Need advise

[partofme]

My friend's photo was seen on mugshot.com site without notice from him. He is not a criminal but he got involved in case and the result is not guilty. Now he need to find a job for his daily needs.The question is, Can an employer fire an employee because their pre-convicted mugshot appears online on mugshots.com?

 

[sandyclaus]

My friend's photo was seen on mugshot.com site without notice from him. He is not a criminal but he got involved in case and the result is not guilty. Now he need to find a job for his daily needs.The question is, Can an employer fire an employee because their pre-convicted mugshot appears online on mugshots.com?

If you're asking whether or not the employer can fire them, the answer is a qualified YES. If your friend lives in an at-will employment state, he doesn't need to be convicted of a crime for the company to fire him. They simply cannot fire him as a result of being a member of a protected class (such as race, creed, religion, etc.). Arrestees do not fall under that protection.

The simple fact is that just because they found him NOT GUILTY doesn't mean he was innocent of the crime - it only means that the prosecution was unable to PROVE his guilt.

 

[cbg]

qualification to the answer above: While it is true that arrestees are not technically a protected group under Federal law, the EEOC has stated that a blanket policy against hiring based on arrest record can create an adverse impact on groups that are protected. In fact, a new policy set in place only last month suggests that legal protections for arrestees and ex-cons are only a short time away.

Also, some states already do have such protections in place.

 

[ESteele]

Fourteen states prohibit discrimination against some form of ex-offender discrimination in the workplace. Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico and Washington ban ex-offender discrimination in public employment. Five other states, Hawaii, Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, prohibit this form of job discrimination in both private and public employment.

If your friend has a state, county or municipal government job in one of the above fourteen states or a private sector job in one of the five latter states, the likelihood of his employer discharging him due to his arrest and his mug shot is remote. Moreover, such adverse action would likely be unlawful. If, however, he does not work in one of these states, then he may not have any direct protection under the law from his employer terminating his at-will employment under these circumstances.

 

[BigMouthWino]

Since your friend was found not guilty he should petition the court to expunge this from their records. Send a copy of the expungement order to the website, it is their site policy to remove photos where an expungement has been obtained.

 

[commentator]

If he is fired because the employer found his picture on Mugshots Dot Com or whatever, he would be able to file for and would have a very good possibility of being approved for unemployment benefits while he is exploring the possibility that he has other rights and can complain elsewhere.

It is very very common that a worker is terminated because the employer found out something about his/her past that they didn't know when the person was hired. In this case, the question on the application, if there was one, about being a felon, or having past charges was answered honestly with a NO. Therefore, if the employer now decides to fire the employee for finding out that he was charged with something and stood trial and was found not guilty, he has the right to do so in almost all the states (at will employment)

But when the fired person files for unemployment benefits, in order to keep him from being approved, the employer must show that they had a valid, misconduct, (current)WORK RELATED reason to terminate the person. If he's been stealing from his current job, that's work related. If he was charged with stealing and found not guilty in the past, and he's not stealing on the job now, that's not work related misconduct. So he'd be approveable for unemployment insurance. Or if he was charged with murdering his wife, and he was found not guilty, and he's not murdered anyone at this job, he's not guilty of work related misconduct.