Re: Subway fires pornstar for having meat in his b
OK.. that's SO a lawsuit right there.
I'm sure that Subway has no contracts to sign and no "you can't do porn" clause.
The fact that the boss admits it's because of the gay issue.
Subway is going to have to pay that guy a LOT and I hope he's already got himself a good lawyer.
Unfortunately, no. There are no Federal anti-discrimination laws that protect LGT employees. And, from what I've see on other sites, neither the state and city where this happened have anti-discrimination laws to protect him.
As others have noted, employment discrimination is extremely tough to prove, particularly in "at-will" states. There is a EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) mediator in my doctoral program. He's told us plenty of stories in class about employment discrimination. Unless the employee has a "smoking gun", it's rare that EEOC will issue a "right to sue" document. (You can't sue someone for employment discrimination without approval from the EEOC.)
This is an interesting case because of the porn angle. If Wild was fired just because he did porn, he might have a case. Since it is gay porn, however, he's out of luck. The employer could simply state that he was fired for being gay (with the gay porn as proof). Since that type of firing is legal, Wild is out of luck.
This shouldn't be seen as me being an apologist for Subway, but since most Subways are franchises, Subway Corporate probably has little influence here. I'm almost certain the franchise agreement would not include any type of approval for hiring/firing employees by the franchisee. Therefore, I see an all-out boycott of Subway to be a bit much. After all, there are certainly gay-owned Subways, not to mention the gay employees across the world.
Finally, I'll offer up my opinion on ENDA. If ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) was passed at the Federal level, it would make Wild's firing illegal. I think our priorities are misplaced in the gay community. While I'm all for gay marriage, I think it is wiser to pursue employment protection first. It seems like a slam-dunk to me. The right to employment doesn't involve religion. Therefore, those conservative nuts can't argue that we are destroying a religious tradition. According to a Gallup poll posted on the GLAAD website, 90% of people polled believed that gays and lesbians should have "equal rites in terms of job opportunities". (Source:
http://www.glaad.org/media/guide/infocus/polls.php) I say the LGBT community should fight for employment rights before we tackle the marriage issue.
Any thoughts?
this guys must be an bigot ass.
Something tells me he REALLY needs the job.
