r/facepalm • u/Impressive_Returns • 4d ago

Woman who commits hate crime against drag queens working in a hotel she is staying at in Hawaii turns out to work at UC Davis in department of Trans Studies in university directory. (Really transportation studies). Women is pure evil. Students want her to be removed. 🇵​🇷​🇴​🇹​🇪​🇸​🇹​

Post image
1.2k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

93% Upvoted

186 comments sorted by

View all comments

75

u/MrsDanversbottom 4d ago

She should be fired.

56

u/Impressive_Returns 4d ago

There is a petition to get her fired.

19

u/omghorussaveusall 4d ago

She's a UC employee, it's pretty likely she will be fired.

16

u/karoshikun 4d ago

guess that guarantees her a position in the next administration, the way things seem to be going

8

u/omghorussaveusall 4d ago

It's not even July. Trump has plenty of time to make things worse.

3

u/karoshikun 4d ago

I have 100% confidence that's the case

3

u/pschell 4d ago

Or she really wants to be fired so she can sue, and push the case up the courts- just like the psycho’s want.

-42

u/DeadlySight 4d ago

Why should someone that has an opinion you don’t agree with be fired? That’s nonsense.

She didn’t commit a crime or was violent. She spouted rhetoric you don’t like and that means she should lose her job? I don’t agree with her views, but jobs deciding to fire people based on their views outside of the scope of work is definitely a dangerous path to go down.

27

u/jeffersonwashington3 4d ago

Her opinion aside, her actions were hateful and unhinged. If someone with my exact opinion acted like she did in public and they were my employee, I wouldn't want them as an employee and I'd fire their ass. Actions have consequences, act like a complete idiot and inappropriate.... yes, those actions can come back on you. Acting like a moron in public is not some protected class.

-19

u/DeadlySight 4d ago

Acting like a moron committing zero crimes should not lose you your job. I may not agree with what you say but I’ll defend your right to say it. The view that you should be fired for having a different view is absurd.

Should Christian owners be allowed to fire gay employees because they disagree with how they’re living?

20

u/No_Sherbert711 4d ago

Should Christian owners be allowed to fire gay employees because they disagree with how they’re living?

That would be a swing and a miss with the comparison.

"Should X owners be allowed to discriminate..." is what you are asking. What would be the discrimination aimed at this woman?

-12

u/DeadlySight 4d ago

Should owners be allowed to fire employees that express opinions they don’t agree with in their free time is the comparison.

Should a religious owner be allowed to fire someone marching in a pride parade?

15

u/No_Sherbert711 4d ago

It probably happens all the time considering that most of america is at-will employment.

But again, sexuality is a protected class, that would be discrimination. What would be the discrimination aimed at this woman?

-5

u/DeadlySight 4d ago

Sexuality is a protected class for now

I’d rather we don’t give employers that much power in the first place. Your free time should be yours. You shouldn’t be fired for speaking your mind in your free time. Employer overreach is a problem and shouldn’t be applauded. I understand everyone thinks it’s good because this chick is an idiot and they don’t agree with what she said, but it’s a terrible precedent and needs to be stopped.

10

u/No_Sherbert711 4d ago

I’d rather we don’t give employers that much power in the first place. 

Then you're about 140 years too late. At-will employment, endowing employers with divine rights over their employees, started in 1884 with the Tennessee Supreme Court.

-1

u/DeadlySight 4d ago

Does it make it right? Does it mean you should support the overreach and even endorse it?

→ More replies (0)

13

u/kit0000033 4d ago

It's not that she had different views... It's that she was screaming like a lunatic in a public space at people who were just minding their own business.

-2

u/DeadlySight 4d ago

And? It’s her free time.

I have a strong aversion to workplaces having such reach that your free time is no longer your free time. If someone is going to make an ass of themselves in public that’s on them, they shouldn’t be fired for it unless there’s a crime associated with it.

13

u/BooBootheFool22222 4d ago

So people minding their own business deserve to be assailed in public just because she can do what she wants in her free time?

-2

u/DeadlySight 4d ago

I didn’t say anyone deserved it. She didn’t break any laws, she should be allowed to be a shitty person and out herself in her social life all she wants. Society is free to shun and shame idiots like her all they want. Employers shouldn’t be allowed to fire an employee that’s not breaking the law and otherwise does their job competently.

Your free time should be yours. Your employer should not be allowed to fire you for legal actions occurring outside of work

9

u/BooBootheFool22222 4d ago

Being a horrible person isn't against the law, but it does sometimes have consequences if you film yourself doing it completely unprovoked. Her decision to be hateful will have consequences. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Not sure why you think it's okay to be shitty to others without consequence. That's very white, hetero, and cis of you, tho.

13

u/MrsDanversbottom 4d ago

What she said went against the rules of her position. She signed a contract. She should be fired.

6

u/DynamiteRobber 4d ago

Jobs have already been doing this for years.

-11

u/DeadlySight 4d ago

For committing crimes, sure. For having a conservative opinion? That’s dangerous and nonsensical. People shouldn’t be fired for having a differing political opinion

16

u/jeffersonwashington3 4d ago

Her opinion aside, her ACTIONS in a PUBLIC setting were unhinged. I would not want to employ her, even if her view was identical to mine.

9

u/wojar 4d ago

But wouldn't her actions be considered harassment? She was following the queen around with her phone, filming and yelling in her face. You can have your opinion in a corner but harassing someone like that is a no-no.

-1

u/DeadlySight 4d ago

Would it be? Is it harassment when progressives are yelling in conservatives faces? Should those progressives be fired?

I’m advocating for a world where employers have less control over employees, especially in their free time.

1

u/wojar 2d ago

Yes, it should be. Regardless of the purpose behind it, harassment is harassment. I respect your POV, but I would love a world where people are accountable for their actions. If there is no consequence for bad behaviour, our society will be in chaos.

4

u/Silvawuff 3d ago edited 3d ago

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Her behavior went viral and brought incredibly bad optics to her workplace. Keeping her on staff at this point would be really bad for business. This will keep escalating, and she has nobody to blame but herself.

Nobody sane wants to go to a school that keeps hateful bigots on staff. Her job is toast. Maybe next time she will think twice before having a transphobic meltdown toward strangers peacefully minding their own business.

1

u/DeadlySight 3d ago

Her behavior went viral, so she should lose her job?

If I work at a conservative law firm and most of my high end clients are very conservative should I be allowed to fire an employee that went viral during a pride parade?

I know the response, “sexual orientation is a protected class”, for now. In case no one paid attention when Roe was overturned, just because you’re protected now doesn’t mean you will be in the future. We shouldn’t be giving employers so much power over employees actions outside of the workplace.

We should all be fighting against employer overreach.

1

u/Silvawuff 3d ago edited 3d ago

I'm not saying she should lose her job because her behavior went viral. I'm saying she will lose her job because her behavior went viral. She's literally giving UC Davis no choice. Harbor a bigot and get severe public backlash? They're not going to take that risk just to keep her on staff. Like I said, this isn't about individual workplace rights, this is about bad company optics that affect the business. If my child was going to this school, I wouldn't want them anywhere near this woman. It would be the same story if she was outed as a pedo child abuser. Keeping her on staff after fierce public criticism for her shitty behavior is conducive to an endorsement in the public eye.

The lesson here is don't do shitty things, record yourself doing those shitty things, then post them online and expect everything to work out favorably.

1

u/DeadlySight 3d ago

You just made the most absurd comparison. One is a bigot that apparently hasn’t had any issues at work, the other is a criminal that should be locked up.

You wouldn’t want your child near a bigot? You’re aware they’re everywhere, just most of them aren’t filmed, right?

80 million people voted for a conman and will vote for him again. A large percentage of the country is hateful bigots. The only thing that makes her different is she is on video. Being a hateful bigot isn’t illegal and shouldn’t cost you your job. It should make your social life hell and have repercussions in your personal life, but employers need to stay out of employees personal lives. People pushing to get her fired are selling their soul to the devil. Employers should not have power over your personal life. They get enough say over your life as is, they don’t need more.

I’m not defending a bigot, I’m fighting against absurd Employer overreach. If you aren’t breaking the law your employer shouldn’t be able to do shit about your personal actions outside of work.

I know she “will” lose her job, my entire point was should

2

u/BoxProfessional6987 3d ago

Yes she should because she's shown she's unstable and bigoted. Why is this so hard for you to get?

1

u/DeadlySight 3d ago

What did she do in the workplace to get fired Why are you advocating for employers to have say over people’s personal lives? It’s fucking weird

1

u/BoxProfessional6987 3d ago

She's proven she's unstable. That's the issue. What happens if she thinks she has a trans student?

1

u/DeadlySight 3d ago

You think she’s at a UC school and hasn’t?

1

u/Silvawuff 3d ago

I appreciate your response and understand your point, but I think you're missing my point. I haven't said "should" anything. I also agree that employee rights have been gravely disadvantaged at this point in history with overreach, overreaction, and violating individual privacy by companies...but this situation is not it. Her reputation is absolutely following her to work. It also will follow her to public places, her family (which it already has), her friends, relationships, and at any future job she applies at. She may as well be radioactive.

Elisabeth has fallen sour in the court of public opinion by her own behavior, and unfair or not, she's now an active risk for UC Davis to keep on staff. To avoid protests, lawsuits, threats of violence, and more negative public backlash, it's very likely she will be fired. That's it.

6

u/LovePeaceHope-ish 4d ago

based on their views outside of the scope of work

But it's not 'outside the scope of work'. She literally works at the university in the Trans Studies field. And she just proved herself to be a liability to the school. Anyone that is so unhinged as to rant hate, unprovoked, at people just minding their own damn business is a lawsuit waiting to happen. She's not probably going to be fired for her views. She's probably going to be fired for her actions. Big difference.

-4

u/DeadlySight 4d ago edited 4d ago

Transportation studies is related to this in what way?

You can be sued for talking without making threats or inciting violence? Interesting world you live in. I’ve personally never heard of such a thing

8

u/BooBootheFool22222 4d ago

In what world do you live in? One where people can rage at people for just existing without consequence? Especially when they bothered her in no way other than their mere existence. This faux concern over the aggressors' rights leads to situations like the death of Nex Benedict. There's this thing called "basic human decency." Racists don't get to go haywire and assail people of other races without consequence either.

6

u/LovePeaceHope-ish 4d ago

My mistake, as I did not see that this was Transportation studies. So, you are correct - that is not relevant. Thanks for pointing that out.

However, a company certainly can be sued if their employee discriminates against someone during the scope of their employment. So, no, the law doesn't specifically say that this woman should be fired for what she said on vacation (if she was on her personal time and not during work hours), but, if you re-read my comment, that is not what i said. I said she's a lawsuit waiting to happen. This pubically exploited behavior sets a precedent as to this woman's biases and puts the company on notice. Please educate yourself on vicarious liability, at-will employment, negligent retention, and respondeat superior for a better understanding of this issue. Bottom line is, depending on the state and employer, a person can definitely be released from their employment, and even sued, for their actions/words/behavior. And, if the company is aware of an employees abhorrent behavior and choses to keep them in their employ, then that opens up the company to a lawsuit as well. Peace.

-2

u/DeadlySight 4d ago

lol, nice word salad trying to sound intelligent.

This doesn’t set precedent for anything work related. If she’s worked without incident there’s no reason to believe this outburst will have anything to do with her work at all. Respondent behavior and negligent retention? 😂 Her nonsense display in Hawaii isn’t relevant to her work in California.

The only thing that’s applicable is at-will employment. Yes, the company probably can fire her for basically whatever they want. We shouldn’t support and endorse that kind of employer overreach. Employer oversight should end when you’re on your free time. I’m talking about the way things should be, not the way they are. Employers should not be able to fire employees that are doing their jobs without incident.

5

u/LovePeaceHope-ish 4d ago

Ooohhh, okay. I get who you are now. Silly me thought this was a good faith conversation. But, nope - you're just a jerk. Got it. Bye.

1

u/QuitUsingMyNames 3d ago

An opinion is one thing. Harassment and causing a public disturbance is something else.

1

u/DeadlySight 3d ago

None of which have to do with the workplace and the employer shouldn’t be involved in at all.

The amount of people pushing for so much employer power over employees is insane.

1

u/QuitUsingMyNames 3d ago

Oh I don’t care about her workplace. That’s their decision if they want to keep her nasty ass on the payroll or not.