Education assistant with racy OnlyFans account fired for what employer calls 'egregious' conduct

We don't have enough information. As long as she kept her work in school separated from her OnlyFans, I see nothing wrong with her having a second job.
This sentence is ambiguous:
Among them is allegedly posting material on public social media accounts that "involves the sexualization of the school environment."
Is this implying that she took any of her OnlyFans pictures while inside the school? That wouldn't be okay. But what it is referring to, as she alleges, is that she took pictures while wearing a school uniform, then the only thing that matters in my mind is whether it was a generic school uniform or the specific uniform used at the school she worked at.
We are generally very hypocritical in matters surrounding porn and sex work.
- Good analysis and I tend to agree. There are certainly lines she could cross, but based on the information given it doesn't seem like she did. To those fearing children can be exposed to this, I say, we all know what OnlyFans is by now. There's a lot of talk going on about letting parents parent, well, here's your chance.
- I agree, and your comment is spot on to what i was thinking as i read the article

She suspects a TikTok video of her in a schoolgirl outfit may have been a particular problem for the district.
Yeah. I could see that being a worry.
MacDonald said being an education assistant only earned her $1,000 every two weeks after deductions. She insisted that while on duty at school, she was solely focused on helping students and had never been the subject of complaints about her behaviour with students.
This is probably one of the most important points from the article.
- Also:
  She says there needs to be more attention given to the low pay of education assistants and there needs to be less stigma around sex work. She doesn't regret speaking out.
  "I feel strongly that in this day and age, we should be able to do what we want as long as it's not illegal," MacDonald said. "I'm not hurting anybody."
  Good for her.
- She essentially was fetishizing her job online for money. I can definitely see that getting into some areas that would result in violating some sort of employment policy they agreed to.

"You don't pay me enough to tell me what to do when I'm not at work" seems like the best response.

Perhaps they should pay teachers enough that they don't feel the need to take on second jobs.
- Education assistant, but yea same thought applies.

As I said elsewhere in response to this story:
What's needed is for a bunch of education workers to hold a public rally somewhere off of school grounds with as many people as possible naked from the waist up.
Baring of breasts in public is legal in Canada. It should not be legal to fire someone for engaging in legal activities while not at the disposal of the employer. If what she was doing was legal, then it's nobody's business but hers.

How can they fire her for this? Are they not opening themselves up for a wrongful termination suit since she didn't do anything illegal or violate the employment agreement?
- I think this does open them up to a wrongful termination suit. But I also highly suspect the employment agreement listed something vague about 'a public image that positively reflects on the employer' or some shit like that. It almost always does for teachers and other workers in schools. Might not hold up in court, but I bet it was in the employment agreement in some form.
- "The view we take is, there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. What's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code."
  Minister Trudeau ....... in 1967
  
  To be fair that quote doesn't really hold true when someone is posting what they do in the bedroom online :P. Though this isn't a criminal thing anyway.

This is so sad but the worst part is that we pay our EA's so horribly they have to supplement their income with an OnlyFans account? Let that sink in everyone.

I don't think the following should be discounted:
She suspects a TikTok video of her in a schoolgirl outfit may have been a particular problem for the district.
Sexualizing schoolkids by someone that has power in school is a bad look.
I don't think we'd be okay with a male teacher/EA sexualizing school uniforms.
- There was a college professor that got fired when students noticed a pornhub bookmark to "college girl bangs her professor" on his computer. The college noted that the theme of the video was a big reason for the firing as it made students uncomfortable.
  
  The college noted that the theme of the video was a big reason for the firing as it made students uncomfortable.
  That's a pretty big red flag.
  
  The problem isn't the content, it's that the prof was foolish enough to be in a situation where students could find out. No one cares (or even wants to know) what you get up to in your spare time, so keep it that way.
  OpSec isn't just for spies.
- So are you going to go to all the porn sites and complain about this sort of content?
  
  The problem isn't (necessarily) the content, the problem is the power differential. A teacher/EA sexualizing students is not ok.
  If she'd avoided school related content, I think this would be a harder conversation.
  As I mentioned elsewhere, EA pay seems to be the root of the issue in this case. She said she's selling on OnlyFans because she isn't paid enough. EAs should be paid better.

Is this different than firing someone over their social media posts or inappropriate conduct captured on video? To me it does, but I'm not sure I can articulate why. Am I being a hypocrite?
- Indeed there is a broader conversation about what amounts to "inappropriate conduct" outside the workplace. Assuming the person isn't doing anything illegal and maintains their work at arm's length, does the employer get to police what they do outside of their working hours?
  If a teacher hustling as a sex worker in her free time is grounds for dismissal, would a teacher hiring the services of a sex worker in his free time also be a fireable offense?
  
  This feels like a sea of shades of grey.
  
  If sex work in any context is a dismissal, then I would say hiring a sex worker or engaging in their services should as well.
- Yes and no.
  Part of the issue for both is that posting stupid shit non-anonymously on social media does call your judgment into question, especially if you're in a public-facing role and your behaviour be liability to your employer. Say Nazi stuff on Facebook and your employer fires you? Well, that's a life lesson about consequences of your own behaviour.
  ...and that's also the case here, though OnlyFans allows a modicum of plausible deniability because it requires the viewer to actively and decisively source the content in question. The problem, for the content creator, is that the internet is leaky, and what happens on OnlyFans doesn't stay on OnlyFans.
  This is separate from the compensation issue. For sure EAs are paid incredibly poorly, and while there's liability issues, there are larger moral ones about slut-shaming someone trying to make rent through legal means.
  
  Part of the issue for both is that posting stupid shit non-anonymously on social media does call your judgment into question
  If you read the article, it wasn't even under her real name. There's literally no safer way to have a porn side-gig that I can think of.
  
  It sounded like they also had content on platforms like TikTok that they had problems with. Like being dressed as a "schoolgirl" in tiktok videos.

She seems nice...