Fired for being hot

[MiddleClassCentrist]

What on earth are you talking about??? Earth to WIP - come down here with us, please.

It's actually on the reverse from what he's saying... because of aborting female babies being popular in eastern cultures and fewer men killing themselves off in war (There are naturally more males than females born), there is going to be a larger number of males. Aborting female fetuses seems like a way to protect family lines... until there are no partners for your sons to procreate with. Short sighted behaviour based on silly patriarchal name saving... names are just an identifier... blood ties are what actually connect families. More people should choose a new family name when marrying... I wanted a name where people would have to admit that I am awesome. Mr. Superior, Mr. Awesome, Mr. LordOfTheUniverse lol.

Anyways,

The theory is that men will have a harder time to get exclusive relationships and keep exclusive relationships when there are plenty of men trying to woo women for a relationship, or just a quick romp.

Edited December 28, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[WIP]

What on earth are you talking about??? Earth to WIP - come down here with us, please.

I couldn't get past the first line in his post.

Well, needless to say, here are two women who either failed to learn anything from fairly recent history, or just take it all for granted. If we're to believe the implied dynamics of the background in this story that: (a) a younger woman is looking to play the role of 'homewrecker' to advance her status by capturing a wealthy, established older man, while the wife feels threatened by this younger woman and wants her dispatched as quick as possible so she doesn't lose her meal ticket -- then we are right back where we all started!

And I hope most women can see past the ends of their noses, because these types of situations are how the few with the money and the power, keep others fighting with each other rather than working together for a more equal society. Just sayin.....there are larger lessons to learn (for some) from this example.

Edited December 28, 2012 by WIP

[betsy]

Well, needless to say, here are two women who either failed to learn anything from fairly recent history, or just take it all for granted. If we're to believe the implied dynamics of the background in this story that: (a) a younger woman is looking to play the role of 'homewrecker' to advance her status by capturing a wealthy, established older man, while the wife feels threatened by this younger woman and wants her dispatched as quick as possible so she doesn't lose her meal ticket -- then we are right back where we all started!

Why do you assume the wife is just doing it to protect her meal ticket? For all you know she's rich and financed the business of her husband! Just because she is a woman does not mean she is automatically financially helpless.

Does it take any stretch of the imagination to assume that she could be protecting her family? Does those things called, "children" mean anything this days???

And yes, the possible scenarios outlined are based from fairly recent history! You should know.....since you read tabloids! I got them from Dr Phil! AND Judge Judy. AND The Insider!

And I hope most women can see past the ends of their noses, because these types of situations are how the few with the money and the power, keep others fighting with each other rather than working together for a more equal society. Just sayin.....there are larger lessons to learn (for some) from this example.

And I hope you do realize that some of those few with money and power, are women. How many rich and famous men started out being financially supported by women in their lives?

Edited December 28, 2012 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

Again, you apparently read further into his post than I could ....

[WIP]

"Fair pay" is what the market determines for a given type of job based on supply and demand.

I figured I would hear about the god in the market when I asked that question! And I don't believe in that god, which is based on a myth called Pareto Efficiency of Market Dynamics.

In brief, that myth only works in theory if everyone behaves in rational, predictable ways, and business owners do not consolidate control of markets.....which is not what happens in the real world! People are often irrational; make choices based on impulse (the advertising industry depends on that), and business owners will try to control markets by gaining monopoly or near monopoly. They will also behave in ways that do not maximize their own profitability in situations where they deliberately try to ruin a rival competitor, even if the costs outweigh the benefits.

In real life, the constant boom and bust cycles of markets -- especially as they are deregulated, blows the myth that fair prices and fair wages are determined by whatever the market says. In today's return to feudalism, a fair wage in Bangladesh is 35c an hour....and that has an obvious impact on everyone's wages, regardless of skill levels, wherever they work in the world.

It is not the total revenue of a company minus expenses divided by the number of its employees. If companies didn't generate profit, then people would not invest capital in them, entrepreneurs would not start new businesses, etc.

Which is only a problem for the capitalist entrepreneurial ownership system, where a few who control the bulk of a nation's wealth feel the need for big returns on investment as the incentive to invest in new businesses. While it is not a problem in worker cooperative systems, where employees have a say in business decisions and how profits are divided. Entrepreneurial systems may be fine at small scale, such as small businesses that find a product or service that is needed....that is roughly how the middle class began in the Middle Ages in Europe. But, when it gets to international banks - who actually create most of the money that runs modern economies, the major oil companies and other monstrosities that earn billions for a handful of major shareholders, these voracious institutions which are presently rewriting national and international laws to allow them to devour entire nations for resources in their constant, ever-growing quest for more and more profits....well, I'll end by saying that if there is no way to stop this system and put something else in place that can meet most of our basic needs, our economic system will drive us over the cliff in a mass extinction.

So what you're saying is guys might have sex with someone they don't really like for the sexual gratification and women might do it for the monetary/career gratification. Don't see much difference.

Some guys....I didn't say everyone! And if this new age of permanent austerity is dealt with by returning to past norms, then young women will be back viewing either marriage or prostitution as their best roads to financial success. This doesn't prove that the old Victorian Era logic that women don't really enjoy sex and put up with it to get what they can out of a man, is natural -- but it is how many, even most will adapt if choices are limited to those options again.

If to the best of your ability to determine the new girl that you met is a prospect for a more fulfilling relationship than the one you are currently in, it is within your realm of possibility to terminate your current relationship and pursue the new one. Nothing forces one to remain in an unsatisfying marriage.

Like I said before, it's a matter of how impulsive you are, or to what degree you value stability over immediate gratification. I'm not trying to put a halo on my head now that I'm coming up to our 25th anniversary (not including 3 years living common law), but whatever I felt I might be missing out on over the years, wasn't enough to motivate me to risk turning my life upside down! And certainly, if I hadn't seen so many train wrecks in the personal lives of some of my friends, family and co-workers over the years, I might have stepped out on a few occasions myself.

I'm not sure I understand your line of thought. From what I understand, you are saying that most relationships are becoming more temporary, and so it is important to preserve marriage as a permanent monogamous bond. Why? If the dynamic nature of our society where people move around a lot is driving most relationships to become more temporary rather than lifelong, how does this make monogamy more important than it has been in the past?

Okay, this is a fwiw argument, since most of it is trying to extrapolate from personal experiences and feelings to apply some general rule....so I am aware that it's going out on a limb. But, from what I've read over the years from history and sociology, our attitudes about monogamy and marriage are very modern and very recent! If we go back more than a few generations, most of our ancestors were arranging marriages of their children, and following marriage ceremonies taken from a time when patriarchs literally sold their daughters to prospective bridegrooms....and as we are aware, there are some places in the world still doing this. We have to go back to the Renaissance to find any written accounts of romance and love affairs between a man and a woman -- and they almost never involved the two getting married at some future point in time....the story was usually a tragedy....because that's what romantic love would get you in feudalistic societies. If we go back further, we find that monogamy meant little more than a man can't buy more than one wife, even if he has the money to pay for more. Which takes us back to polygamy -- which is the most common institution of marriage once farming and permanent settlements started, and men usually took control of economic activity.

And, if we go back before the age of agriculture....when humans lived most of our history - in small bands related by blood -- we usually find egalitarian, non-hierarchical societies, dependent on the contributions of both men and women, where cooperation and sharing are crucial to the group's survival. And in these societies, we don't find marriage or monogamy in any sense of the way we understand these terms today. Early on, many anthropologists made all kinds of unfounded assumptions....like one I recall, where the researcher in the Amazon, was calling a male and female moving their hammocks together - a marriage! In that long, paleolithic past, where the family clan was the only institution that mattered, pair-bonding was frequent and fleeting, and children were raised by females collectively, and males who had no ideas of paternity, or cared for that matter. They were all part of the tribe....and that's all that mattered! And, if we assume that this would be the natural way for men and women to act in a free society, how do we make that happen today, when all of our social institutions beyond marriage are based on contingencies and unreliable for any length of time? It seems to me that many liberal social commentators have been right that we are not naturally monogamous, but they failed to see that in a world where there are no other trustworthy social institutions (not to mention the much greater exposure to STD's that promiscuity brings in modern societies), most of us are going to have to learn to be happy with monogamy!

Yes, that has been my experience too. A lot of friendships last while you have something in common. When that something in common is no longer applicable, the friendship can disappear over time. Still not seeing the connection though...

My point is that if someone is getting older, and they've been married several times, and may not even be sure if their present marriage is going to last, they have no one they can trust who will be there no matter what! Family relationships don't extend much beyond immediate family today. I've noticed since my father died 10 years ago, that almost all the relatives from that side of the family have disappeared also for various reasons. It was pretty much a matter of my father's generation being the only one that maintained those links, while most of our cousins haven't bothered. I imagine something similar from my mother's family in Michigan, although she has a sister-in-law who just reached 101, and my mother has become close friends with the eldest of her daughters....so there may be some continuity after my mother's passed on, but who knows? I'm the youngest of my family, so I know that I am likely going to outlive them just going by the odds. So, that leaves us back to marriage, as the last institution we can really trust in good times and bad. I do have one friend from high school, who was best man at my wedding, who might be there till the bitter end, but my point was that if you have one or two friends from early in your life that are still with you as you're getting closer to the finish line, you're lucky!

What's intrinsically normal for humans is for males to desire multiple sexual partners in order to spread their genes to the next generation as much as possible, for females to want to secure a strong male for life that can provide protection and stability and increase the chance of survival of their offspring, and for human groups to organize in a way that creates stability and increases the chances of survival of the group.

Nope! That was bullshit from Victorian patriarchal assumptions that I touched on earlier. The notion of man being the savage warrior competing with other men to 'spread his seed' didn't become the norm until we get to that point described in the Old Testament, where women are part of the collection of a man's possessions....the Ten Commandments pretty much spells it out. If we go back to an earlier time before materialism becomes a force in human culture, we find no concern or consideration for paternity. In a hunter/gatherer tribe, a man doesn't care whether the boy he's teaching how to make a spear, is his son or his nephew...it's all the same to him, because it's the wellbeing of the tribe that matters. And the women....well that would be the greatest fallacy of all, that women don't really care much about sex, except for what can be gained by it. Again, this is an adaptation to societies that transition from relative equality and consideration for male and female, to becoming completely male dominant -- where women have to secure the right man for raising their children. In previous eras, childrearing was a group activity, so a woman's sexual interest in men would be for fun and games, pretty much the same as it was for the men. Modern psychological research has noted that women vary in their tastes in men depending on whether or not they are ovulating -- preferring higher testosterone - more rugged appearing men during the times they are most fertile, and switching preference to less rugged men when they become pregnant. That may explain a lot of the reasons why females in a hunter/gatherer band would want to change partners frequently, while in the later societies, the lack of community support led most women to settle on the best combination of attributes in one man afterwards....giving rise to the notion that women should be naturally monogamous....unlike the men.

Anyway, I'm sure a lot of people naturally want to be monogamous. But for those that are driven to have multiple sexual partners, there is nothing wrong with that, nor anything in our society that forces them to forgo that. Just like some people would rather have same sex partners or opposite sex partners, some may prefer a single partner or multiple partners. Not everyone has to get married, and those that are constantly feeling "temptations" should look into arrangements other than traditional marriages.

Hey! Go for it if you can get it. I should point out that a lot of my observations depend on where you are in life, and where you are in a marriage. I recall that a little more than 20 years ago, earlier in our marriage, we became friends with a couple of similar age. I learned from the guy that they were swingers, and had hooked up with at least one other couple, but that relationship didn't last. I was all for the idea of hooking up with his wife....and it really didn't bother in the least if the deal meant that he would be bedding down my wife (as long as she didn't get pregnant or contract an STD of course). But, when I tried to broach the subject as cautiously as possible, my wife flew into a rage and declaring how she knew he was nothing but a f@#$%^^& pervert, and picked up the phone and was going to tell off the wife. I literally wrestled the phone from her hands and somehow convinced her not to mention the subject again. But, our friendships cooled off, and I never would bring up a subject like swinging or stepping out again after that reaction. I still wouldn't write it off as women being naturally more monogamous than men, since it could be more likely that her growing up in a broken home makes her even more invested in stability and security than I am.

[betsy]

American Woman....did you see how long his next post was? I give up.....

[BC_chick]

Ya, one-liners with lots of emoticons are so much more intellectual.

[betsy]

Ya, one-liners with lots of emoticons are so much more intellectual.

Oh yes. Compared to what so-called "authoritative statements" that tumble out of empty heads....

.....emoticon(s) like that one, usually are so much more intellectual.

Edited December 29, 2012 by betsy

[WIP]

American Woman....did you see how long his next post was? I give up.....

And, did you notice that it wasn't addressed to either of you two? It was intended for someone who has opened up the issues of employee rights, fair wages, and even what is normal sexual behaviour even further. So, I felt the need to just take the time and put everything on the table as brief as possible, and see what gets picked up.

You two could have just ignored it without comment and that would have been fine; but it seems that you want to try to dumb everyone down to your level....so there are at least two more members here that I won't bother discussing anything with in the new year. Kind of sad in retrospect!

[bush_cheney2004]

....You two could have just ignored it without comment and that would have been fine; but it seems that you want to try to dumb everyone down to your level....so there are at least two more members here that I won't bother discussing anything with in the new year. Kind of sad in retrospect!

So anyone who doesn't like to wade through your ponderous social manifestos is "dumb" ? Typical....

[Guest American Woman]

And, did you notice that it wasn't addressed to either of you two? [...]

You two could have just ignored it without comment and that would have been fine; but it seems that you want to try to dumb everyone down to your level....[...]

Ummmm....did you notice that I didn't respond?

[Mighty AC]

I read about two strippers fired for being old and ugly; so, I for one am happy to see some equality.

[betsy]

And, did you notice that it wasn't addressed to either of you two? It was intended for someone who has opened up the issues of employee rights, fair wages, and even what is normal sexual behaviour even further. So, I felt the need to just take the time and put everything on the table as brief as possible, and see what gets picked up.

You two could have just ignored it without comment and that would have been fine; but it seems that you want to try to dumb everyone down to your level....so there are at least two more members here that I won't bother discussing anything with in the new year. Kind of sad in retrospect!

Oh WIP....don't be such a sour puss.

You're letting these two women rankle you so easily.

Edited December 29, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Ummmm....did you notice that I didn't respond?

Ooooh...that's a good one!

Me too, WIP....I didn't respond (to you).

[betsy]

Hey WIP, c'mon....don't go sulking away. Read again what I said to AW....I was jesting about the length of the post (and I do a lot of lengthy posting myself). You should know me by now....me and my "weird" sense of humor.

[Rue]

This is not at entirely true. This is only if you want to fire someone with just cause and not have to pay out severance. If you pay them out severance, you avoid the just cause problems entirely. Moreover, just cause doesn't necessarily need to follow this particular criteria. Your contract may state that you will be given a warning for an infraction and following that warning you may be terminated if the same infraction occurs again. If that's what it says in your contract, that is what's binding. If that's the company's policy, then that is what's binding (although you may be able to make the argument that this was not clear in your contract of employment). Basically, the company has to follow the termination process that it says it will follow. Barring that, the courts typically see a reasonable termination process as one verbal warning, one written warning, then termination.

Hang on. I see the point you are making, Let's clarify it. If you unfairly (no just cause) or constructively(force someone out) dismiss someone, then yes at that point you pay out what they are entitled to under the respective province's Employment Standards Act. Severance pay is not always guaranteed depending on your length of employment .In this case there would be severance pay because she worked 10 years. Its a week or two for each year served and that is in addition to another payment for proper notice. So its two payments, one pays in lieu of notice, it makes up for the weeks of notice before she got fired she was entitled to, and the other is a lump sum amount for severance both based on years of service. Then there is vacation pay which is a percentage of the hross income and yes you are all correct its not much. I mean you are definitely better off with a collective agreement that provides much better benefits then the minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act that can not be contracted out of.

However if someone fires you based on sexual discrimination you also have the right in Canada in each province to take your employer to the respective province's Human Rights Commission and demand rehiring if that is what you wanted. That may not be practical but it could force a compensation payment other than under the statute I mentioned to avoid such a hearing which can result in a fine of anywhere from a few thousand to $50 thou or so.

As well Judges have discretion to award punitive damages to employees on top of all the above statutory benefits I mentioned even Small Claims courts in all Canada provinces and that is about $2,500 to $5,000 in rare cases.

Bottom line is, you don't get much compensation for lower jobs. If however you were a high level executive lured away from a very well paying job to another one and then soon after fired for being too good lookingou could be entitled to large compensation yes. It depends on your salary and job training. The higher your salary and the more expertise your job required the more compensation you get.

Let's be clear, you could fire someone for no reason, but then the question is would you as an employer then be faced with having to pay compensation.

In a similiar case to the one in Iowa on a salary of $50,000 per annum, in BC or Ontario someone who made that amout over 10 years could get up tp $50,000 in compensation but I bet the legal bill to fight that in court is a minimum of $15,000.

The practical reality is most people fired have to start looking for work and the compensation won't help that much.

Most fired people have to hire a lawyer on a contingency basis which is why its higher than paying the lawyer up front. When you pay him a percentage of what you are awarded he factors in interest on your legal fee to cover the months not paid.

I have represented cases with sexual harassment components which is why I tell you all the above.

Techically you can make a stricyt contract in favour of the employer but while the legal employment contract can say anything it wants about firing someone, Judges tend to ignore dismissal conditions unless its to support an employee's rights that were violated. Very rarely do Judges side with employers with contract conditions that try make it easy to fire someone who did nothing wrong. Whether they are American or Canadian Judges they see contracts since they were written by the employers to be bias in favour of employers and therefore they read the contracts in favour of the employees.

All that said, if you suddenly claim work no longer exists all the statutory rights I mentioned are not taken away and Judges see right through it and if its done in bad faith will award punitive damages and have in certain sectors with mass layoffs. Also interestingly there are seperate augmented benefit provisions for layoffs in most Employment Standards Acts.

The practical reality in Canada is she is looking at 1-4 weeks compensation for every year served any way you slice it. However the law bill is 20% of it.

By the way to fire someone at will is always possible if they are on probation but Judges ignore probation periods that go on past a year. But by then the compensation for only working a year is not much so firing someone without cause does not carry much penalty and this is why if you are not in a union you are screwed if an employee.

In this case from what I can see the employer probably was told by his wife to fire her after getting caught exchanging emails.

I actually taught law and ethics to dental hygienists in Toronto for a few years and have represented some in unfair dismissals. They always end up in payoffs out of court usually over personality clashes. Not much to talk about.

No I do not know of someone being fired for being too enticing. I do know of people complaining they were not hired because theyere obese or ugly but that can be hard to prove if an interview is conducted properly, i.e., if there are no inappropriate comments its hard to prove.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Rue

[cybercoma]

Grow up, betsy.

[BC_chick]

By the way to fire someone at will is always possible if they are on probation but Judges ignore probation periods that go on past a year. But by then the compensation for only working a year is not much so firing someone without cause does not carry much penalty and this is why if you are not in a union you are screwed if an employee.

And that's how I've always understood the difference between Employment Standards and wrongful dismissal. The fact that most people don't bother to sue doesn't mean that they would not have a case if they did.

I've known of cases where the employee did not even face any type of discrimination, they simply sued for being 'forced out' (constructive as you referred to it).

No probation-period, no warning and they were fired without any work-related incompetence on their part. From what I recall, they won about one year salary.

Edited December 30, 2012 by BC_chick

[WIP]

Hang on. I see the point you are making, Let's clarify it. If you unfairly (no just cause) or constructively(force someone out) dismiss someone, then yes at that point you pay out what they are entitled to under the respective province's Employment Standards Act. Severance pay is not always guaranteed depending on your length of employment .In this case there would be severance pay because she worked 10 years. Its a week or two for each year served and that is in addition to another payment for proper notice. So its two payments, one pays in lieu of notice, it makes up for the weeks of notice before she got fired she was entitled to, and the other is a lump sum amount for severance both based on years of service. Then there is vacation pay which is a percentage of the gross income and yes you are all correct its not much. I mean you are definitely better off with a collective agreement that provides much better benefits then the minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act that can not be contracted out of.

However if someone fires you based on sexual discrimination you also have the right in Canada in each province to take your employer to the respective province's Human Rights Commission and demand rehiring if that is what you wanted. That may not be practical but it could force a compensation payment other than under the statute I mentioned to avoid such a hearing which can result in a fine of anywhere from a few thousand to $50 thou or so.

Bottom line is, you don't get much compensation for lower jobs. If however you were a high level executive lured away from a very well paying job to another one and then soon after fired for being too good lookingou could be entitled to large compensation yes. It depends on your salary and job training. The higher your salary and the more expertise your job required the more compensation you get.

The practical reality is most people fired have to start looking for work and the compensation won't help that much.

In this case from what I can see the employer probably was told by his wife to fire her after getting caught exchanging emails.

And that's how I've always understood the difference between Employment Standards and wrongful dismissal. The fact that most people don't bother to sue doesn't mean that they would not have a case if they did.

It is becoming a case of unequal justice, as fewer and fewer people have the benefits of being under a collective agreement at work, and are left with the bare minimum of what the Law will provide. I'm a little uneasy with some of Rue's post, which indicates that receiving even a minimum compensation in such situations, could depend on the beneficence of the presiding judge. And once again we are left with the cold reality that employers can get away with anything, when they are hiring minimum - or near minimum wage employees, who don't have the money to hire a lawyer to try to fight it out in court.

It's pretty disturbing that there are some here who think that employers can run a workplace in a master/slave dynamic, like what's happening in third world countries, where we're outsourcing all of our manufacturing. Equally pathetic that some think the boss's wife should have the right to demand employees be fired without cause.

[Guest American Woman]

It's pretty disturbing that there are some here who think that employers can run a workplace in a master/slave dynamic, like what's happening in third world countries, where we're outsourcing all of our manufacturing. Equally pathetic that some think the boss's wife should have the right to demand employees be fired without cause.

Who thinks that?

Edited December 30, 2012 by American Woman

[betsy]

The fact that most people don't bother to sue doesn't mean that they would not have a case if they did.

They could've also been adviced that they would not have a case if they did.

[betsy]

It is becoming a case of unequal justice, as fewer and fewer people have the benefits of being under a collective agreement at work, and are left with the bare minimum of what the Law will provide.

Well, being under the union doesn't guarantee you'd be treated fairly. Someone I knew left a full-time job when she was offered a full-time job by another company. The department manager and the general manager were both present during her interview. However, the department manager quit suddenly a few days after. There was some conflict between this manager who quit, and the general manager. To cut the long story short, the directress decided to get rid of this employee just before her probation is finished. This new employee left a fulltime job on the knowledge that she has this fulltime job. Some employees were sympathetic - one even wrote a statement having heard the general manager of saying that the new employee was hired as a full-time. The union couldn't do anything. Some employees were not surprised about that....and they grumbled against the union.

Some unionized employees are afraid to criticize the union openly.

I know of employees who don't even want to bring the union in, even though they're being treated unfairly. I tried to bring in the union. The union wasn't too gungho to come because there were not too many employees - there were less than 50 employees in the place.

You hear a lot of employees with their negative experiences at the hands of the union. Ex-employees still fighting it out in court. People bitter, angry, and felt having been sold-out by the union.

It's pretty disturbing that there are some here who think that employers can run a workplace in a master/slave dynamic, like what's happening in third world countries, where we're outsourcing all of our manufacturing. Equally pathetic that some think the boss's wife should have the right to demand employees be fired without cause.

Which ones here?

Edited December 30, 2012 by betsy

[Merlin]

I used to hear a saying when I was younger that applied to women in business. "You have to give head to get ahead". Obviously this manager decided not to live up to that saying and decided to move away from that. Maybe he should be applauded and congratulated.

[WIP]

I used to hear a saying when I was younger that applied to women in business. "You have to give head to get ahead". Obviously this manager decided not to live up to that saying and decided to move away from that. Maybe he should be applauded and congratulated.

Didn't you mention something previously about being a bum who can't get a job or something? A comment like this tells me that you shouldn't be working any place where you may come into contact with female employees! Your comment isn't funny or amusing, because there are lots of women and girls...since this sort of thing can start right from the time they are hired for their first job, who face sexual harassment, and coercion for some sort of sexual purpose, and face the stress of having to decide how to deal with sexual advances that they didn't ask for. Especially when it involves girls who are young and new at a job, or women coming from other countries who may not speak English very well, and are most afraid of what their husbands or families might react if they find out, it's a subject that is not in the least bit funny!

[Guest]

I used to hear a saying when I was younger that applied to women in business. "You have to give head to get ahead". Obviously this manager decided not to live up to that saying and decided to move away from that. Maybe he should be applauded and congratulated.

Here's a thought. Why doesn't he decide to move away from that and NOT fire her?