Can a CEO Fire You for Cheating? The Legal Issues Behind the Natalie Dawson Story

Is Cardone Ventures Discriminating by This Post and These Actions?

American CEO Natalie Dawson, president of Cardone Ventures, has sparked debate after revealing she fired two employees for cheating on their partners. Speaking on The Diary of a CEO podcast, Dawson explained that she immediately terminated the employees upon learning about the infidelity, believing that personal dishonesty reflects professional unreliability.

For her, integrity in personal and professional life is intertwined, and she considers cheating employees a liability to the company culture and environment. While some support her commitment to ethics, others criticize her for blurring private and work boundaries.

#NatalieDawson #CEO #Integrity #WorkplaceEthics #Leadership #Infidelity #USNews #CorporateCulture #Accountability #BreakingNews #fblifestyle 

It really depends on the facts, but if you were terminated, you should take a deep look into this one.

Specifically, how did the CEO learn about the infidelity? Was it from an out-of-wedlock pregnancy? If yes, that can constitute sexual harassment under Title VII because only a woman can get pregnant.

Here is another angle: Is this CEO acting on religious grounds and trying to impose her beliefs on her staff? If so, that may constitute religious discrimination. A federal court explained earlier this year:

“The plaintiff must assert that an adverse employment action was taken because of a discriminatory motive based upon the employee’s failure to hold or follow her employer’s religious beliefs.”

— Owens v. City of New York Dep't of Educ., No. 21-2875, 2022 WL 17844279, at *2 (2d Cir. Dec. 22, 2022))." Maas v JTM Provisions Co., Inc., 1:23-CV-00076-JPH, 2025 WL 823671, at *4 [SD Ohio Mar. 13, 2025]

Think your firing crossed a legal line?

Lieb at Law handles discrimination and wrongful termination cases across NY, NJ, and CT.
Talk to an attorney today.

Contact Us

*attorney advertising

Federal Court Finds Religious Discrimination in Old Westbury Zoning Code

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY), in Lubavitch of Old Westbury, Inc. and Rabbi Aaron Konikov v. Incorporated Village of Old Westbury, New York delivered a strong reminder to municipalities: zoning codes cannot discriminate against religious institutions. 

The long running dispute centered on the "adoption of a land use statute aimed at places of worship". In striking down the law, EDNY emphasized that "[o]fficial action 'burdening religious conduct that is not both neutral and generally applicable, however, is subject to strict scrutiny,'" which is violated where "they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise." Here, the Court found exactly that - a violation. 

Seventeen years of litigation later, the question remains: why wasn’t the Chabad simply allowed to build its house of worship? From a reading of this case, it’s hard to see why the Village of Old Westbury has fought so long rather than just letting them build it.

If your religious organization is facing discriminatory land use restrictions, attorneys at Lieb at Law, P.C. can help evaluate your case. 

*attorney advertising. 

US Supreme Court Invites Discrimination Against Same-Sex Applicant to Religious Organization

What happens when there is "an employment dispute between a religious employer and an applicant who was not hired because he disagreed with that employer’s religious views?" 

Stated otherwise, isn't allowing an employer to deny a job to someone who disagrees with their religious views a license to discriminate? 

To get specific, what should happen if a religious employer refuses to hire a bisexual applicant in a same-sex relationship just because of such orientation and relationship status? 

Should it matter if that applicant applied to work as a staff attorney rather than as a minister for the employer? 

While the US Supreme Court declined their opportunity to let us know for sure, with binding precedent, in Seattle's Union Gospel Mission v. Woods, their denial of certiorari seemingly indicates that they are inclined to allow religious employers to discriminate against same-sex individuals and prevent such individuals from working in any aspect within the organization, even outside of a religious job like a minister. 

Second Circuit Holds that Requiring Teachers to Submit a Letter from a Religious Leader in Support of a Request for a Reasonable Accommodation is Unconstitutional

The 15 public school teachers who challenged New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate live to fight another day in court.

The teachers have refused to comply with the City’s mandate arguing that compliance with the COVID-19 vaccine mandate is a violation of their religious rights under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.

The Court determined that the reasonable accommodation standards in the City's vaccine mandate was unconstitutional as applied to the 15 teachers because the mandate required employees who requested a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate to submit a letter from a religious leader confirming the validity of the employee's religious beliefs. If the religious leader had well-documented public comments in support of taking the vaccine, the request for exemptions would be denied.

The Court reasoned as follows:

Denying an individual a religious accommodation based on someone else's publicly expressed religious views-even the leader of her faith-runs afoul of the Supreme Court's teaching that "[i]t is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants' interpretations of those creeds."

However, the Court declined to extend protections against the mandate to all teachers stating that the mandate itself was "a reasonable exercise of the state's power to act to protect the public health."

Based on this decision, employers should only consider the employee's specific religious beliefs (in determining whether they are "sincerely held") when processing a reasonable accommodation request. Someone else's belief  - even if it is a religious leader - is irrelevant. 

PODCAST: Religious Freedom to Discriminate

Town Insists "Whites-Only" church isn't illegal - Or is it? We discuss new legislation that can either get you sued or drive your success.

Listen to this week's podcast HERE.