HRD Canada forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Do you have the right to dismiss your sexually experimental staff members?

Notify me of new replies via email
HRM CA | 28 Oct 2014, 01:06 PM Agree 0
It seems so…
  • Bruce | 28 Oct 2014, 02:46 PM Agree 0
    I would venture to guess that a significant proportion of CBC listenership and viewership is of a certain demographic. Had the revelations been that the host was gay and maybe seen frequenting a location for the gay community any dismissal would be met with vehement opposition and seen as anti-gay or gay bashing. Show us the difference just because this action does not fall within a "politically incorrect" category.
  • Brian | 28 Oct 2014, 02:52 PM Agree 0
    A few years ago the host of CBC's DNTO starred in a sexually explicit movie (Short Bus) and although the CBC threatened to fire her they backed down...
  • Batgrrl | 28 Oct 2014, 03:12 PM Agree 0
    Its a bad day for Jian- but I support CBC in that company reputation needs to be considred especially when you are on air talent. The life of a celebrity is a tough path to walk. And I bet there is far more to the story.
  • HRProfessional | 28 Oct 2014, 04:17 PM Agree 0
    How one behaves in the privacy of their home does not belong in the public. Since the allegations were not brought to the local authorities attention for an investigation, really questions the intentions of the parties involved. In essence, we shot first and didn't ask questions. Hardly seems fair.
  • George Kairys | 28 Oct 2014, 04:24 PM Agree 0
    Trudeau was/is right! What two consenting adults do is their business. If someone has been harmed here where are the criminal charges instead of innuendo and red letter publicity?
  • HRProfessional | 28 Oct 2014, 04:27 PM Agree 0
    I agree with Brian. If something happened in the bedroom that was deemed illegal, why isn't this brought to the proper authorities (Police) for an investigation. The fact it was not reported as a crime really questions the intentions of the involved parties that lodged the accusations publicly. I believe CBC acted inappropriately . Regardless if you are on air talent, everyone deserves their privacy especially if a crime has not been reported. Please don't tell me the ladies were too embarrassed. They had no problem bringing it out publicly. This is unfortunate and unfortunately public figures must be very careful as privacy is not always respected.
  • Larry Dawson | 28 Oct 2014, 05:05 PM Agree 0
    Celebrities especially who trade on their public personae for personal or sexual gratification have to know the risks that they incur. No free lunch - if BDSM is your schtick, maybe look for other work than a talk show host. and his lawsuit? Pure PR. He's a unionized employee, so the suit will be summarily dismissed. Only a grievance can contemplate his damages.
  • Ted | 29 Oct 2014, 04:41 AM Agree 0
    I'm a little surprised that this would not fall under Ontario's Human Rights Commission's rulings on discrimination or harassment on sexual orientation (multisexual?) grounds.

    Possibly, because he is a Federal employee, he might be covered under Federal legislation but the Supreme Court did rule that discriminating on sexual orientation grounds is illegal (

    If the counter argument (and I actually don't know what heinous acts he committed) is that the restrictions were dropped for lesbians and gays only, that opens a whole new can of worms. What about transexuals and all other forms of gratification? Who is qualified to draw the line?

    Trudeau was a wise man in taking the stand he did. Pity we don't have a leader anywhere near his stature in the wings but at least Justin may learn, unlike the current seat-warmer.

  • Lynn | 29 Oct 2014, 11:48 AM Agree 0
    I am not sure this is an appropriate application of the thresholds for off duty conduct that warrants dismissal as defined in the Basara vs. Deputy Head (Correctional Services of Canada) outcomes. The CBC is not basing this off of a serious criminal conviction, deceit on the part of the employee (Ghomeshi was overly forth coming, in my opinion), the impact does not affect Ghomeshi's capacity to carry out his job, or was the reputation of the CBC so impacted that it would be impossible for Ghomeshi to do his job. Of course, we still have details to learn here, new details may change opinions and outcomes. As of today, there are no criminal charges, the employee has been very cooperative, and there are many assumptions being made about the "open mindedness" of CBC listeners. I, like you, await fact based data to base my opinion on but based on what we know now; I suggest that the CBC free their mind and the rest will follow. This is discriminatory.
  • Lynn | 01 Dec 2014, 03:31 PM Agree 0
    So, now we learn that Mr Ghomeshi has been criminally charged. It will be interesting to see if he is in fact convicted of these charges. I still stand behind my initial comment, however, I would believe that CBC had more information than what was made available to the public. The fact that Mr. Ghomeshi has now withdrawn his suit against CBC and will be compensating the broadcaster the tune of $18,000 for legal fees speaks volumes. It will be interesting to see what we learn as this goes through the courts and what the precedent is as it relates to the termination of his employment.
  • Larry Dawson | 02 Dec 2014, 04:00 PM Agree 0
    This isn't a human rights/sexual orientation case, it's assault, criminal assault, and overcoming resistance to an attack by choking. "Privacy of the bedroom" is not a defense to punching someone's lights out then choking them into sex acts, nor is claiming a religious exemption, which he hasn't done yet but may be the next tactic.
Post a reply