung noted, more evidence of people (men OR women, I believe) being fired for the same thing. Seems to me that individual disparate treatment is her best bet, unless she has that evidence.

Personally, though, from the pictures I saw, they weren't even that bad!

[Ron]

The pics are suggestive. But, I think not too suggestive. Delta no doubt could object and refuse the flight attendant permission to use photos taken in the cabin or with a uniform unprofessionally worn. Personally, I would have reprimanded her and given her a chance to take the pictures off the website. My hunch is that rather than face the uncertainty of a jury trial, Delta will settle without admitting any fault.

[Sarah]

Pretty hypocritical, if you ask me. Flight attendants have to flash the legs, keep the figure trim, have perfect hair and makeup--all aspects of sexual attractiveness--but when a flight attendant goes just a teeny bit further to make it sexy, she's fired.

The same goes for being intelligent--but don't be too intelligent or knowledgeable. You'll threaten your boss and run the risk of not being promoted--or even fired.

[Federalist No. 84]

Flight attendants have to flash the legs, keep the figure trim, have perfect hair and makeup--all aspects of sexual attractiveness--but when a flight attendant goes just a teeny bit further to make it sexy, she's fired.

Uh, it seemed to got a lot farther. There were pretty risque, IMHO. They failed my, "What if someone who did not know me saw me looking at them?" test.

If the blogger had been a Victoria's Secret model, the photos would have been fine. But Delta has an image to preserve, even if it preserves that image only at the margins. I imagine Delta would not be keen on pilots posing in just their slacks and hat. It's one thing to stand and look handsome or beautiful. It's another thing to try looking sexually provocative.

There is a difference, you know it, I know it, and Delta knows it.

[tom]

So perhaps Delta draws the line between 'sexy' and 'available.' If that's the case, she probably crossed the line because she certainly has lavatory eyes in some of those pictures. Nevertheless, while Delta might be on solid legal ground in firing her, it's a disaster for public relations, and an airline teetering on the brink of bankruptcy doesn't need any more dings to its public image. A letter asking her to remove the photos from her web site would have been much more apporpriate, effective and, best of all, quiet. I can't help but think there's more to the story that we're not being told because otherwise, it seems like Delta used a howitzer to swat a fly.

[Federalist No. 84]

[A]n airline teetering on the brink of bankruptcy doesn't need any more dings to its public image.

Tom - you are right and I amend my position as to the firing (though the pictures were still out of line). If I were Delta, I'd fire the lawyer who told me to fire the blogger.

Delta will not be open to broad discovery requests to see if they treated the blogger differently from men. This is really stupd, since there is probably damaging evidence - at least as to other employment practices - somewhere in its files.

[Tung Yin]

If I were Delta, I'd fire the lawyer who told me to fire the blogger.

I highly doubt that outside counsel (or even in-house counsel) would have recommended firing the blogger. We lawyers are a cautious lot, and termination is a risky move. The consensus here in the comments seems to be that it would have been better to have directed her to remove the pictures, and I tend to think that's what lawyers would have recommended.

[Federalist No. 84]

I highly doubt that outside counsel (or even in-house counsel) would have recommended firing the blogger.

Hmmm...they fired someone without first talking to someone in the legal department? Then, well, I'd fire that person!

[Tung Yin]

No. 84, I don't know, of course, but if I had to guess, I would guess that Delta got legal advice (in-house and/or outside), which was that it would be more prudent not to fire her, but that Delta decided to go ahead with firing her anyway. From reading some comments on her blog, it seems that she might have been suspended first, so one possibility is that Delta did try to ask her to behave and she refused. (Of course, it could also be that Delta suspended her first, consulted lawyers, then fired her without giving her a chance to cooperate.)

[Brian]

Kevin doesn't have to worry about his job. His nonsense fits right in at law schools. However, Professor Yin, if you continue to be reasonable, you may find yourself out of a job.