Fired for being hot

[Guest]

Four pages into the thread and I don't have time to go back and read it all, so it might have been said. I don't care whose side the law is on, the guy is a complete a******e and should be ashamed of himself.

Arrogant and conceited, too.

[BC_chick]

Just to let you know, employers don't need just cause to fire you. They can pay you severance and termination pay, fire you on the spot, and call it a day in most provinces.

But the employee can sue for wrongful dismissal.

[bush_cheney2004]

But the employee can sue for wrongful dismissal.

Can the employer sue if an employee quits ?

[Guest American Woman]

But the employee can sue for wrongful dismissal.

Doesn't mean they're going to win. Nelson sued, too - and lost.

[betsy]

We can quit whenever we want here too, but we can't be fired whatever reason tickles the boss's fancy.

That's what some may want to believe...but it's not true. I worked for a big place that treated its employees like dirt. Yes they fire at whim. Some complained at Labor, but ended up settling. Who wants to be bogged down in a battle, and for what? So a lot of employees that were mistreated just chucked it to experience and moved on.

If an employer wants to get rid of you....they can find ways to get rid of you. Our door was known as a revolving door....and this place ended up having a bad reputation in that community.

Edited December 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

In fact, your employment can get terminated without any cause. And that's within the law.

'Termination without cause'

Termination without cause means that the employee is being terminated for reasons that are not related to misconduct and notice of the termination and possibly severance pay is required as outlined in the employment/labour standards.

http://hrcouncil.ca/...termination.cfm

Edited December 23, 2012 by betsy

[bush_cheney2004]

Unless under contract, employees can quit whenever they wish. There is nothing special about the opposite relationship for employer to employee.

Employees do not have a right to a specific job.

[betsy]

But the employee can sue for wrongful dismissal.

I don't know about that. I guess if you have an ironclad written contract....maybe.

Termination of Employment

An employer can end the employment relationship at any time. The free will of parties to a contract is recognized by our courts. In practical terms, what this means is that the Court will not force continued employment between parties.

The result of the termination of your employment will depend on whether the employer had "just cause" for the termination. If the employer had just cause for the termination, they are entitled to end the employment without notice to you. If the employer does not have just cause for the termination, they are required to provide you with reasonable notice of the termination.

As stated above, an employer is required to provide reasonable notice of the termination of employment. They are not required to provide a severance package. Damages (or a severance package) are paid by employers to compensate for their breach of the term of the contract to provide reasonable notice. If an employer fails to provide reasonable notice, the damages that the employee is entitled to are calculated by determining what would have been reasonable notice and what would have been earned by the employee if he had been provided with reasonable notice. Any earnings during the period of reasonable notice are then deducted.

A wrongful dismissal case is a breach of contract case. Damages for hurt feelings are not awardable. [emphasis added] The damages a dismissed employee is entitled to will generally be limited to the damages arising from the failure to provide reasonable notice of the termination.

http://www.canadaleg...-rk0405-01.html

Edited December 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Unless under contract, employees can quit whenever they wish. There is nothing special about the opposite relationship for employer to employee.

Employees do not have a right to a specific job.

I guess we've got the same here too....

[cybercoma]

But the employee can sue for wrongful dismissal.

And lose because the company met the legal requirement for termination. It's not a wrongful dismissal if they pay you severance and termination.

[cybercoma]

Unless under contract, employees can quit whenever they wish. There is nothing special about the opposite relationship for employer to employee.

Employees do not have a right to a specific job.

The rules vary by province, just as the rules vary by state in your country.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess we've got the same here too....

Makes sense, as the basis for "At will" employment can be found in British common law. If an employee can quit whenever they feel like it, then surely an employer should have the same option, absent a binding contract.

[Sleipnir]

Seems a little sexist to fired someone based on their external features. Why then, hire her to begin with?

[Wilber]

Wonder how they would handle this. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/office_gas_crisis_SaUsxQI2Y5HrAmWEaGHlhK

[betsy]

Wonder how they would handle this. http://www.nypost.co...2Y5HrAmWEaGHlhK

The way the article is written, it's almost a joke..."But whatever action the government worker took, he couldn’t manage to tame the toot."

Perhaps there's more to this than meets the eye?

The man was told his behavior was “discourteous, disrespectful, and entirely inappropriate” and could not be tolerated by the agency.

“Disrespectful and unprofessional behavior is unacceptable and detracts from the agency’s ability to maintain a safe, pleasant and productive work environment,” according to the document.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

His business, his life, personal emails being exchanged = emotional affair, she can plausible deny it but talking about her sex life with him makes less plausible.

He gave her severence. Thats all that is really required in Canada as well, and all that you will get in the case of wrongfull dismissal is lost wages between jobs.

You can fire anyone without severance for just cause, you can fire anyone with notice and legally required severence in Canada, especially since all they'll get in canada is lost wages its not worth a court battle. This is a misunderstanding of entitled youth that you can ONLY be fired for just cause. The irony being that younger generations hate unions more than ever, and being in one would prevent this.

Why dont we tackle a worse issue, since this wasn't a gender based ruling(women can fire men they deem hazardous to their marriage). Why do women consistently avoid hiring women they deem more attractive that themselves? Oh wait, that's females discriminating against females... We can only hate men in this feminist world.

Edited December 24, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Severance is based on whatever the provisions are in the legal code for them. Ten years of service with a company and there's a cap in NB of 4 or 6 weeks, I don't remember exactly. Get fired in ON, you would be given 10 weeks severance and 10 weeks termination for a total of 20 weeks pay.

Is Iowa a right to work state? I would be surprised if any severance was required, if it is.

[Guest American Woman]

Seems a little sexist to fired someone based on their external features. Why then, hire her to begin with?

Again, she was fired after the dentist's wife, who also works at the office, found the text messages between Knight and Nelson and insisted that he fire her. From what I've read, the texting outside of work had been going on for about 6 months, and the wife, again, also an employee, had other complaints about Nelson's behavior in the office as well. In other words, it was about their relationship, not about her looks.

Makes sense, as the basis for "At will" employment can be found in British common law. If an employee can quit whenever they feel like it, then surely an employer should have the same option, absent a binding contract.

Yep. An employer most definitely does have the right to fire an employee without "just cause" in Canada - this is specifically from BC, since BC_chick had said "In BC this would have never happened. You need 'just cause' to fire someone....":

The purpose of this factsheet is to help employers and employees understand the meaning of just cause as it applies under the Employment Standards Act.

The Employer’s Right to Fire

An employer has the legal right to terminate an employee. The Act does not affect this right.

http://www.labour.go...ts/justcaus.htm

[Argus]

Again, she was fired after the dentist's wife, who also works at the office, found the text messages between Knight and Nelson and insisted that he fire her. From what I've read, the texting outside of work had been going on for about 6 months, and the wife, again, also an employee, had other complaints about Nelson's behavior in the office as well. In other words, it was about their relationship, not about her looks.

From the sounds of the article it was about a jealous, probably fat and ugly wife. Their 'relationship' simply sounds like the norm after working together for ten years. I often exchange text messages with people I work with or used to work with. Some I haven't seen in years, but we still exchange emails and texts. And yes, many of them are female and married.

[Michael Hardner]

Only Manny, NewTeddy and jbg on this thread seem to be explicitly saying that this ruling is not fair - that the woman should have to be responsible for how her employer felt about her, and the risk to his marriage. I also feel that it's not fair.

Anybody else out there ?

For those of you who think this is fair, would you find it fair if a man was fired for the same reason ? What about a man fired by another man ? What about a man fired for similar reasons ? Fired by another man ?

At what point in these analogies does an employeer seem to have too much control over ones life ? At what point do the temptress/employees portrayed make this seem like Sharia law ?

[Bonam]

MH: the particular situation is "not fair", I agree, in that the woman was fired for no fault of her own (as far as we know). But barring a contract that stipulates otherwise, an employer has the right to fire an employee (and pay legally required termination/severance) without any specific cause. My opinion would be unchanged regardless of the gender of the individuals involved.

[msj]

Only Manny, NewTeddy and jbg on this thread seem to be explicitly saying that this ruling is not fair - that the woman should have to be responsible for how her employer felt about her, and the risk to his marriage. I also feel that it's not fair.

Anybody else out there ?

I agree it is not fair.

IMV she should get something closer to 8-10 months of severance.

[Guest American Woman]

Only Manny, NewTeddy and jbg on this thread seem to be explicitly saying that this ruling is not fair - that the woman should have to be responsible for how her employer felt about her, and the risk to his marriage.

That's not what I've said. I said that I believe the boss-employee relationship went beyond professional, and since the wife, also an employee, was uncomfortable with it, it affected the work place. The fact that she was texting her boss outside of the work place, about personal issues as well, and that the wife found these texts, goes beyond "how her employer felt about her," IMO.

For those of you who think this is fair, would you find it fair if a man was fired for the same reason ? What about a man fired by another man ? What about a man fired for similar reasons ? Fired by another man ?

I'd feel the same in all instances if the circumstances were the same.

At what point in these analogies does an employeer seem to have too much control over ones life ? At what point do the temptress/employees portrayed make this seem like Sharia law ?

She had some control over this. Had she not been texting her boss, the wife would not have found the texts - and asked that she be fired. I've pointed out that some of their discussions were definitely beyond the professional boss-employee realm. Since the wife found "how often are you having orgasms" texts from her husband to another employee, I can understand how that would make the work place rather uncomfortable.

[cybercoma]

Of course it's not fair. It's ridiculous that she got fired because the guy's wife was jealous and he couldn't control himself.

The problem is that she was legally fired.

So the question is, should employment laws reflect more closely what is "fair"?

[msj]

Of course it's not fair. It's ridiculous that she got fired because the guy's wife was jealous and he couldn't control himself.

The problem is that she was legally fired.

So the question is, should employment laws reflect more closely what is "fair"?

As an employer, in British Columbia no less, I have no problem with our laws (which are much more employee friendly than Iowa's).

I can fire any employee at any time for any reason I want.

It's just that if I do not have a good reason then I have to pay out a reasonable amount of severance.

In my experience the cost of severance has been a small price to pay but then I have never found any of my staff "hot" so who knows?