Jeffrey Toobin can still write books and articles; he can probably still get individual gigs as a free-lancer. His career will take a hit, but it’s not like he’s reduced to welfare overnight.
The New Yorker has to consider its potential legal liability if they keep him on. They would just be opening themselves to allegations of a poisoned work environment, where there is a known flasher on the payroll, with the risks of sexual harassment complaints. It’s not just The New Yorker and Toobin; it’s The New Yorker and all of its other employees who work in that work space with Toobin.
Suppose he does it again, to another employee and that employee sues. The plaintiff would be able to say that management kept a known flasher on the payroll and in the office, because that was better for their bottom line, regardless of the risks of Toobin doing it again. I smell punitive damages.
Saying “one bad act” doesn’t really respond to the range of “bad acts” that an employee might commit. Some might warrant reprimand, forced admin leave, reduction in salary, but the person keeps the job. But others can be so serious that the employer really doesn’t have much choice but to fire. That’s why I gave the example of financial improprieties - if an employee is embezzling, they’re gone. Just for one bad act. It’s a range of discipline for a range of bad acts. And some bad acts are firing offences.
With any firing of a public person, I rarely assume it was the result of a one-time offense. It’s certainly possible Toobin had a blemish-free record up until that incident, but it’s also possible he didn’t.
From what I’ve read, it sounds like he was video sexting someone during a conference breakout session that he may or may not should’ve been participating in.
If you’re supposed to be working but instead of doing that, you’re having virtual sex, then losing your job is expected.
If you’re supposed to be working but instead you’re exposing yourself to your coworkers while you’re having virtual sex, then losing your job is really expected.
If you do the above and news gets out about it, then there really should be no debate about it. You’re losing your job. The New Yorker’s reputation is at stake; Toobin would never be able to write about a political sex scandal ever again without commenters bringing up his personal little master-gate.
It’s sad, although I guess not too surprising, that most people here seem to be viewing Toobin’s primary sin that he forgot to turn his camera off and not that he was masturbating in the middle of a work call. People are acting as if it’s some guy with an impeccable record that was just tragically brought short by one inopportune oopsie when history has shown that this is almost never the real story.
People don’t just wake up one morning and decide today is going to be the first day I masturbate while on a work call. Almost certainly, Toobin has made his prior colleagues uncomfortable before and other co-workers of his have stories that they couldn’t tell before because men with power create structures of power that insulate them from their consequences.
The New Yorker investigation presumably uncovered all of the other toxic shit that finally had an outlet once the wall of invulnerability had been dropped from Toobin. The New Yorker is just continuing the sad but default professional courtesy by letting Toobin craft his own goodbye and maintain the narrative that it was just one oopsie. However, this allows people with a vested interest to buy into the narrative of PC culture being out of control and just one mistake is enough to destroy someone’s life.
I can’t speak to Toobin specifically, as it may be the case that there’s a background that I’m not aware of. But with reference to this incident, it was clearly an accident - a humiliatingly terrible example of piss poor judgment but, by all accounts, accidental. There’s no evidence that Toobin intended to show his privates to his associates on Zoom, so I wouldn’t label it flashing as if it were an intentional act. It’s like having sex or masturbating with the windows open - stupid but an accident.
If I were caught masturbating in my office cubicle, I would tell my boss that I didn’t mean to flash anyone and I just had a terrible lapse in judgment. But I would still expect to be fired. Someone who shows that kind of lapse in judgment is a liability.
Sure, in your office cubicle, where there is absolutely no expectation of that kind of privacy - ever. It’s different in your home, though.
Again, I’m in full agreement that Toobin was gross, grossly stupid, and lacking in impulse control. I would expect to be fired; my earlier point was that, depending on the circumstances and the background of the individual, an embarrassing act doesn’t have to lead to termination 100% of the time. It typically does, but it doesn’t have to.
AIUI in terms of logistics this guy had about every possible mitigating factor in his favor. At home, separate computers, coworkers’ meeting was paused, etc., etc.
And he still goofed it up.
Underlining mine.
As to embarrassing acts IMO you’re right. As to illegal acts, not so much.
The many Southwest Airlines “wanna get away?” ads cover embarrassing workplace acts, like having your personal ad discovered by the office yentas.
Indecent exposure is a whole 'nuther level of “embarrassing”. Especially when the exposure was deliberate and the mistake was who got to see.
It also depends on who got embarrassed. “Lewis” in the SWA ad was embarrassed for his sake. The New Yorker was embarrassed by Toobin’s behavior for their sake.
Seem to be an awful lot of assumptions there, put forward without any actual evidence. Much injustice has been done throughout history by relying solely on nebulous assumptions or the convenient sophistry of time-worn adages.
Did you not see my post #116? Toobin’s had a reputation for making people uncomfortable for a very long time. At this point, the magazine decided they don’t need the liability or the lack of credibility that now swirls around him.
It doesn’t take a lot of searching to find past reported harassment claims.
In 2010 the Daily News reported that Toobin, who was working at CNN at the time and was an analyst with CNN until—checks calendar—yesterday, allegedly sexually harassed another media figure for months. That information came to light while Toobin was in family court after being sued by Casey Greenfield, with whom had an affair while Toobin was married. Greenfield became pregnant during the affair and, ever the gentleman, Toobin allegedly offered her money for an abortion, which Greenfield did not accept.
When reporting the alleged harassment story in 2010, the Daily News was unwilling to print what Toobin said to the woman he was allegedly harassing, claiming it was too graphic for a family newspaper. However, the woman claimed that Toobin followed her to her hotel room on one occasion, and after she rebuffed him several times, he called her office and “left several sick messages” which the paper could only describe as “vile.”
There’s more information at the link I posted in the earlier post. I’m not going to reprint much of it because it was pretty gross.
According to one of the women (apparently book editor and publisher Judith Regan), Toobin tried to force his way into her hotel room, telling her, “You know you want it,” and he left “several sick messages” on her voicemail.
