contract-law minor breach-of-contract morality juvenile-law
Why is breach of code of conduct applicable for a morally and legally different culture?
<p>Let's say there is a guy named Samuel, who is 20 years old from Germany sexting with a girl named Mary, who is 16 years old and also from Germany. Sexting was mutually agreed upon. Samuel sends her a picture of his penis, but Mary doesn't share any explicit images of herself with Samuel. She attends a special needs school because she has ADHD. They broke up a month later. This is to my knowledge perfectly legal and normal in Germany. Correct me if I am wrong.</p>
<p>3 years later Samuel gets a contract in the USA as a player on a sports team and a public figure. Mary decides to share her story with the world and mentions how he sent her a dick pic and was sexting with her, while she attended special needs school.
The public in the USA gets very offended, calling Samual a pedophile, a creep, and a groomer. This is a breach of a code of conduct; a portion of the rule, that is being violated here:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A player may not engage in any activity or practice, which brings him
or her into public disrepute, scandal or ridicule, or shocks or
offends a portion or group of the public, or derogates from his or her
public image.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>His contract gets terminated a few days later.</p>
<p>My question is does the breach of the contract hold in this situation? It happened in a country where it's morally and legally right. But the public in the USA sees this as very morally wrong and illegal. Isn't this form of neo-racism towards Samuel and the people of Germany. The morals and laws in countries are much different from that of the USA, why should Samuel be punished for things he believed were right at the time.</p>

<p>The basic premise of a morals clause is that A's work may be of some value to employer B, but their conduct may be a greater liability (causing millions of dollars of losses to B because of the ensuing consumer boycott). Such a clause allows B to manage their losses that arise because of A's conduct. It is then a business decision on B's part to decide what conduct triggers a firing (arising because A broke the contract through their conduct). A can, of course, contest B's decision in court, so enforcement is a trickier matter.</p>
<p>Contract terms are evaluated under the laws of a specific state, do it depends on what state that is, hence under California law, an employer has less leeway to say what is acceptable conduct, and under Delaware law the employer has wide latitude. Enforceability is primarily a function of what the clause says, and what the facts are. See <a href="https://casetext.com/case/mendenhall-v-hanesbrands-inc" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands</a> for an example where the question was whether the actions of plaintiff would &quot;bring [him] into public disrepute, contempt, scandal, or ridicule,&quot; or tended &quot;to shock, insult, or offend the majority of the consuming public&quot;. An argument of the type &quot;in my culture, there's nothing wrong with X&quot; will gain no traction.</p>
<p>In the described situation, the wording of the contract would matter substantially, since the conduct preceded the contract. Without a requirement to disclose prior indiscretions, it is not reasonable to argue that a contract prohibits prior conduct.</p>
