Andrew Yacyshyn- I believe that the case of Kathleen Antonia being fired was a pretty extreme reaction taken by the producer of her show. It is extremely unfair to fire her just because she had the Rules of the Actors’ Equity Association Rulebook that referred to employment discrimination, discrimination in general, and equal opportunity on her dressing room mirror. For one, it is her freedom of speech and expression to have those items on her mirror if she wants. That is her choice and it is her private mirror, which is kept to herself. The fact that the director saw these items on her mirror and took pictures of them is an invasion of privacy. The director has no reason or purpose being in an actor or actress’ dressing room because that is a private place for the actor or actress. Therefore, the director is at fault for going in to the room and was definitely wrong in taking pictures of her dressing room. It seems very unfair to me that these points were not brought up in the case with the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator did not make a good decision with the firing of Kathleen Antonia. She has the freedom to hang what she wants in her private dressing room.
Andrew Yacyshyn- I believe that the case of Kathleen Antonia being fired was a pretty extreme reaction taken by the producer of her show. It is extremely unfair to fire her just because she had the Rules of the Actors’ Equity Association Rulebook that referred to employment discrimination, discrimination in general, and equal opportunity on her dressing room mirror. For one, it is her freedom of speech and expression to have those items on her mirror if she wants. That is her choice and it is her private mirror, which is kept to herself. The fact that the director saw these items on her mirror and took pictures of them is an invasion of privacy. The director has no reason or purpose being in an actor or actress’ dressing room because that is a private place for the actor or actress. Therefore, the director is at fault for going in to the room and was definitely wrong in taking pictures of her dressing room. It seems very unfair to me that these points were not brought up in the case with the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator did not make a good decision with the firing of Kathleen Antonia. She has the freedom to hang what she wants in her private dressing room.
Touching on the BFOQ exemption to the civil rights act which we didn't cover in class but I am familiar with I think the cases in this video are hard to justify under that exemption. The BFOQ can be used only in very narrow cases. If I remember correctly, the court ruled that preventing female prison guards from in men's maximum security prisons was not a valid used of the BFOQ. Therefore, with this narrow interpretation I think that discrimination in terms of roles in the entertainment industry should not be a valid practice. As a result, I feel that a violation of employee rights has occurred for these reasons and for the reasons mentioned above as well.
I believe that it was unfair to fire Kathleen Antonia. For an actor or an actress a dressing room is like their office. That space is given to them and it is supposed to be their private space. People have a right to privacy in life. Everyone has privacy in their own home, but I also believe if you are given an office or a dressing room you have a right to privacy within that space. People should not be in it looking around and looking at your private items. If they do look at these items and do not like them then they should not be looking around in your private space. The items are not being made public they are personal and within their personal space where others should not be seeing them. Also I believe that it is Kathleen's freedom of speech to have any items that she wants as long as they are not offensive to other people. To fire someone based on the items that they have is not right or just.
I do not feel as though the firing of Kathleen Antonia was fair or legitimate at all. First, she clearly said that she had no idea how or why her director was near her dressing area. Clearly, this was not a place she visited frequently, nor does it seem like a place that was open to the public. The fact that she not only was at her mirror, but reading what Kathleen had on display, but she also took photos of it and then sent these photos. This is a completely invasion of privacy. Second, I do not see how Kathleen did anything wrong to justify her firing. The postings on the side of the mirror were not offensive, inappropriate, or negative. They were simply the Rules of the Actors Equity Association. Kathleen was not forcing anyone to read the rules. They were simply there for her own sake. Maybe she used them as motivation to never let anyone put her down because of her race. Maybe she was legitimately reading them to be informed of her rights. Either way, she is entitled to possess the rules and do whatever she pleases with them. I do not see how the arbitrator let the producer and director get away with this. Clearly, this was discrimination against her race and possible even her sex. The fact that discrimination still exists is very sad to me. As a woman, I am offended that Kathleen was not regarded in the same way as maybe a man would be if in the same situation. While it does seem that the BFOQ will help in some situations, in others it clearly is not accepted.
I do not feel as though the firing of Kathleen Antonia was fair or legitimate at all. First, she clearly said that she had no idea how or why her director was near her dressing area. Clearly, this was not a place she visited frequently, nor does it seem like a place that was open to the public. The fact that she not only was at her mirror, but reading what Kathleen had on display, but she also took photos of it and then sent these photos. This is a completely invasion of privacy. Second, I do not see how Kathleen did anything wrong to justify her firing. The postings on the side of the mirror were not offensive, inappropriate, or negative. They were simply the Rules of the Actors Equity Association. Kathleen was not forcing anyone to read the rules. They were simply there for her own sake. Maybe she used them as motivation to never let anyone put her down because of her race. Maybe she was legitimately reading them to be informed of her rights. Either way, she is entitled to possess the rules and do whatever she pleases with them. I do not see how the arbitrator let the producer and director get away with this. Clearly, this was discrimination against her race and possible even her sex. The fact that discrimination still exists is very sad to me. As a woman, I am offended that Kathleen was not regarded in the same way as maybe a man would be if in the same situation. While it does seem that the BFOQ will help in some situations, in others it clearly is not accepted.
As other before me have mentioned, I feel that Kathleen Antonia was unjustly fired. The reason was clear that the producer did not like that Kathleen had rules hung up next to mirror. However, these rules were in Kathleen's dressing space, a place where the producer had no business being. These rules that were displayed were intended solely for the viewing of Kathleen and no one else; she never requested or asked anyone else to read them. Kathleen's rights were definitely being violated. If Kathleen were to be fired, it should be for a reason like her acting ability is not up to par, not for displaying a set of rules. Clearly the person who was sought to view this case did not consider all the facts in making a correct decision. I believe that there are times when certain gender or race should be applied to hiring an actor/actress, but this principle had nothing to do with Kathleen's dismissal. This case was definitely unjust and also a violation of Kathleen's rights.
Andrew Yacyshyn-
ReplyDeleteI believe that the case of Kathleen Antonia being fired was a pretty extreme reaction taken by the producer of her show. It is extremely unfair to fire her just because she had the Rules of the Actors’ Equity Association Rulebook that referred to employment discrimination, discrimination in general, and equal opportunity on her dressing room mirror. For one, it is her freedom of speech and expression to have those items on her mirror if she wants. That is her choice and it is her private mirror, which is kept to herself. The fact that the director saw these items on her mirror and took pictures of them is an invasion of privacy. The director has no reason or purpose being in an actor or actress’ dressing room because that is a private place for the actor or actress. Therefore, the director is at fault for going in to the room and was definitely wrong in taking pictures of her dressing room. It seems very unfair to me that these points were not brought up in the case with the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator did not make a good decision with the firing of Kathleen Antonia. She has the freedom to hang what she wants in her private dressing room.
Andrew Yacyshyn-
ReplyDeleteI believe that the case of Kathleen Antonia being fired was a pretty extreme reaction taken by the producer of her show. It is extremely unfair to fire her just because she had the Rules of the Actors’ Equity Association Rulebook that referred to employment discrimination, discrimination in general, and equal opportunity on her dressing room mirror. For one, it is her freedom of speech and expression to have those items on her mirror if she wants. That is her choice and it is her private mirror, which is kept to herself. The fact that the director saw these items on her mirror and took pictures of them is an invasion of privacy. The director has no reason or purpose being in an actor or actress’ dressing room because that is a private place for the actor or actress. Therefore, the director is at fault for going in to the room and was definitely wrong in taking pictures of her dressing room. It seems very unfair to me that these points were not brought up in the case with the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator did not make a good decision with the firing of Kathleen Antonia. She has the freedom to hang what she wants in her private dressing room.
Touching on the BFOQ exemption to the civil rights act which we didn't cover in class but I am familiar with I think the cases in this video are hard to justify under that exemption. The BFOQ can be used only in very narrow cases. If I remember correctly, the court ruled that preventing female prison guards from in men's maximum security prisons was not a valid used of the BFOQ. Therefore, with this narrow interpretation I think that discrimination in terms of roles in the entertainment industry should not be a valid practice. As a result, I feel that a violation of employee rights has occurred for these reasons and for the reasons mentioned above as well.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it was unfair to fire Kathleen Antonia. For an actor or an actress a dressing room is like their office. That space is given to them and it is supposed to be their private space. People have a right to privacy in life. Everyone has privacy in their own home, but I also believe if you are given an office or a dressing room you have a right to privacy within that space. People should not be in it looking around and looking at your private items. If they do look at these items and do not like them then they should not be looking around in your private space. The items are not being made public they are personal and within their personal space where others should not be seeing them. Also I believe that it is Kathleen's freedom of speech to have any items that she wants as long as they are not offensive to other people. To fire someone based on the items that they have is not right or just.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel as though the firing of Kathleen Antonia was fair or legitimate at all. First, she clearly said that she had no idea how or why her director was near her dressing area. Clearly, this was not a place she visited frequently, nor does it seem like a place that was open to the public. The fact that she not only was at her mirror, but reading what Kathleen had on display, but she also took photos of it and then sent these photos. This is a completely invasion of privacy. Second, I do not see how Kathleen did anything wrong to justify her firing. The postings on the side of the mirror were not offensive, inappropriate, or negative. They were simply the Rules of the Actors Equity Association. Kathleen was not forcing anyone to read the rules. They were simply there for her own sake. Maybe she used them as motivation to never let anyone put her down because of her race. Maybe she was legitimately reading them to be informed of her rights. Either way, she is entitled to possess the rules and do whatever she pleases with them.
ReplyDeleteI do not see how the arbitrator let the producer and director get away with this. Clearly, this was discrimination against her race and possible even her sex. The fact that discrimination still exists is very sad to me. As a woman, I am offended that Kathleen was not regarded in the same way as maybe a man would be if in the same situation. While it does seem that the BFOQ will help in some situations, in others it clearly is not accepted.
-Alyssa Marino
I do not feel as though the firing of Kathleen Antonia was fair or legitimate at all. First, she clearly said that she had no idea how or why her director was near her dressing area. Clearly, this was not a place she visited frequently, nor does it seem like a place that was open to the public. The fact that she not only was at her mirror, but reading what Kathleen had on display, but she also took photos of it and then sent these photos. This is a completely invasion of privacy. Second, I do not see how Kathleen did anything wrong to justify her firing. The postings on the side of the mirror were not offensive, inappropriate, or negative. They were simply the Rules of the Actors Equity Association. Kathleen was not forcing anyone to read the rules. They were simply there for her own sake. Maybe she used them as motivation to never let anyone put her down because of her race. Maybe she was legitimately reading them to be informed of her rights. Either way, she is entitled to possess the rules and do whatever she pleases with them.
ReplyDeleteI do not see how the arbitrator let the producer and director get away with this. Clearly, this was discrimination against her race and possible even her sex. The fact that discrimination still exists is very sad to me. As a woman, I am offended that Kathleen was not regarded in the same way as maybe a man would be if in the same situation. While it does seem that the BFOQ will help in some situations, in others it clearly is not accepted.
-Alyssa Marino
As other before me have mentioned, I feel that Kathleen Antonia was unjustly fired. The reason was clear that the producer did not like that Kathleen had rules hung up next to mirror. However, these rules were in Kathleen's dressing space, a place where the producer had no business being. These rules that were displayed were intended solely for the viewing of Kathleen and no one else; she never requested or asked anyone else to read them. Kathleen's rights were definitely being violated. If Kathleen were to be fired, it should be for a reason like her acting ability is not up to par, not for displaying a set of rules. Clearly the person who was sought to view this case did not consider all the facts in making a correct decision. I believe that there are times when certain gender or race should be applied to hiring an actor/actress, but this principle had nothing to do with Kathleen's dismissal. This case was definitely unjust and also a violation of Kathleen's rights.
ReplyDelete