Connect with us

U.S.

Montana Firefighter Files Wrongful Termination Claim for Alleged Sexism

Published

3 weeks ago

on

  • A Montana firefighter was repeatedly reprimanded by her supervisors for her social media posts, which often depict her working out in leggings and a sports bra.  
  • Presley Pritchard, 27, refused to take down her posts after the department asked because there was no official social media policy in place.
  • Pritchard was eventually fired and in December, she filed a wrongful termination claim.
  • She argued that her content is similar to that of her male colleagues and said she was singled out based on her gender. 

Terminated for Social Media Activity

A former Montana firefighter filed a wrongful termination claim for alleged discrimination after she was fired for her social media posts. 

In an interview with Vice published last week, Presley Pritchard said her posts were criticized as racy and provocative, and she believes that she was singled out and treated unfairly due to her gender. 

The 27-year-old firefighter paramedic previously worked at Evergreen Fire Rescue in Kalispell, Montana. She was let go from the department after she refused to take down some of her posts, despite the absence of an official social media policy.

Pritchard’s Instagram content reaches over 160,000 followers, and largely consists of photos and videos of the fitness influencer working out in the gym, wearing leggings, sports bras, and tank tops. Other pictures feature Pritchard in her firefighter uniform and gear, accompanied by inspirational, uplifting captions.

View this post on Instagram

Where God guides, He provides. – ✨ I’m just in awe thinking about the past year; the good, the bad, the triumphs.. and the losses. By far my biggest lesson this year has been, “Don’t stress yourself out.” Things will fall into place. Hold on and keep the faith. Don’t allow yourself to become disheartened by the people that seem to keep moving ahead while you feel the most stagnant. There’s always going to be someone better, prettier, smarter, and stronger. Someone who gets the job you wanted or the spot on the team. You may just have to work a littler harder and a little longer than others. – Don’t use your energy to worry, use your energy to believe God has everything worked out. . . . . . . . . DM for coaching inquiries @cnc.apparel || code: presleykp @1upnutrition || code: presleykp @ninelineapparel || code: presleykp @herbstrong || code: presley15 @warriorflask || code: presleykp @freskincare || code: Presley #paramedic #firefighterfit #toughest #firefighter #firefighterfitness #fitfirefighter #womeninuniform #engine #thinredline #ladderco #firefighterlife #engineco #onshift #onduty #firefighterwomen #firedepartment #god #firefighterbrotherhood #femalefirefighter #thinredlinefamily #ninelineapparel #nineline

A post shared by Presley Pritchard (@presleykp.fit) on

Longtime Back-and-Forth

In 2018, an Evergreen Fire District Board member claimed that a “concerned citizen” contacted him about Pritchard’s social media posts. This led to a board discussion in which she defended herself and pointed to the fact that there was no social media policy set in place. 

Pritchard told Vice that following that meeting, she estimates she was reprimanded 20 times for her social media content. Additionally, she claims she received criticism from her supervisors for what she wore when working out and the clothes she wore to work.

“I’m a good medic, I’m a good firefighter! I’ve never, ever once been talked to about my actual job,” Pritchard told Vice. 

Pritchard claimed that her photos are very similar to the content that her male colleagues put out: posts of themselves working out, in uniform or sometimes shirtless, and accompanied by inspirational captions. 

“It’s just really, really hypocritical,” she said to Vice. “It just sucks, because you see firefighters out here with these sexy firefighter calendars, and if females did that, they would literally be like, beaten to death. Everyone would call them sluts and whores. But it’s OK for guys, just like how it was OK for every guy in my department to have photos of themselves at training.”

After someone filed a separate complaint that Pritchard looked too provocative in her given-uniform last, she was issued men’s uniform pants. 

“I was like wow, fine, I’ll wear men’s pants! Are you serious?” she said to Vice. “Am I supposed to leave my butt at home?” 

Pritchard addressed the complaint in a February 2019 post. 

“If you’re a female in this field, especially an attractive or curvy girl, you’re GOING TO be ridiculed. You’re going to be mocked, made fun of, talked about poorly, judged by looks,” she wrote.

“Don’t give in. Don’t be discouraged,” she added. 

View this post on Instagram

My face when someone mentions how I’m “provocative” in professional attire 🤣 – This post is for all the ladies out there making a difference, doing their jobs day in & day out. – Have you ever been asked why you wear makeup in uniform? Or why you brush your hair and care how it looks? Or why you tighten your pants “too tight.” Or been told that you are too “manly,” “too skinny,” “too small,” or “you’re provocative” because of your curves or way you look that you can’t help? – If you’re a female in this field, especially an attractive or curvy girl, you’re GOING TO be ridiculed. You’re going to be mocked, made fun of, talked about poorly, judged by looks. – Here’s the thing; when you genuinely love yourself and others and what you’re doing while radiating the love of Jesus & walking in your calling, the enemy WILL try to knock you down. Did you know the enemy only attacks things of value? He sees you walking in God’s calling for your life, helping and inspiring others, and he will do EVERYTHING in his power to prevent you, stop you, discourage you, and talk you out of things meant for you. He does this through words, judgmental unbelievers, temptation; the devil has a bag of tricks up his sleeve. Don’t give in. Don’t be discouraged. Don’t throw in the towel. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can. So be a light to others. Keep shining. Keep doing you. Keep staying in your lane, inspiring, and making a difference. . . . . . #firefighter #firefighterworkouts #sweaty #ems #firefighterfitness #firefighterworkout #fitfirefighter #femalefirefighter #thinredline #fitfemalefirefighter #paramedic #fitforduty #womeninuniform #functionaltraining #medic #firstresponder #firedepartment #onduty #fitnessmotivation #mediclife #functionalfitness

A post shared by Presley Pritchard (@presleykp.fit) on

Pritchard was eventually asked to delete all of her work-related posts from her personal social media pages, but her lawyer told her that legally she was not required to take her posts down because the department never created an official social media policy. Though there was a discussion of developing one at the 2018 meeting, a board member told local news outlet Daily Inter Lake that it was never done.

Pritchard chose to leave her pictures up, and in August 2019 she was fired from her job. 

The fire department alleged that Pritchard’s social media activity violated two policies, according to Daily Inter Lake. They claimed that she engaged in conduct that disparaged Evergreen Fire when representing them on her page, as well as used the department for personal gain— specifically, taking photos in their facilities and using those to sell t-shirts online.  

However, Pritchard obtained letters from the companies that she promotes on her social pages confirming that she has only received money for her images that show a sponsor’s product, and never for any of her firefighting posts. 

Though her social media presence was cited as the reason for her termination, Pritchard believes that the true motives were sexist. She is requesting compensation for lost wages, time, and money, as well as the emotional distress she has experienced. 

Chief Craig Williams of the department issued a statement on the matter in late December, according to Daily Inter Lake. 

“The District takes very seriously all allegations it receives concerning workplace conditions,” Williams wrote. “While the Complainant never made or reported any allegations to the District while she was employed, the District hired an independent investigator to complete an investigation concerning the validity of the complaints. After a thorough investigation, no evidence was found to support any of the Complainant’s allegations.”

The district has not offered any further comment on the topic. 

Meanwhile, as the legal proceedings are ongoing and she waits for the state to conduct its own investigation, Pritchard continues to spouse positivity and self-love in her social posts. 

“You will be judged. Keep going,” she wrote in a Jan. 10 post. “Not everyone will get it. Move on. You owe no one who is committed to misunderstanding you an explanation. Stay in your light.” 

View this post on Instagram

Know this: Some people will not hear you regardless how much, how loud, how truthful, how loving, or how profound you speak. Wish them well and let them go. Be disciplined about what you respond and react to. Not everyone or everything deserves your time, energy, and attention. Let the keyboard warriors complain about how your squat form is crap, the way you hold a gun is wrong, the fact that you have a photo next to a fire truck must mean you’re only in it for attention, or because you’re a female in a military uniform means you don’t work but just take pictures for “attention.” – You’ll be judged. KEEP GOING. Not everyone will get it. MOVE on. You owe no one who is committed to misunderstanding you an explanation. Stay in your light 💡. – Wearing @ninelineapparel coat || code: presleykp and @bravobelt . . . . . . . #shooting #pewpew #glock19 #bravobelt #ninelineapparel #relentlesslypatriotic #girlswhoshoot #womeninuniform #leo #thinblueline #concealedcarry #weapons #pewpewlife #guns #ammo #glock

A post shared by Presley Pritchard (@presleykp.fit) on

See what others are saying: (Vice) (Associated Press) (Fox News)

Advertisements
Related Topics:

U.S.

Trump Slams Oscars for Awarding South Korean Film Best Picture

Published

3 days ago

on

February 21, 2020

By

  • At a Colorado rally on Feb. 20, President Donald Trump bashed the Oscars for giving this year’s Best Picture award to “Parasite,” a South Korean film. 
  • He instead called for movies like “Gone With the Wind” to return, a production that has been criticized for romanticizing slavery. 
  • Additionally, Trump called Brad Pitt a “little wise guy” for making a joke about the president’s impeachment trial during his Oscars acceptance speech.
  • In response to his remarks, the U.S. distributor of “Parasite,” dissed the president for not being able to read the film’s subtitles. 
  • Others also gave Trump backlash for not liking the film because it revolves around a struggling Asian working-class family.

Oscars Jab

At a rally in Colorado on Thursday, President Donald Trump took a dig at the 2020 Oscars for awarding Best Picture to the South Korean film “Parasite.” 

“By the way, how bad were the Academy Awards this year?” Trump asked the crowd in Colorado Springs, who responded with boos. 

“And the winner is a movie from South Korea, what the hell was that all about?” Trump asked. “We got enough problems with South Korea with trade. On top of it, they give them the best movie of the year.”

Despite his criticisms, Trump went on to imply that he didn’t even watch the film. 

“Was it good? I don’t know,” he said. 

Credit: CBS News

“Parasite” made history earlier this month when it became the first film in a non-English language to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. On top of that, the movie took home awards for Best Original Screenplay, Best International Language Film, and Best Director—Bong Joon Ho.  

These accomplishments didn’t seem to impress the president. Instead, he called for movies like “Gone With the Wind” and “Sunset Boulevard” to return. Both films feature white stars and were directed by white men. 

Released in 1939, “Gone With the Wind” centers around a plantation-owning family in 1861. Accounting for inflation, it still holds the record for the highest-grossing film in U.S. history. But in recent years, the film has largely gone from a revered American classic to a piece of work examined and criticized for its romanticism of slavery. 

Also at Thursday’s rally, Trump slammed Brad Pitt, who made a joke about the president’s impeachment trial during his Oscars acceptance speech for Best Supporting Actor.

“They told me I only have 45 seconds up here, which is 45 seconds more than the Senate gave John Bolton this week,” Pitt said at the awards show on Feb. 9. 

The “Once Upon A Time in…Hollywood” star was referring to the former national security advisor who had not been allowed to testify in the impeachment trial. 

“And then you have Brad Pitt. I was never a big fan of his. He got up, said a little wise guy statement. Little wise guy. He’s a little wise guy,” Trump said on Thursday.  

Clap Backs Against POTUS

The president’s critiques of the Academy Awards did not go unnoticed. Though “Parasite” is in Korean, it’s accompanied by English subtitles. Neon, the film’s U.S. distributor, responded to Trump’s remarks in a biting tweet. 

“Understandable, he can’t read,” the company said in their reactions to Trump’s dislike of the movie.

Neon added the hashtag #Bong2020 in reference to the film’s director.

The Democratic National Committee also weighed in, adding their own diss to the president. 

“Parasite is a foreign movie about how oblivious the ultra-rich are about the struggles of the working class, and it requires two hours of reading subtitles. Of course Trump hates it.”

Other Twitter users chimed in with similar messages condemning the president. 

“Anyway parasite is still the best movie of the year Trump’s racist ass can cry about it,” one person said.

See what others are saying: (NBC) (Washington Post) (The Hill)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

U.S.

UCLA Drops Controversial Facial Recognition Plan

Published

4 days ago

on

February 20, 2020

By

  • After backlash from students and activist groups, UCLA is dropping its plans to use facial recognition on campus.
  • Critics said the software often fails when recognizing women and people of color, and could lead to racial profiling. 
  • UCLA released a statement, just over a week before a National Day of Action to Ban Facial Recognition from College Campuses is set to be held, saying that the school longer thinks the technology would be effective at the school.
  • The use of facial recognition software on college campuses and on a national level has long been a subject of debate. Several cities have already banned it, and last week, two Senators proposed legislation banning it on a federal level unless Congressional guidelines are enacted. 

UCLA Stops Plans to Use Facial Recognition

After backlash from students and activists, the University of California, Los Angeles has dropped its plans to use facial recognition technology on its campus.

UCLA announced plans to potentially use it in its security systems. Students were concerned that this technology could interfere with students’ privacy and lead to racial profiling on campus. 

“We have determined that the potential benefits are limited and are vastly outweighed by the concerns of the campus community,” Michael Beck, the Administrative Vice-Chancellor of the school said in a statement to Fight for the Future, a group advocating for freedom in the digital age.

Fight for the Future is holding a National Day of Action to Ban Facial Recognition from College Campuses on March 2. The group had been very vocal when encouraging UCLA not to adopt facial recognition. They did a test on how effective it would be at the school and found racial biases in its algorithm.

Inaccuracies in Facial Recognition

Fight for the Future used Rekognition, a software made available by Amazon, and scanned publicly available photos of UCLA athletes and faculty and compared them to a mugshot database. They scanned 400 faces in total and said that 58 were falsely matched. 

“The vast majority of incorrect matches were of people of color,” Fight for the Future said of their findings. “In many cases, the software matched two individuals who had almost nothing in common beyond their race, and claimed they were the same person with ‘100% confidence.’”

They are not the only group to find this. According to a study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in terms of one-to-one matching, there are higher rates of false positives for Asian and African American faces in comparison to white faces. They specifically noticed increased false positives when it came to African American females.

Student Concerns

Students at UCLA expressed their concerns about this. An editorial in the school’s paper, the Daily Bruin, warned against using facial recognition because of the potential inaccuracies and profiling of people of color.

“For students belonging to these groups, facial recognition technology would simply reinforce the biases that are already stacked against them,” the piece said. The editorial listed privacy as a concern as well.

“Facial recognition technology would present a major breach of students’ privacy and make students feel unsafe on a campus they are supposed to call home,” the Daily Bruin editorial staff wrote. “It is one thing to monitor campus activity with security cameras, but it’s another entirely to automatically identify individuals and track their every move on campus.”

Students and advocacy groups like Fight for the Future were pleased with UCLA’s ultimate decision to not use facial recognition.

“Let this be a lesson to other school administrators: if you try to experiment on your campus with racist, invasive surveillance technology, we will come for you. And we don’t lose,” Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, Evan Greer, said in a statement.

Facial Recognition on a National Scale

UCLA is not the only college in the United States having a conversation about facial recognition. Fight for the Future has been keeping a scorecard of schools that have stated their intentions on using facial recognition. While big schools like Harvard, MIT, Michigan State, and NYU have said they do not intend on using it, other major colleges like Ohio State, Princeton, and the University of Georgia have stated that they might. 

Outside of colleges, other localities have already been working on fighting against facial recognition technology. In 2019, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to ban facial recognition technology. Somerville, MA, Oakland, CA and Berkeley, CA did the same months later. 

Still, this kind of technology is still used on a wide scale. According to Vox, in states like Texas, Florida, and Illinois, the FBI uses it to scan through DMV databases. In many U.S. airports, Customs and Border Protection uses it for screening passengers on international flights. 

Recently Proposed Legislation

The national use of this could be subject to change, though. In February, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-)R) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) proposed legislation that would ban federal use of facial recognition until proper regulations and rules had been established by Congress for it.

“Facial recognition is a technology that is increasingly being used and marketed to law enforcement agencies across the United States without appropriate debate or consideration of its impacts,” the bill said before describing that this technology has been used at protests, rallies, and other events where one’s’ freedom of speech is on display.

“It is critical that facial recognition not be used to suppress First Amendment related activities, violate privacy, or otherwise adversely impact individuals’ civil rights and civil liberties,” the legislation continued. 

This legislation would still allow law enforcement to use it if given a court order.

See what others are saying: (Vice) (USA Today) (TechCrunch)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

U.S.

Fashion Institute Apologizes for ‘Racist’ Runway Look

Published

4 days ago

on

February 20, 2020

By

  • In a Feb. 7 Fashion Institute of Technology runway show, models were asked to wear oversized prosthetic lips and ears, along with bushy eyebrows. 
  • Amy Lefévre, a black model, refused to wear the accessories and called them racist for recalling offensive caricatures of black people. 
  • Many agreed with Lefévre and criticized the designer and the showrunners for the display.
  • Multiple leaders at FIT have issued apologies in the wake of the backlash.

Controversial Accessories

Several head figures at New York’s Fashion Institute of Technology have issued apologies after a runway show featured designs that many have labeled “racist.”

The show was held on Feb. 7 to debut designs of graduating students. For one look, designed by Junkai Huang, models were asked to wear oversized prosthetic lips and ears, as well as bushy, large eyebrows. Amy Lefévre, a black model, was horrified at the request. 

“As soon as I saw the pieces, I started shaking. I felt it was very racist,” Lefévre told TODAY. 

Lefévre said she verbally expressed her discomfort with the accessories, which to her were reminiscent of offensive caricatures of black people that emphasize those features. But Richard Thornn, the producer of the show, allegedly brushed off her resistance.

According to TODAY, Lefévre claims that he told her, “it’s only 45 seconds. It’s fine to feel uncomfortable for 45 seconds.”

The 25-year-old refused to don the accessories and walked in the show without them. However, other models in the show wore the additions, and these looks were seen by an audience of about 100 people as well as captured by photographers.

Reactions and Responses

Upon seeing the pictures from the show and catching wind of Lefévre‘s protest, many Internet users supported the model and condemned both the designer and the institution for allowing it.  

“Junkai Huang should go back to school for something other than fashion because his designs are racist and this is unacceptable,” one person tweeted. “FIT how could you allow this?”

In the wake of the backlash, FIT President Joyce Brown issued a public letter on Tuesday. 

“As many of you now know, there was an unfortunate and disturbing reaction to the show that I want to address,” Joyce wrote.

She claimed that no offense was meant.

“Currently, it does not appear that the original intent of the design, the use of accessories or the creative direction of the show was to make a statement about race; however, it is now glaringly obvious that has been the outcome,” Brown added. “For that, we apologize—to those who participated in the show, to students, and to anybody who has been offended by what they saw.”

Brown said the school is taking steps to “ensure that a situation like this will not happen again” by working with groups including their Diversity Council and Student Government.   

Jonathan Kyle Farmer, the chair of the MFA program at FIT who ran the show, posted an apology on Wednesday acknowledging Lefévre directly.

“It was never our intent for the show’s styling to be interpreted as racist or to make people feel uncomfortable but I now fully understand why this has happened,” Farmer said. “I take full responsibility and am committed to learning from this situation and taking steps to do better.”

//www.instagram.com/embed.js

This is by no means the first racially-insensitive blunder that the fashion industry has made. Last year, Gucci came under fire for releasing a black turtleneck with lips that could be pulled around the face, resembling blackface. Burberry faced backlash for a sweatshirt featuring a noose-like drawstring around the neck. In 2018, H&M was slammed for an ad featuring a black boy wearing a pullover that read “coolest monkey in the jungle.” 

Many seem to be fed up with these errors. 

“How do people not understand that this isn’t ok and keep doing it again and again and again?” one Instagram user commented on a picture of the show posted by a fashion industry watchdog account. 

See what others are saying: (USA Today) (BBC) (Washington Post)

Advertisements
Continue Reading