Marrying an adult film star: Firable offense?
July 30, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Terminations
If it came out that a top exec at your firm was married to someone in a controversial profession, how do you think the company would react?
If you worked for this Florida town, the answer would be: Issue an immediate termination.
Scott Janke was appointed as the town manager of Fort Myers Beach in March 2008. He performed that job until last week, when Mayor Larry Kiker learned Janke is married to an adult film star. Hours after hearing the news, Kiker called an emergency meeting with town council, which voted 5-0 in favor of the firing.
In October, Janke married Anabela Mota Janke, whom the editor of a Web site covering the porn industry recognized and identified after seeing a photo of the couple in a local newspaper. Word eventually spread to people in the town’s government.
Kiker acknowledged that Janke performed his job well and broke no laws or regulations. But he, along with the town’s council members, felt his wife’s profession shed a bad light on Fort Myers Beach, the Associated Press reports.
As severance, Janke will receive six months’ salary plus health benefits. The couple wouldn’t comment on the possibility of legal action against the company. A clause in Janke’s contract allowed his termination with a majority vote from council.
What do you think? Was it OK to fire Janke to protect the town’s reputation? What would have happened if an exec at your company was in a similar situation?
Let us know in the comments section below.
Tags: employee's spouse, firing, Fort Myers Beach
July 31st, 2009 at 8:12 am
“…protect the town’s reputation?” Bwahahahaha – that’s a riot! Currently their reputation is that they led the nation in foreclosures (along with Las Vegas – a.k.a. “Sin City”) in the first half of 2009. Sounds like FM Beach is right in their element.
Seriously, Mr. & Mrs. Janke should sue the socks off the town and it’s council members individually.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:21 am
Now the government can tell us who we can be married to?
July 31st, 2009 at 8:26 am
Something about this doesn’t seem right. His wife’s occupation should not be cause for his dismissal if he is doing his job well.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:35 am
While I don’t agree with the termination reason – if you enter into an employment contract willingly then the contract should govern. In this case – it didn’t appear to matter why the council would want to fire him – could have been for a bad haircut – the contract allowed them to do this with no circumstances or parameters stated. The reasons they fired him were not illegal or matter of public policy (such as racial discrimination or retaliation for whistle-blowing). If Mr. Janke wanted to protect his job, he should have done a better job in contract negotiations.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:44 am
and the Governor of SC? I would think “cheating” is far worse.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:45 am
Let’s not forget that numerous former Presidents “cheated” as well. Cheating speaks more about charactor than whom one marries.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:57 am
Seriously? Are you kidding me?? As long as he is doing his job well, who cares who he is married to? Everything was fine before they found out what his wife’s occupation was. I’m with Mac…sue the socks off of the town. He has a legitimate case.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:59 am
I agree with SKT: Mr. Janke should have done a better job negotiating the terms of his contract. While the TM and Council made what I consider a ridiculous decision, it (apparently) was not an illegal one. I hope none of them live in glass houses, or that they all lead perfecfly moral lives (let’s see, morality as defined by whom…..?).
July 31st, 2009 at 9:06 am
Would we elect a president who’s wife or husband was a in the Playboy magizine? Or posed nude in any book? Does the Miss Universe or Miss America allow their candiates to poses nude for magazines? Or adult film? No, no no, the government makes the rules up as they go, if they don’t like the idea, then the rest of the “Americans” don’t mean squat!
Is this really a free country I ask? My observation, is no…….
But yet when a president of the United States commets adultry, Is he fired?
What about when the president put millions of soilders in a war and thousands are dead now? What about a presidents daughter getting caught for under age drinking is she charged? NO!
Do I need to say more?
July 31st, 2009 at 9:14 am
As SKT stated, his contract state if the council votes unanimously, they could terminate him any time for just about any silly reason (bad haircut, closthes not military pressed properly, etc). It is right no, is this fair for the future, no. there is so much bad press on our politicians these days, and the voters just sit on their hands and do nothing. only the voice of the people can change this and all the future BS coming out of our local, state and federal governments.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:15 am
I believe in private business this would be no issue to term. There was a case whereby a police officer was fired due to off duty participation in a white supremist type group was found not to represent the police force. Certainly their timing was a bit off, since it took over 6 months to find this out. Let’s hope the council doesn’t find out they also live in glass houses.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:20 am
No, he should not have gotten fired. If I were him, I would sue them and decline the severance entirely. The contract stipulated if “he” did something they did not like. He is not the porn star. I guess his decision to marry a porn star in their minds constitutes a bad decision, hence the termination. If this happened in my company, yes, everyone would lose their little minds, but I do not think they would fire the CEO or any other senior official.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:40 am
She has the qualifications to be a politician, so I would think she would be welcome to the club with them after council meetings. Remember that old Louisanna governor who married the burlesque queen?
He should sue, I think they were wrong.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:46 am
It started off bad with a contract that WILL hold up in court. No matter what he does – majority vote can get rid of him. Happened here locally with a school board member getting voted out because no one “liked” her. I am firm believer that if you are not doing anything illegal on your time off then the company that you work for can say nothing. Besides the fact that this is his wife is in the porn business and not him personally. Who dictates what is ethical or politically correct? The good ol boys jealous they aren’t married to a porn star?
July 31st, 2009 at 9:46 am
They look happy together…except…maybe they fired him for his midlife and marrying a hot chick and the rest are jealous.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:47 am
I’d assume then, according to his contract Janke would have to have asked permission to marry her? Maybe he needed to ask permission to make most decisions in his personal life then?
Public, private, it doesn’t matter in my opinion. If he was doing his job well he should be measured on that alone.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:52 am
It’s a pretty slippery slope once you try to figure out whether a spouse’s (non-employee) occupation mars a town’s “reputation.” I think the town would be better off if they concentrated on job performance or a spousal employment that might be a clear conflict of interest (i.e. owner of a construction company with large city contracts.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:53 am
The government does not have quite the same “at will” termination rights that private employers have. A private employer can say, “The Bill of Rights does not apply here.” The government cannot. Anyone ever heard of freedom of affiliation? Who he chooses to spend his time with (or marry) outside of work is not something that the government can act upon.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:53 am
The government has no right to dictate marriage relationships. In this instance they have just discriminated against this person, this may be a violation of law. The entire councel should be dismissed, based upon their judgement in potentially exposing the City to sizable judgment, which will occur, not may occur.
Jeff
July 31st, 2009 at 9:56 am
this reminds me of an old song called “Harper Valley PTA”. Sounds just a little like don’t throw stones if you live in glass houses to me. If the man good at his job and isn’t breaking any laws, then they should just let him do the job.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:11 am
Let me see, did Scott’s wife film “porn” on the property of the city? Did Scott join his wife in a porn film? (Which is not illegal by the way if he is over 18) Did he try to solicit members of the council to participate or endorse the pornography business? (Which is also not illegal) Is there a morality clause in his contract? If he was performing his job satisfactorily then I cannot see reason to terminate him. Last time I checked private life and actions were supposed to be just that PRIVATE. He has not done anything illegal even if the hypocritical (politicians in general in my opinion) council members think anyone will care if he is married to a porn star. I mean really we had a president in the White House that cheated on his wife IN THE OVAL OFFICE and most people didn’t even bat an eye. If the council voted him out then he will probably not be able to sue the city for his job back (why would he want to work for them anyway) because of his contract; however in my opinion the city council is wrong. If this were a corporation and not politics the “voted out” clause would not have been in the contract so it is not likely to have been allowed.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:12 am
There may be a legal issue here, not simply a contractual one.
This scenario begs the question of whether or a public (not private) employer has the authority to commit an act which, in essence, “tortiously interferes or penalizes” a person for exercising the right to legally marry. In other words, there may be a constitutional argument Mr. Jahnke has here regarding the federally guaranteed right of “freedom of association,” which can be interpreted to include who we chose to associate with on an intimate level, like a marriage for example.
While it’s unlikely Mr. Jahnke can prosecute anything regarding a civil service guarantee or entitlement (he is most likely a political appointee, and therefore “exempt” from any type of civil service protections), even political appointees do not surrender express or implied constitutional rights by virtue of employment in the public sector.
Of course, given the current right-leaning bent of the US Supreme Court, this argument, even if it has merit, may not “have legs.”
In any case, this situation isn’t as simple as we might think it is.
Think I’ll take a look at past court cases involving employer fraternization and personal conduct policies or regulations, especially in the public sector…(I got a little bit of rare free time today)
July 31st, 2009 at 10:14 am
Sounds like the contract stunk. Suing is not the answer, only if he could argue that it wasn’t in his contract that he could be fired as such. He did get a good severance package. Most states, including mine, are employment at will, meaning it’s legal to end an employment relationship at any time for any which reason, so long as there are no other legal implications involved. Is Florida the same way? I hope so, otherwise he could sue but it could backfire given he accepted a pretty nice severance package.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:19 am
I think this article was published to instigate the emotional response that it has. I think SKT and a few others have taken a sound approach to this matter. Everyone is going to have an emotional response to this or have a value based opinion on whether this was right or wrong. Do you agree with the lifestyle choices or not and should it matter in the workplace? Those are questions we can debate for hours… As to the contract that this person signed, the details we have so far illustrate that the town government had the right to terminate with a voting process. The town’s mayor came to a conclusion that this behavior was unacceptable for the town and was able to get the town government to agree. If the contract in Janke’s employment agreement allowed this without and other stipulations then I don’t think he’ll have anything to stand on in court.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:19 am
No I don’t think a contract has to specify who you are allowed to marry (get real) – this is the basic law of contracts – he should have made sure that it said he could be separated only for reasons of poor job performance or behavior affecting his performance. Our society is way too litigious – all employment contracts should be thrown out the window if you can sue for any reason anyway.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:43 am
Too bad it wasn’t a GAY pornstar. Then the activist groups would pick up the fight and support Janke all the way. The clause in the contract, while it may be binding, should be illegal. It’s just as rediculous as the person mentioned above who was fired because “no-one liked her”
July 31st, 2009 at 10:47 am
It was a unanimous decision, so it must have been pretty clear with the contract and expectations.Yeah, he shouldn’t have anything to stand in court. The only one that wins in court are the lawyers.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:06 am
If the contract allowed firing with a majority vote, he probably shouldn’t have signed the contract. But then maybe he didn’t know what kind of petty people he’d be working for. If Florida is a right to work state, the council would have been better off to fire him for “no reason”. As it is, they have shifted public sympathy, empathy to Janke and made themselves look like morally superior fools. They owe him an apology.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:18 am
They should sue the town for every nickel in the treasury (if they have any). This is a ridiculous invasion of privacy and free rights. If we looked into the mayors personal life, I bet we would find many areas of controversy, if not downright illegal activity.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:46 am
I don’t know the laws of Florida, but typically this position is appointed by the mayor with approval of the council. Termination happens the same way. These positions typically must be reappointed each year. You can be “terminated” by simply not being reappointed. In my state which is still employment at will that can be for any reason or no reason. Pull your emotional reaction out of it. They were probably well within their rights.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
What about a country’s reputation? President Bill Clinton committed adultery while holding the “highest office in the land”.
Was he fired?
July 31st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Depends on the job description really. If in the description you stess and emphasise something like – “must maintain and present a proper image and positive image in the general public eye at all times” then any company would have a case. Of course we all know that laws and regulations do not always apply to the entities that create them as States and the Federal govt can legally discriminate at will. The clause in his contract may be the key as it allows a vote out, unless strings are attached to why they may or may not vote him out.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
No one here has questioned how other terminations were handled in the past. Even if he had a contract that permitted the termination did the town treat his situation as they have treated other situations in the past? Did they just use his contract as a way to intimidate him and enforce their personal beliefs on to others? A good attorney is what he needs.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I think Richard is on the right wave length. There are many hours of legal investigation to commit to before a valid argument can be made one way or the other.
If I were Janke, I would ask for reinstatement to the same position with back pay and monetary damages along with a public apology from the council for intrusion of privacy and defamation of character.
July 31st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I think people need to mind their own business and quit trying to shove their religion, political beliefs or morality down everyone else’s throats. I think that is exactly what’s wrong with the world today. People are too concerned about everyone else’s behavior instead of looking at their own. If marriage is between a man and woman or two people then leave it that way……what someone’s spouse does is none of our business……………..
July 31st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
You could look at this as employment at will, defined as a majority vote of the council. As an appointee, he “serves at the pleasure of the council.” As long as it is not something that is protected, then the contract should stand. Richard has a point that a freedom of association argument could be made, but it is a stretch. Unless he has a desire to become a protest litigant, he should probably take his severance and move on.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
For those who do not think it fair, this is what working in an “at will” state means. You can be terminated for any reason so long as it is not a violation of discrimination laws. Many companies have had “morality” clauses that allowed the termination for things that may provide bad press for the organization.
There is a point that this is a “public” position and not a “private” one, but I don’t necessarily agree that a “public” employee has more rights (of association) than a “private” employee. Today employers can terminate employees for any number of lawful activities, just so long as they are not violating discrimination laws. Consider those organizations that fire people for testing positive for nicotine.
I am torn about this person getting the job back or having a legal recourse. I get the impression that this was a very visible position in the community. I also have reason to question this person’s judgment in marrying a person whose previous activities, opinions, and public persona may have possible ramifications for the employer. There is no evidence that he considered these ramifications and discussed them in advance with the employer. Perhaps, if this had been done, an amicable solution could have been worked out to respond to public concerns. The real reason for discharge was “poor judgment.”
If he had discussed this in advance with the council and they were able to develop a response for the public should the information become public AND then the council fired him anyway, then I think he would have cause for action.
July 31st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Interesting possibly related cases out there…
Public sector HR Manager marries two-time convicted felon (convicted for 2nd degree murder) after his release from prison…government agency terminates…employee not covered by civil service, but sues for for, inter alia, wrongful termination, and wins…
Law enforcement officer is married to woman who appears in on-line adult video, but is wearing parts of the agency’s uniform in the video. Officer fired, and covered by civil service protections. Upon appeal, agency’s decision upheld (hinging on use of uniform identifiable to the agency, not necessarily the conduct itself)…
Hmmm…
July 31st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I don’t like it and I don’t agree with it but based on the language in the contract, I expect it is legal. If the only condition needed to terminate is a majority vote, they have satisfied that condition. Being a porn star or being married to a porn star is not a protected class. Technically they can discriminate all they want.
It is still crummy but I expect it is legal.
Playing devil’s advocate, would the situation be different if a porn star or stripper was a grade school or high school teacher as their primary profession? Personally it wouldn’t bother me but I expect a lot of parents wouldn’t approve of their child being taught by someone who calls themself Naughty Nina and spends their weekends twirling on a pole. It shouldn’t matter but I expect many schools would not approve of that type of moonlighting because they would not want to be associated with that image.
July 31st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
If this gentleman was performing well on the job, what difference does it make to whom he’s married? I really would like to see the contractual agreement. Was there nothing in his contract about performance? Clearly, those five council people are passing judgment on an individual’s right to choose and that is inherently wrong. Further, if that is, in fact, the reason for termination, I would say the town is guilty of discrimination and I would seek legal counsel as it relates to this.
August 1st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Is this discrimination based on marital status?
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
From what I can tell, the whole argument about rights deals with this being a public position and that the constitution that limits the power of government cannot limit a citizen’s right to association.
As a private employer, the right to association does not apply. The only thing that would matter is if the termination was based on bias and discrimination toward a protected class. It would be a stretch to say this was discrimination against someone because they were married. I don’t think that marrying a stripper is now a protected class.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Well at least he was MARRIED to her and not found cavorting with her while he was married to someone else! Since when can any employer public or private control WHO you are married to? That is another example of employers wanting to control the private aspects of their employees lives. No one knew about it until the snooper found it and told everyone. What was he doing that he even found the website? Hmm, thats a good question isn’t it?
August 14th, 2009 at 10:38 am
This is not right. Another example of Government going to with its authority.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:02 am
On July 31st, Ed wrote “Now the government can tell us who we can be married to?”
I had to laugh. Ed, the government has been telling gays and lesbians who they can be married to – and who they can’t – for some time now.
I agree with you, though. The government should NOT have this right!
August 17th, 2009 at 11:32 am
The government here had the right to fire with the procedures they used. They also had the right to do whatever they thought to preserve their image. He was a government employee, and thus subject to this. Therefore, this was allowable, although ethically not great, and the government had the right.
September 12th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
The town’s reputation just suffered because of the firing and publicity. Has anyone checked on the town council or thier spouses to see if any of their actions have shed a bad light on Ft. Myers ?