Fired for being hot

[jbg]

Are you suggesting that clarifying Charter rights is akin to "ambulance chasing"?

Here's a link to the story (link). I think generally people are too much in a hurry to sue. Even a close family member wants to sue for medical malpractice, because a very tough operation didn't come out perfectly. I told her to forget about it because most of the proceeds would go to lawyers, and to the government to reimburse the Medicare benefits.

A true circle jerk.

[cybercoma]

I have no idea what this has to do with Rue's comments or my reply to them.

[GostHacked]

If some guy was constantly texting my wife, sharing intimate details of our personal life and she spent a lot of time with him... I'd see him as a threat to our marriage. If he was an employee of hers, It would be appropriate to fire him

It takes two. Or this could be a sexual harassment situation which warrants a firing. But it was never framed like that.

If your wife is involved and spending time with him, then you are going to want to talk to your wife. The wrong action is to fire the other employee.

[Argus]

If some guy was constantly texting my wife, sharing intimate details of our personal life and she spent a lot of time with him... I'd see him as a threat to our marriage. If he was an employee of hers, It would be appropriate to fire him

It is possible for men and women to be good friends, you know, without the slightest physical or romantic interest...

[bush_cheney2004]

No....as explained in 1989:

[Bonam]

No....as explained in 1989:

Ha, that's the first thing I thought of too when Argus posted that comment.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ha, that's the first thing I thought of too when Argus posted that comment.

LOL! But wait a minute....how would a young rocket scientist like yourself be aware of that film from over 20 years ago ?

[Bonam]

LOL! But wait a minute....how would a young rocket scientist like yourself be aware of that film from over 20 years ago ?

It's a classic, I watched it a few years ago on a friend's recommendation.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's a classic, I watched it a few years ago on a friend's recommendation.

True that.....a fine Rob Reiner film about this sort of human relationship. I'll bet this dentist saw it too.

[Guest American Woman]

But the employer himself engaged in these exchanges. Is that fair ?

The employer is the boss, it's his practice. How does one deal with this fairly in such a situation? Surely he's not going to shut his practice down, ie: fire himself, which would leave her jobless anyway. Had she not put up with his behavior, had she not become part of it, she would have had a sexual harassment charge from the sound of it.

But again. Another person was involved too. Let's say it was the assistant's husband who found the text messages and insisted she quit. Should she have been forced to stay on as an employee, even at the expense of her marriage? If not, why should the employer be forced to keep her on as an employee in light of how his wife - also an employee at the dental office - felt?

It was the 'relationship' between the two - not her 'hotness' - that resulted in her being fired.

Edited December 25, 2012 by American Woman

[betsy]

Let's re-visit that news article:

IOWA CITY, Iowa -- A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, "that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

Knight and Nelson – both married with children – started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight's wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month's severance. He later told Nelson's husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

He said that about her sex life. How come nobody's wondering about the behaviour of this woman???

Why would the dentist even know anything about this woman's infrequent sex life? Why is this woman talking about her sex life?? When you start talking about your sex life to your boss, that already transcends the boundaries of proper conduct and ethics!

This woman - for whatever reason - entertained this "relationship," and what wife will not be concerned about this kind of communication going on between her husband and this woman?

This woman shouldn't be surprised of getting axed. As a woman herself, she should know how a wife might react to such intimacy between the two. I guess she didn't bank on the man wanting to protect his marriage, and booted her instead of the wife.

Being married wouldn't stop a lot of men - women included - of indulging in extramarital affairs. Some women are also very calculating and would willingly poach on someone else's reserve....especially so if the guy could elevate her standard of living. It's not unheard of for a married woman to seduce and have an affair with the boss---and eventually leaving her own husband for the boss. Especially if money is involved. There are those who'd think of nothing in wrecking a marriage.

The dentist obviously is feeling the attraction, and well within his right to put a stop to it before it gets any farther. You do what you have to do to save your marriage and keep your family intact.

Edited December 25, 2012 by betsy

[BC_chick]

It was the 'relationship' between the two - not her 'hotness' - that resulted in her being fired.

I made the headline of the thread the same as the news-article I linked "Bosses Can Fire Hot Workers For Being 'Irresistible': All-Male Court", but the crux of my argument is made in the opening line of my OP.

I tried to scan through as much of the six pages of this thread as I can, and I think it's not even worth bothering to wade into the weeds and get the issue muddled down with technical, legalistic bafflegab, that is mostly irrelevant anyway! The same dynamics occur in workplaces that were formerly all-male, and start integrating women into the workforce....just let's say, a lot of guys don't know how to act! And are either openly hostile or try to seduce them....which apparently a lot of women who are new on a job consider just as stressful. Whatever! If there isn't a law there should be - that if we are going to have a real gender-equal society, every workplace has to be safer and less threatening to women, and guys who can't tell the difference between a girl saying "hello" and a girl who wants to have sex with them, need to be sent to special training seminars so they can learn how to separate doing a job, and looking for sex.

Exactly, the guy is a pig and this woman was his scapegoat. I had a boss just like him years ago and he always thought the flirting was reciprocal when it wasn't (as is normally the case with sexual-harrassment).

My boyfriend at the time hated him and and his wife hated me but if she ended up making him fire me, guess what, her husband was still a pig and I bet he is to this day.

It was just a job for me so I wouldn't do anything, but if it were my career and I'd put 10 years in I sure would not allow him to fire me for his own bad behaviour without pursuing it legally.

No....as explained in 1989:

Nonsense, lots of men know how to be friends with women on a purely platonic level. They may even be attracted to their women friends yet be perfecly capable of behaving appropriately.

The ones who don't know how are the ones sexually-harrassing their coworkers thinking it's mutual and firing them when they're in the doghouse for getting caught.

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.

An employee is free to not take the severance and take legal action instead. Normally in places where people have menial jobs, sure they don't pursue anything because it's not worth it. But any big firm that has employees who have a vested interest in their job as their career always consult with lawyers on issues like this. I worked for a company that was in financial trouble and constantly had to let people go. It's not as easy as you think with just paying severance.

As Rue said, in Canada you can't just fire people. Just because most fired employees don't pursue legal action it doesn't mean a law wasn't broken.

And sure, Rue, please send me your billl for putting it all in legal terms for the board. Much appreciated.

Edited December 25, 2012 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

...the guy is a pig and this woman was his scapegoat. I had a boss just like him years ago and he always thought the flirting was reciprocal when it wasn't (as is normally the case with sexual-harrassment).

How do you know she was his scapegoat? He knew things about her sex life, so apparently she discussed it with him. She didn't file a sexual harassment suit. She didn't claim sexual harassment. No one forced her to text him after hours.

As Rue said, in Canada you can't just fire people. Just because most fired employees don't pursue legal action it doesn't mean a law wasn't broken.

Again, repeating from BC law:

• The Employment Standards Act does not take away an employer’s right to terminate an employee with or without cause. The Act requires that employees who are terminated receive compensation based on length of service.
  
• http://www.labour.go...htm#termination
  

That's "the right to terminate...with or without cause." Just because a terminated employee can pursue it legally doesn't mean their employer doesn't have the right to fire them without cause. Terminated employees have the right to sue in the U.S., too - just as this woman did.

[BC_chick]

And you weren't there, AW, to know the context in which she brought up her sex-life. Maybe to thwart him from discussing her sex-life all the time? Those men do cross the lines all the time by bringing up 'her lucky husband' etc.

Maybe you've never been sexually-harrassed but it's not as easy as you think it is to tell your boss to f-off. Especially if you have a good-paying job.

As for the employment laws.... you're confused. You're referring to employment standards which have stipulations about severance pay and just-cause. That's a different issue than wrongful dismissal.

Re-read Rue's post if it's still not clear.

[Guest American Woman]

And you weren't there, AW, to know the context in which she brought up her sex-life.

Either were you, yet you've got him made out to be a pig and her a victim. She didn't file sexual harassment charges, so that's what I'm going by, even though she did sue him.

Maybe to thwart him from discussing her sex-life all the time? Those men do cross the lines all the time by bringing up 'her lucky husband' etc.

That's pure speculation. The fact is, however, that she was texting him outside the work place. For months.

Maybe you've never been sexually-harrassed but it's not as easy as you think it is to tell your boss to f-off. Especially if you have a good-paying job.

Again, without getting into my personal experiences, which have nothing to do with this case, she didn't sue him for sexual harassment. She didn't claim sexual harassment. She said she wasn't sexually harassed. Furthermore, women aren't always victims in the workplace. In fact, sometimes just the opposite.

As for the employment laws.... you're confused. You're referring to employment standards which have stipulations about severance pay and just-cause. That's a different issue than wrongful dismissal.

Re-read Rue's post if it's still not clear.

I don't have to re-read Rue's post. It's quite clear. An employer has the right to terminate without cause.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

It takes two. Or this could be a sexual harassment situation which warrants a firing. But it was never framed like that.

If your wife is involved and spending time with him, then you are going to want to talk to your wife. The wrong action is to fire the other employee.

Read up on emotional affairs. It doesnt have to start off sexual and often starts as mere friendship, a get away from the stress of marriage (finances, children, responsibility)

I also stand by my comment that this is only being discussed because a woman lost her job, if a man was fired or treated improperly because his boss was a female and she felt that they needed to end the possibility of a relationship, this wouldn't be news.

Guy screws up, girl is the victim

Girl screws up, girl is the victim

[MiddleClassCentrist]

And you weren't there, AW, to know the context in which she brought up her sex-life. Maybe to thwart him from discussing her sex-life all the time? Those men do cross the lines all the time by bringing up 'her lucky husband' etc.

Maybe you've never been sexually-harrassed but it's not as easy as you think it is to tell your boss to f-off. Especially if you have a good-paying job.

As for the employment laws.... you're confused. You're referring to employment standards which have stipulations about severance pay and just-cause. That's a different issue than wrongful dismissal.

Re-read Rue's post if it's still not clear.

I've been sexually harassed. It goes both ways. She'd make excuses to come see me,make inappropriate remarks...

YOU are choosing to label the man a villain. What right do you have to do that? Since you don't know the content of the texts? You can't claim that they were purely innocent without seeing them either. Fact is: they disturbed his WIFE, they clearly weren't acceptable.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's pure speculation. The fact is, however, that she was texting him outside the work place. For months.

Right...I think you nailed this by pointing out it was the "relationship", not gender or sexual harrassment.

I don't have to re-read Rue's post. It's quite clear. An employer has the right to terminate without cause.

Yes...Iowa is not in Canada last time I checked.

[BC_chick]

Either were you, yet you've got him made out to be a pig and her a victim. She didn't file sexual harassment charges, so that's what I'm going by, even though she did sue him.

That's pure speculation. The fact is, however, that she was texting him outside the work place. For months.

Again, without getting into my personal experiences, which have nothing to do with this case, she didn't sue him for sexual harassment. She didn't claim sexual harassment. She said she wasn't sexually harassed. Furthermore, women aren't always victims in the workplace. In fact, sometimes just the opposite.

I don't have to re-read Rue's post. It's quite clear. An employer has the right to terminate without cause.

My speculation was only in response to your speculation that his knowledge of her sex-life implied that she's complicit in something. IOW, I was offering a counter-scenario is which her sex-life would have been discussed without the implication that she did anything inappropriate.

Two, just because a woman doesn't sue her boss for sexual-harrassment, it doesn't mean that sexual-harrassment did not take place. Wanted or unwanted, his comments were inappropriate for the workplace.

The fact that she did not sue him does not make her complicit nor does it give him a right to fire her.

As for your um, legal expertise on Canadian labour laws... again, you're referring to employment standards which is something different.

I'm also wondering why you're so keen on showing off your googling skills in response to me but you didn't bother correcting Rue since you seem to know more on the issue than him.

I've been sexually harassed. It goes both ways. She'd make excuses to come see me,make inappropriate remarks...

YOU are choosing to label the man a villain. What right do you have to do that? Since you don't know the content of the texts? You can't claim that they were purely innocent without seeing them either. Fact is: they disturbed his WIFE, they clearly weren't acceptable.

If you were fired for your boss's inappropriate behaviour I would villify her too.

Why should you lose your job just because your boss did things that made her husband uncomfortable?

Also, for someone telling me that I don't know what's in the text you sure seem to have made up your conclusion about them, no?

[Guest American Woman]

My speculation was only in response to your speculation that his knowledge of her sex-life implied that she's complicit in something. IOW, I was offering a counter-scenario is which her sex-life would have been discussed without the implication that she did anything inappropriate.

She was "complicit" to the point that she was apparently discussing it with him. How else would he know how often she had sex? Whether or not it was "inappropriate," it is unprofessional.

Two, just because a woman doesn't sue her boss for sexual-harrassment, it doesn't mean that sexual-harrassment did not take place. Wanted or unwanted, his comments were inappropriate for the workplace.

I agree that his comments were inappropriate for the work place, but her behavior was inappropriate for a business relationship too. She herself said there was no sexual harassment, as I've already said.

The fact that she did not sue him does not make her complicit nor does it give him a right to fire her.

He had the "right" to fire her as long as it didn't violate any laws. She thought it did; she thought it violated the gender laws, so she sued. She lost. She wasn't fired just because she's a woman.

As for your um, legal expertise on Canadian labour laws... again, you're referring to employment standards which is something different.

I'm referring to the fact that an employer has the right to fire an employee in Canada, even without cause.

I'm also wondering why you're so keen on showing off your googling skills in response to me but you didn't bother correcting Rue since you seem to know more on the issue than him.

"Keen on showing off my googling skills?" Are you 12?

If you were fired for your boss's inappropriate behaviour I would villify her too.

Why should you lose your job just because your boss did things that made her husband uncomfortable?

??

Also, for someone telling me that I don't know what's in the text you sure seem to have made up your conclusion about them, no?

What conclusions have I made about the texts, other than that they sent personal texts outside the work place for months? - which is a fact they both admit to.

[BC_chick]

"Keen on showing off my googling skills?" Are you 12?

??

What conclusions have I made about the texts, other than that they sent personal texts outside the work place for months? - which is a fact they both admit to.

No I'm not 12, but that was an awesome way to avoid answering why you never corrected Rue's post since you seem to know more on the issue than him.

As for the rest ??? and last paragraph... sigh. Reread my post and see who I was addressing.

[Guest American Woman]

No I'm not 12,...

Then perhaps you should try to avoid coming across that way. Just a suggestion.

[BC_chick]

Then perhaps you should try to avoid coming across that way. Just a suggestion.

Another petty insult to avoid answering the question? It's that tough eh?

You even dot dot dot it out. Too funny.

Edited December 26, 2012 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

Another petty insult to avoid answering the question? It's that tough eh?

Petty insults beget petty insults.

I've already addressed the issue repeatedly - employers in Canada can fire employees, even without cause.

[bush_cheney2004]

I've already addressed the issue repeatedly - employers in Canada can fire employees, even without cause.

Yes...it must come as a shock to some...how can it be that an employee is no more protected from such an employer's decision compared to the cruel and wicked USA ?