Teaching assistant’s OnlyFans page sparks review: CKNW Interview

Interview Summary

A part-time teaching assistant in B.C. is facing termination of employment after her OnlyFans page was discovered by her colleagues. Despite receiving a cease and desist letter from her employer, Kristin MacDonald insists she should be able to continue posting content. What are an employee’s rights to privacy? Can an employer penalize an employee for behaviour outside of the workplace?

A Vancouver employment lawyer at Samfiru Tumarkin LLP spoke to Mike Smyth on 980 CKNW to answer this question and more on employee rights.

Interview Notes

• Legal rights and abilities of the school board: Kristin MacDonald is unionized and so, like other unionized employees, she will likely look to her collective bargaining agreement to determine her rights. In most situations, an employer is able to set a code of conduct for what is considered permissible by employees and what is not permitted.
• Protections of a union contract: Most employment contracts, and collective bargaining agreements, will typically set out the specific parameters in which an employee can be terminated. Union contracts, unlike non-unionized agreements, do not allow employers to terminate an employee without a legitimate reason.
• Type of content influences potential consequences: Minors are not legally permitted to access the OnlyFans website. Kristin MacDonald’s content does not appear to be posted in a manner available to the general public. MacDonald is entitled to a certain extent of privacy regarding the content she posts outside of the workplace, and her social media use.
• Morality clause or code of conduct: Employees can be expected to represent their employers to a certain extent. In some workplaces, if an employee is the public face of their company, their image can be seen as a representative of the business. This ensures they must conduct themselves accordingly.
• Possibly considered discriminatory action: An argument could be made that the board’s decision to penalize MacDonald’s choice of a second job was discriminatory, due to the choice of work as well as her gender.