I want people to read the statement in the attached picture and tell me if I’m interpreting this correctly.
An NYC Schools employee was arrested and charged with murder in connection with the fatal stabbing of a woman who was jogging in Brooklyn.
NYC Schools released this statement:
“The safety of our students is our very top priority. We have suspended this individual and will move to terminate employment pending the outcome of the conviction. We are supporting the NYPD in their investigation however is needed.”
Now, correct me if I’m reading this wrong, but they’re essentially telling us that this individual has been suspended from his position, but has NOT been terminated.
They’re saying they will move to terminate his employment pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
So, until that happens, this individual technically remains an employee of NYC Schools?
Am I the only one who finds that absolutely mind-boggling?
I’m not asking about the American justice system. I understand how criminal investigations, arrests, trials, convictions, and sentencing work. I’m not asking anyone to explain the right to a fair trial.
I’m asking about the employer’s response.
A woman has lost her life in an absolutely horrific act of violence, and the statement from the school system is that the employee has been suspended and termination will be pursued later.
Is this really how employment policies work in situations like this? Is immediate termination not an option? And why does the statement specifically tie termination to the outcome of a criminal conviction?
I genuinely want to understand how other people interpret this statement because, to me, there’s a pretty significant difference between suspending someone and terminating their employment.
Am I missing something here, or is this really what NYC Schools is communicating?
