You're too hot - I might do ya. You're FIRED - Page 2

lionking · 22nd December 2012, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

My post seems to have been ignored. I shall repeat it:
What about this part:

...It sounds like there may very well have been at least some flirting on both the boss' and the employee's parts and the dentist's wife put her foot down.

Where's the evidence of flirting? We have the self-serving allegation by Knight that the clothes were too tight (uncomfortably close to a "she made me get aroused" rape excuse), but no evidence of flirting.

Yes, obviously Knight's wife had a hand in this. An injustice has still been done.

cwalner · 22nd December 2012, 12:32 AM

1. The plaintiff made a mistake in her filing. This should have been filed as sexual harrasment.

Quote:

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.
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.”

2. WTF

Quote:

The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd December 2012, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Where's the evidence of flirting? We have the self-serving allegation by Knight that the clothes were too tight (uncomfortably close to a "she made me get aroused" rape excuse), but no evidence of flirting.

Yes, obviously Knight's wife had a hand in this. An injustice has still been done.

What do you think the texting was? Normal boss employee conversation?

And if an employer tells an employee their clothes are too sexy, you know, that's a clue, you aren't dressing appropriately for your job. It wasn't a Hooters, it was a dental practice.

It may have been unfortunate, and the dentist may have been just as culpable. But seriously, this isn't some guy who fired an employee solely because the employee was attractive. A lot of times when these things develop, one of the two involved has to quit. Obviously the dentist can't quit his own practice.

He should have given her a decent severance and a recommendation that she could have probably used to get another job with easily. One has to wonder if the employee didn't hold the grudge against the wife in order to actually bring a lawsuit against the dentist.

lionking · 22nd December 2012, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

No, she shouldn't. But she's probably going to anyway. Life isn't always fair or rational.

Sometimes the best way to end the suffering is to end the relationship. Breakups are almost never pretty, and people almost always get hurt who don't deserve it. Sometimes that's just the way it is.

You seem to be trying to extrapolate some perversely sexist general case from this specific event. Go ahead if you want to, but it's got nothing to do with me: this horrible fantasy is all yours.

Why are you referring to this case as if it were a marriage? Breakups? Seriously?

This was a working arrangement, and every worker should expect a degree of professionalism and respect from their boss. This was a disgraceful judgement from the court.

StankApe · 22nd December 2012, 12:44 AM

she's a hot chick, she will end up okay

lionking · 22nd December 2012, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What do you think the texting was? Normal boss employee conversation?

And if an employer tells an employee their clothes are too sexy, you know, that's a clue, you aren't dressing appropriately for your job. It wasn't a Hooters, it was a dental practice.

Where is the evidence of inappropriate dressing and texting? All we have reported is Knight's assertions.

I'm sorry, but I've got to say it. Another failure of the US justice system.

cwalner · 22nd December 2012, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And if an employer tells an employee their clothes are too sexy, you know, that's a clue, you aren't dressing appropriately for your job. It wasn't a Hooters, it was a dental practice.

Or, based on the language used to express that opinion, then it could be a clue that the boss is sexually harassing the worker.

If he had simply told her that her dress was inappropriate, no problem, but by pointing out that her attire caused a bulge in his pants, he sexually harassed her. When a boss/worker both start flirting and the only way to resolve it is to fire the worker, than the boss has sexually harassed the worker. If that flirting was only one-sided on the boss's part, then the boss has sexually harassed the worker.

The only way that the employee was in the wrong here, was that she filed the wrong type of lawsuit. It was sexual harassment, not gender discrimination.

Morrigan · 22nd December 2012, 12:50 AM

Agreed with lionking. He fired her due to his own failings, and the court rewarded him. Unbelievable.

lionking · 22nd December 2012, 12:56 AM

It looks like Nelson was trying to play decent throughout. Bad strategy against a religious scumbag.

SezMe · 22nd December 2012, 01:55 AM

Seems odd that she worked there for a decade but the tight clothes and hotness only manifested recently.

lionking · 22nd December 2012, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Seems odd that she worked there for a decade but the tight clothes and hotness only manifested recently.

And the bulge in the pants......

Last of the Fraggles · 22nd December 2012, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by cwalner

Or, based on the language used to express that opinion, then it could be a clue that the boss is sexually harassing the worker.

If he had simply told her that her dress was inappropriate, no problem, but by pointing out that her attire caused a bulge in his pants, he sexually harassed her. When a boss/worker both start flirting and the only way to resolve it is to fire the worker, than the boss has sexually harassed the worker. If that flirting was only one-sided on the boss's part, then the boss has sexually harassed the worker.

The only way that the employee was in the wrong here, was that she filed the wrong type of lawsuit. It was sexual harassment, not gender discrimination.

Possibly, but if she's be a willing participant in the flirting, texting, etc I think she would have a hard time trying to make harassment stick which is probably why she ended up going for the sex discrimination angle.

Dancing David · 22nd December 2012, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by StankApe

I think the ruling is BS myself. I fully expect this to be kicked up to the next level.

It has USSC written all over it.

Unless he documented that he asked her to wear baggier clothing and then documented that she didn't.

Even at that in Illinois they can fire you for any reason that they want.

cwalner · 22nd December 2012, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Possibly, but if she's be a willing participant in the flirting, texting, etc I think she would have a hard time trying to make harassment stick which is probably why she ended up going for the sex discrimination angle.

I disagree. She relies on him for her livelihood. The power is too unbalanced to dismiss the possibility of coercion in her decision to be involved with him.

Also while I am not a lawyer, even if an employee is the initiator of a more personal relationship, my understanding is that the employer is still guilty of harassment for getting involved. There is a reason why larger companies have policies about dating co-workers. They can become problematic and a source of harassment if one of the participants has workplace authority over the other.

This is just an egregious example of it. As the prestige indicated, the employers behavior was completely appropriate for how to end a bad relationship. However, the fact that he was the other person's boss, also made it harassment, even assuming that the relationship was entered willingly by both parties.

Cainkane1 · 22nd December 2012, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Are you kidding me????

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x4...rt-says?zc_p=0

And here I was thinking we were moving forward on equality. DOH! Glad I don't play the ponies. I suck at predicting.

If I was a woman or a man fired for this I'd get a lawyer and sue.

Janadele · 22nd December 2012, 06:51 AM

An employer should have the right to hire and fire. Otherwise, why bother employing anyone. Better to never start a business than to have limited authority in the running of it.

TragicMonkey · 22nd December 2012, 06:59 AM

I wonder how many patients this dentist lost when this hit the papers? I sure as hell wouldn't stay with him. He might decide my teeth are too sexy and need to be removed.

sgtbaker · 22nd December 2012, 07:16 AM

I think claiming she was fired because she was too hot is oversimplifying the issue. We only have the claims of all parties involved to go on and it's a little weird to cherry pick which parts we will call truth. What we are presented with:
After working for this office for ten years, something upped his interest in an employee. He began noticing her clothing Whether there was an actual change or not; as an employer and a married man to a married woman, his comments were flat out inappropriate. He began taking interest and making comments about her sex life; even more inappropriate than her choice of clothing. A couple of red flags are going up at this point; for one, there is no accusations of sexual harassment but more curious; how the hell does the dentist know she's not having sex?
At some point, they beging pursuing a more personal relationship, via text. Does she stop and say, "Hey this is not appropriate?" No, she responds and engages in text discussions about her private life.

Everyone brings their own biased opinions to discussions like this and I am open to evidence that shows otherwise but to me, this looks like a budding affair, the wife caught on and put the breaks on it. If there was any indication at all that she wasn't receptive to his pursuit, this would be an easily sexual harassment case; there is a reason that a lawyer wouldn't choose that angle. It sucks for her that she lost her job and it would suck even more if she didn't put a stop to it because of his authority but given the information we have, what would have been a better solution? Fire his wife for being nosey? Close down his practice because it's unfair that one participant loses more?

Pulvinar · 22nd December 2012, 07:26 AM

Clearly she should now go to dental school, become a dentist, start a practice, hire pretty-boy assistants and then fire them just for spite!

Stout · 22nd December 2012, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I think claiming she was fired because she was too hot is oversimplifying the issue. We only have the claims of all parties involved to go on and it's a little weird to cherry pick which parts we will call truth. What we are presented with:
After working for this office for ten years, something upped his interest in an employee. He began noticing her clothing Whether there was an actual change or not; as an employer and a married man to a married woman, his comments were flat out inappropriate. He began taking interest and making comments about her sex life; even more inappropriate than her choice of clothing. A couple of red flags are going up at this point; for one, there is no accusations of sexual harassment but more curious; how the hell does the dentist know she's not having sex?
At some point, they beging pursuing a more personal relationship, via text. Does she stop and say, "Hey this is not appropriate?" No, she responds and engages in text discussions about her private life.

Everyone brings their own biased opinions to discussions like this and I am open to evidence that shows otherwise but to me, this looks like a budding affair, the wife caught on and put the breaks on it. If there was any indication at all that she wasn't receptive to his pursuit, this would be an easily sexual harassment case; there is a reason that a lawyer wouldn't choose that angle. It sucks for her that she lost her job and it would suck even more if she didn't put a stop to it because of his authority but given the information we have, what would have been a better solution? Fire his wife for being nosey? Close down his practice because it's unfair that one participant loses more?

I too was curious how the dentist knew she wasn't having sex and I think there's more to this story than we're being told.

A better solution ? Make the wife the office manager and have her fire the employee.

Ron_Tomkins · 22nd December 2012, 08:09 AM

So what other scenarios are also valid? A guy in a crowded theater sitting next to a hot girl and telling her "Sorry maam, you're too hot for me to resist. You're gonna have to find another seat"..... A guy and a woman on a boat, and the guy going like "Sorry maam, you're too hawt and I just wanna have you and I can't contain myself, you're gonna have to jump off this boat".... The only available doctor and his female patient, him going like "Sorry miss, I cannot be your surgeon. You're too hot. You're gonna have to find someone else to do your breast cancer removal cause all I wanna do is eat those tits"?

Hmmm?

Checkmite · 22nd December 2012, 08:25 AM

My wife says if I finish taking this report from you she'll divorce me; so you'll have to find another police station.

3point14 · 22nd December 2012, 08:29 AM

Here's a tip. If you're married and you find someone at work attractive, don't sleep with them

The 'I must fire her or we'll fall into each other's arms like star-crossed lovers' excuse is just a pile of fetid dingoes kidneys.

What a total douche.

commandlinegamer · 22nd December 2012, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Janadele

An employer should have the right to hire and fire. Otherwise, why bother employing anyone. Better to never start a business than to have limited authority in the running of it.

Yeah, damn all that pesky anti-discrimination legislation, those outrageous health and safety regulations.

AlBell · 22nd December 2012, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I think we need to ratify the ERA ASAP.

A third leg of the problems you intend to solve: right after gun control and bacon availability.

Ron_Tomkins · 22nd December 2012, 09:57 AM

The proof that this is a completely absurd thing is that it was featured in a Seinfeld episode, where George finds his secretary too hot, so he fires her.

Prometheus · 22nd December 2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

The problem with that is "I can't deal with this person"->She gets fired.

Well, let him fire himself then, and she's still out of a job. The situation sucks, but I think he acted reasonably. It isn't even necessary to assume he'd be unable to control himself if she'd stayed. His first responsibility is to his wife and family. If his wife believed that she was a danger to their marriage, then he has a responsibility to take that seriously (even if he never acted overtly on his feelings there's still a danger that such a situation could turn into a harassment suit that would cost him his business and consequently his wife's livelihood as well as her own). He gave the woman a month's severance pay. She should count her blessings that he was so fair with her and go find another job.

tsig · 22nd December 2012, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

Here's a tip. If you're married and you find someone at work attractive, don't sleep with them

The 'I must fire her or we'll fall into each other's arms like star-crossed lovers' excuse is just a pile of fetid dingoes kidneys.

What a total douche.

I wonder how the wife feels now that her husband has officially said he'd like to sleep with another woman?

He might have set himself up for a nasty divorce.

fuelair · 22nd December 2012, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

The problem with that is "I can't deal with this person"->She gets fired.

Remember that I am only speaking of one problem here - and I am basically on the woman's side: BUT the wife going is not going to work, and the guy is the only dentist in this operation so........ there is only one person to go if anyone is going to go.

Checkmite · 22nd December 2012, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Prometheus

She should count her blessings that he was so fair with her and go find another job.

Did you actually just post that?

No; this is one of those abstract dreams where nothing makes sense; I'm sure of it now. Wake up in 3...2...1...

Checkmite · 22nd December 2012, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Remember that I am only speaking of one problem here - and I am basically on the woman's side: BUT the wife going is not going to work, and the guy is the only dentist in this operation so........ there is only one person to go if anyone is going to go.

Why does anyone have to go?

As has been said, the "I won't be able to stop myself from trying to have an affair" line is a load of whale crap at the bottom of a dry well. So is the notion that somebody had to lose their livelihood in this situation. If the wife thought there was a "threat to their marriage", then he should've gone with her to a counselor and worked it out.

It's only a matter of time before a man who genuinely thinks "but I'm afraid I won't be able to control myself" is an acceptable and believable line of reasoning will use it again. Since the court has certified its validity as an excuse it's a practical certainty. Carried to its logical conclusion, he's going to end up doing something and blaming someone else because "he couldn't stop himself".

This person can't just walk down the street and into another job; not in this economy.

joesixpack · 22nd December 2012, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

Generous? You have to be joking. She was a 10 year employee.

As to what he could do? Control himself, seek help. The victim is being blamed here.

A month's pay is pretty shabby. Finding a job in under a month is certainly not the norm in the current economy. Frankly, it seems his wife's insecurity is where the blame lies.

gumboot · 22nd December 2012, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

My post seems to have been ignored. I shall repeat it:
What about this part:

...It sounds like there may very well have been at least some flirting on both the boss' and the employee's parts and the dentist's wife put her foot down.

To me it reads more like the boss was sexually harassing her. But more likely, since they'd worked together for an entire decade it was just a case of two good friends being jokey. I'd love to know how long the boss had been married and how long said wife had worked at the company.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Employers can expect employees to dress appropriately. They were texting each other. It sounds like the relationship was indeed moving in a dangerous direction. Maybe there were other solutions, but this is not a case of an employer simply firing an employee because the employer lusted after her.

Seriously? TEN YEARS. My girlfriend socialises with her boss and texts them and she's worked at her current job for a year. People who work with bosses (particularly in small businesses) for a long period of time become friends with them. Friends communicate with each other.

Are we supposed to believe these two have worked together for a decade and suddenly found themselves getting hot around the edges? Please. Sounds more like they have a familiar and friendly relationship (as happens if you work closely with someone for a decade) and the wife has got a case of jealousy and put her foot down.

Thank god stupid things like that can't happen here. Our employment laws expect business owners to treat their businesses like a business and not as an extension of their family.

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd December 2012, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

Where is the evidence of inappropriate dressing and texting? All we have reported is Knight's assertions.

I'm sorry, but I've got to say it. Another failure of the US justice system.

I missed it if anyone in the article said those things were not true.

There are some times when a relationship at a workplace requires one of the two parties to leave. This appears to me to be one of those times.

Perhaps the boss didn't handle it well.
Perhaps the wife was a bitch.
Perhaps the employee was vengeful after the event.

I don't know. I do know a court should not be the arbitrator of a personality(s) problem in the workplace unless there is sexual harassment or discrimination. Typically in this state, the employer should have documented requests for the employee to dress more appropriately, the texting should never have happened, and there's a good chance both the worker and the dentist were a little too friendly with each other.

What I don't see here is the exact slant as reported by the news media whose interest is in selling scandal.

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd December 2012, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by cwalner

...
The only way that the employee was in the wrong here, was that she filed the wrong type of lawsuit. It was sexual harassment, not gender discrimination.

That's a possibility I would not rule out. One has to wonder though, did the worker feel harassed? The decision not to sue for harassment suggests there might have been witnesses it was a two way attraction. Not saying I know, though.

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd December 2012, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I think claiming she was fired because she was too hot is oversimplifying the issue. We only have the claims of all parties involved to go on and it's a little weird to cherry pick which parts we will call truth. What we are presented with:

...Everyone brings their own biased opinions to discussions like this and I am open to evidence that shows otherwise but to me, this looks like a budding affair, the wife caught on and put the breaks on it. ...

Own biases is all we have given the small amount of info in the news report. I read the story similarly to your post. In addition, I work with hundreds of dentists as an employee health provider. The offices are small and relationships can at times be mini soap operas.

That is undoubtedly biasing my opinion.

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd December 2012, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

...

Seriously? TEN YEARS. My girlfriend socialises with her boss and texts them and she's worked at her current job for a year. People who work with bosses (particularly in small businesses) for a long period of time become friends with them. Friends communicate with each other.....

The atmosphere in a dental office is very often more sociable than other work places. It would depend on the texts.

But a jealous wife, that changes the mix. The dentist had two employees that were not going to work well together. He couldn't exactly fire the wife without her getting even more upset. He couldn't quit his own practice.

What do you think he should have done?

SezMe · 22nd December 2012, 02:03 PM

One possibility is that the two (or three) of them work together to find a solution. If that solution was that she has to go, fine. Then the dentist and wife would work with her to find alternative employment and until that happens, all other contact is verboten. This should not have gotten into court.

fishbob · 22nd December 2012, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by 3point14

Here's a tip. If you're married and you find someone at work attractive, don't sleep with them

The 'I must fire her or we'll fall into each other's arms like star-crossed lovers' excuse is just a pile of fetid dingoes kidneys.

What a total douche.

No comment on the article, I just wanted to see that part in bold.

thaiboxerken · 22nd December 2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

He gave her a generous payout, and ended the relationship. What else do you want him to do?

He should've found another place to work instead of firing her.

22nd December 2012, 12:22 AM	#41
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,673	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger My post seems to have been ignored. I shall repeat it: What about this part: ...It sounds like there may very well have been at least some flirting on both the boss' and the employee's parts and the dentist's wife put her foot down. Where's the evidence of flirting? We have the self-serving allegation by Knight that the clothes were too tight (uncomfortably close to a "she made me get aroused" rape excuse), but no evidence of flirting. Yes, obviously Knight's wife had a hand in this. An injustice has still been done.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

22nd December 2012, 12:32 AM	#42
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,708	1. The plaintiff made a mistake in her filing. This should have been filed as sexual harrasment. Quote: Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion. 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.” 2. WTF Quote: The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

22nd December 2012, 12:32 AM	#43
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,613	Originally Posted by lionking Where's the evidence of flirting? We have the self-serving allegation by Knight that the clothes were too tight (uncomfortably close to a "she made me get aroused" rape excuse), but no evidence of flirting. Yes, obviously Knight's wife had a hand in this. An injustice has still been done. What do you think the texting was? Normal boss employee conversation? And if an employer tells an employee their clothes are too sexy, you know, that's a clue, you aren't dressing appropriately for your job. It wasn't a Hooters, it was a dental practice. It may have been unfortunate, and the dentist may have been just as culpable. But seriously, this isn't some guy who fired an employee solely because the employee was attractive. A lot of times when these things develop, one of the two involved has to quit. Obviously the dentist can't quit his own practice. He should have given her a decent severance and a recommendation that she could have probably used to get another job with easily. One has to wonder if the employee didn't hold the grudge against the wife in order to actually bring a lawsuit against the dentist.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd December 2012 at 12:38 AM.*

22nd December 2012, 12:38 AM	#44
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,673	Originally Posted by theprestige No, she shouldn't. But she's probably going to anyway. Life isn't always fair or rational. Sometimes the best way to end the suffering is to end the relationship. Breakups are almost never pretty, and people almost always get hurt who don't deserve it. Sometimes that's just the way it is. You seem to be trying to extrapolate some perversely sexist general case from this specific event. Go ahead if you want to, but it's got nothing to do with me: this horrible fantasy is all yours. Why are you referring to this case as if it were a marriage? Breakups? Seriously? This was a working arrangement, and every worker should expect a degree of professionalism and respect from their boss. This was a disgraceful judgement from the court.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

22nd December 2012, 12:44 AM	#45
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	she's a hot chick, she will end up okay
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

22nd December 2012, 12:50 AM	#47
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,708	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger And if an employer tells an employee their clothes are too sexy, you know, that's a clue, you aren't dressing appropriately for your job. It wasn't a Hooters, it was a dental practice. Or, based on the language used to express that opinion, then it could be a clue that the boss is sexually harassing the worker. If he had simply told her that her dress was inappropriate, no problem, but by pointing out that her attire caused a bulge in his pants, he sexually harassed her. When a boss/worker both start flirting and the only way to resolve it is to fire the worker, than the boss has sexually harassed the worker. If that flirting was only one-sided on the boss's part, then the boss has sexually harassed the worker. The only way that the employee was in the wrong here, was that she filed the wrong type of lawsuit. It was sexual harassment, not gender discrimination.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

22nd December 2012, 12:50 AM	#48
Morrigan Crone of War Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,879	Agreed with lionking. He fired her due to his own failings, and the court rewarded him. Unbelievable.
Morrigan Crone of War Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,879	__________________ curi0us: "Many kids grow up in environments where if the worse thing they had to deal with was a pervy gym teacher wanting to **** them they would considere themselves to be privileged and living the good life."

22nd December 2012, 12:56 AM	#49
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,673	It looks like Nelson was trying to play decent throughout. Bad strategy against a religious scumbag.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

22nd December 2012, 01:55 AM	#50
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,367	Seems odd that she worked there for a decade but the tight clothes and hotness only manifested recently.

22nd December 2012, 01:58 AM	#51
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,673	Originally Posted by SezMe Seems odd that she worked there for a decade but the tight clothes and hotness only manifested recently. And the bulge in the pants......
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

22nd December 2012, 02:41 AM	#52
Last of the Fraggles Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,355	Originally Posted by cwalner Or, based on the language used to express that opinion, then it could be a clue that the boss is sexually harassing the worker. If he had simply told her that her dress was inappropriate, no problem, but by pointing out that her attire caused a bulge in his pants, he sexually harassed her. When a boss/worker both start flirting and the only way to resolve it is to fire the worker, than the boss has sexually harassed the worker. If that flirting was only one-sided on the boss's part, then the boss has sexually harassed the worker. The only way that the employee was in the wrong here, was that she filed the wrong type of lawsuit. It was sexual harassment, not gender discrimination. Possibly, but if she's be a willing participant in the flirting, texting, etc I think she would have a hard time trying to make harassment stick which is probably why she ended up going for the sex discrimination angle.

22nd December 2012, 04:53 AM	#53
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,727	Originally Posted by StankApe I think the ruling is BS myself. I fully expect this to be kicked up to the next level. It has USSC written all over it. Unless he documented that he asked her to wear baggier clothing and then documented that she didn't. Even at that in Illinois they can fire you for any reason that they want.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

22nd December 2012, 06:00 AM	#54
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,708	Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles Possibly, but if she's be a willing participant in the flirting, texting, etc I think she would have a hard time trying to make harassment stick which is probably why she ended up going for the sex discrimination angle. I disagree. She relies on him for her livelihood. The power is too unbalanced to dismiss the possibility of coercion in her decision to be involved with him. Also while I am not a lawyer, even if an employee is the initiator of a more personal relationship, my understanding is that the employer is still guilty of harassment for getting involved. There is a reason why larger companies have policies about dating co-workers. They can become problematic and a source of harassment if one of the participants has workplace authority over the other. This is just an egregious example of it. As the prestige indicated, the employers behavior was completely appropriate for how to end a bad relationship. However, the fact that he was the other person's boss, also made it harassment, even assuming that the relationship was entered willingly by both parties.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

22nd December 2012, 06:27 AM	#55
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,198	Originally Posted by NoahFence Are you kidding me???? http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x4...rt-says?zc_p=0 And here I was thinking we were moving *forward* on equality. DOH! Glad I don't play the ponies. I suck at predicting. If I was a woman or a man fired for this I'd get a lawyer and sue.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

22nd December 2012, 06:51 AM	#56
Janadele Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: East Coast Australia Posts: 1,736	An employer should have the right to hire and fire. Otherwise, why bother employing anyone. Better to never start a business than to have limited authority in the running of it.
	__________________ All articles reproduced are in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use, for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

22nd December 2012, 06:59 AM	#57
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,112	I wonder how many patients this dentist lost when this hit the papers? I sure as hell wouldn't stay with him. He might decide my teeth are too sexy and need to be removed.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

22nd December 2012, 07:16 AM	#58
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,551	I think claiming she was fired because she was too hot is oversimplifying the issue. We only have the claims of all parties involved to go on and it's a little weird to cherry pick which parts we will call truth. What we are presented with: After working for this office for ten years, something upped his interest in an employee. He began noticing her clothing Whether there was an actual change or not; as an employer and a married man to a married woman, his comments were flat out inappropriate. He began taking interest and making comments about her sex life; even more inappropriate than her choice of clothing. A couple of red flags are going up at this point; for one, there is no accusations of sexual harassment but more curious; how the hell does the dentist know she's not having sex? At some point, they beging pursuing a more personal relationship, via text. Does she stop and say, "Hey this is not appropriate?" No, she responds and engages in text discussions about her private life. Everyone brings their own biased opinions to discussions like this and I am open to evidence that shows otherwise but to me, this looks like a budding affair, the wife caught on and put the breaks on it. If there was any indication at all that she wasn't receptive to his pursuit, this would be an easily sexual harassment case; there is a reason that a lawyer wouldn't choose that angle. It sucks for her that she lost her job and it would suck even more if she didn't put a stop to it because of his authority but given the information we have, what would have been a better solution? Fire his wife for being nosey? Close down his practice because it's unfair that one participant loses more?
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,551

22nd December 2012, 07:26 AM	#59
Pulvinar Muse Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 819	Clearly she should now go to dental school, become a dentist, start a practice, hire pretty-boy assistants and then fire them just for spite!
Pulvinar Muse Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 819

22nd December 2012, 07:34 AM	#60
Stout Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 1,990	Originally Posted by sgtbaker I think claiming she was fired because she was too hot is oversimplifying the issue. We only have the claims of all parties involved to go on and it's a little weird to cherry pick which parts we will call truth. What we are presented with: After working for this office for ten years, something upped his interest in an employee. He began noticing her clothing Whether there was an actual change or not; as an employer and a married man to a married woman, his comments were flat out inappropriate. He began taking interest and making comments about her sex life; even more inappropriate than her choice of clothing. A couple of red flags are going up at this point; for one, there is no accusations of sexual harassment but more curious; how the hell does the dentist know she's not having sex? At some point, they beging pursuing a more personal relationship, via text. Does she stop and say, "Hey this is not appropriate?" No, she responds and engages in text discussions about her private life. Everyone brings their own biased opinions to discussions like this and I am open to evidence that shows otherwise but to me, this looks like a budding affair, the wife caught on and put the breaks on it. If there was any indication at all that she wasn't receptive to his pursuit, this would be an easily sexual harassment case; there is a reason that a lawyer wouldn't choose that angle. It sucks for her that she lost her job and it would suck even more if she didn't put a stop to it because of his authority but given the information we have, what would have been a better solution? Fire his wife for being nosey? Close down his practice because it's unfair that one participant loses more? I too was curious how the dentist knew she wasn't having sex and I think there's more to this story than we're being told. A better solution ? Make the wife the office manager and have her fire the employee.

22nd December 2012, 08:09 AM	#61
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,046	So what other scenarios are also valid? A guy in a crowded theater sitting next to a hot girl and telling her "Sorry maam, you're too hot for me to resist. You're gonna have to find another seat"..... A guy and a woman on a boat, and the guy going like "Sorry maam, you're too hawt and I just wanna have you and I can't contain myself, you're gonna have to jump off this boat".... The only available doctor and his female patient, him going like "Sorry miss, I cannot be your surgeon. You're too hot. You're gonna have to find someone else to do your breast cancer removal cause all I wanna do is eat those tits"? Hmmm?
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

22nd December 2012, 08:25 AM	#62
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,892	My wife says if I finish taking this report from you she'll divorce me; so you'll have to find another police station.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

22nd December 2012, 08:29 AM	#63
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,600	Here's a tip. If you're married and you find someone at work attractive, don't sleep with them The 'I must fire her or we'll fall into each other's arms like star-crossed lovers' excuse is just a pile of fetid dingoes kidneys. What a total douche.
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

22nd December 2012, 08:56 AM	#64
commandlinegamer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mazes of Menace Posts: 5,904	Originally Posted by Janadele An employer should have the right to hire and fire. Otherwise, why bother employing anyone. Better to never start a business than to have limited authority in the running of it. Yeah, damn all that pesky anti-discrimination legislation, those outrageous health and safety regulations.
	__________________ He bade me take any rug in the house.

22nd December 2012, 09:47 AM	#65
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,508	Originally Posted by BenBurch I think we need to ratify the ERA ASAP. A third leg of the problems you intend to solve: right after gun control and bacon availability.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,508

22nd December 2012, 09:57 AM	#66
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,046	The proof that this is a completely absurd thing is that it was featured in a Seinfeld episode, where George finds his secretary too hot, so he fires her.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

22nd December 2012, 10:03 AM	#67
Prometheus Acolyte of Víðarr Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North of Reality Posts: 43,011	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha The problem with that is "I can't deal with this person"->She gets fired. Well, let him fire himself then, and she's still out of a job. The situation sucks, but I think he acted reasonably. It isn't even necessary to assume he'd be unable to control himself if she'd stayed. His first responsibility is to his wife and family. If his wife believed that she was a danger to their marriage, then he has a responsibility to take that seriously (even if he never acted overtly on his feelings there's still a danger that such a situation could turn into a harassment suit that would cost him his business and consequently his wife's livelihood as well as her own). He gave the woman a month's severance pay. She should count her blessings that he was so fair with her and go find another job.
	__________________ As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy." "I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor .......... Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.

22nd December 2012, 11:01 AM	#68
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,783	Originally Posted by 3point14 Here's a tip. If you're married and you find someone at work attractive, don't sleep with them The 'I must fire her or we'll fall into each other's arms like star-crossed lovers' excuse is just a pile of fetid dingoes kidneys. What a total douche. I wonder how the wife feels now that her husband has officially said he'd like to sleep with another woman? He might have set himself up for a nasty divorce.

22nd December 2012, 11:28 AM	#69
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha The problem with that is "I can't deal with this person"->She gets fired. Remember that I am only speaking of one problem here - and I am basically on the woman's side: BUT the wife going is not going to work, and the guy is the only dentist in this operation so........ there is only one person to go if anyone is going to go.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

22nd December 2012, 12:03 PM	#70
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,892	Originally Posted by Prometheus She should count her blessings that he was so fair with her and go find another job. Did you actually just post that? No; this is one of those abstract dreams where nothing makes sense; I'm sure of it now. Wake up in 3...2...1...

22nd December 2012, 12:11 PM	#71
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,892	Originally Posted by fuelair Remember that I am only speaking of one problem here - and I am basically on the woman's side: BUT the wife going is not going to work, and the guy is the only dentist in this operation so........ there is only one person to go if anyone is going to go. Why does anyone have to go? As has been said, the "I won't be able to stop myself from trying to have an affair" line is a load of whale crap at the bottom of a dry well. So is the notion that somebody had to lose their livelihood in this situation. If the wife thought there was a "threat to their marriage", then he should've gone with her to a counselor and worked it out. It's only a matter of time before a man who genuinely thinks "but I'm afraid I won't be able to control myself" is an acceptable and believable line of reasoning will use it again. Since the court has certified its validity as an excuse it's a practical certainty. Carried to its logical conclusion, he's going to end up doing something and blaming someone else because "he couldn't stop himself". This person can't just walk down the street and into another job; not in this economy.

22nd December 2012, 12:34 PM	#72
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,418	Originally Posted by lionking Generous? You have to be joking. She was a 10 year employee. As to what he could do? Control himself, seek help. The victim is being blamed here. A month's pay is pretty shabby. Finding a job in under a month is certainly not the norm in the current economy. Frankly, it seems his wife's insecurity is where the blame lies.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

22nd December 2012, 01:08 PM	#73
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,127	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger My post seems to have been ignored. I shall repeat it: What about this part: ...It sounds like there may very well have been at least some flirting on both the boss' and the employee's parts and the dentist's wife put her foot down. To me it reads more like the boss was sexually harassing her. But more likely, since they'd worked together for an entire decade it was just a case of two good friends being jokey. I'd love to know how long the boss had been married and how long said wife had worked at the company. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Employers can expect employees to dress appropriately. They were texting each other. It sounds like the relationship was indeed moving in a dangerous direction. Maybe there were other solutions, but this is not a case of an employer simply firing an employee because the employer lusted after her. Seriously? TEN YEARS. My girlfriend socialises with her boss and texts them and she's worked at her current job for a year. People who work with bosses (particularly in small businesses) for a long period of time become friends with them. Friends communicate with each other. Are we supposed to believe these two have worked together for a decade and suddenly found themselves getting hot around the edges? Please. Sounds more like they have a familiar and friendly relationship (as happens if you work closely with someone for a decade) and the wife has got a case of jealousy and put her foot down. Thank god stupid things like that can't happen here. Our employment laws expect business owners to treat their businesses like a business and not as an extension of their family.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

22nd December 2012, 01:20 PM	#74
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,613	Originally Posted by lionking Where is the evidence of inappropriate dressing and texting? All we have reported is Knight's assertions. I'm sorry, but I've got to say it. Another failure of the US justice system. I missed it if anyone in the article said those things were not true. There are some times when a relationship at a workplace requires one of the two parties to leave. This appears to me to be one of those times. Perhaps the boss didn't handle it well. Perhaps the wife was a bitch. Perhaps the employee was vengeful after the event. I don't know. I do know a court should not be the arbitrator of a personality(s) problem in the workplace unless there is sexual harassment or discrimination. Typically in this state, the employer should have documented requests for the employee to dress more appropriately, the texting should never have happened, and there's a good chance both the worker and the dentist were a little too friendly with each other. What I don't see here is the exact slant as reported by the news media whose interest is in selling scandal.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd December 2012 at 01:21 PM.*

22nd December 2012, 01:22 PM	#75
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,613	Originally Posted by cwalner ... The only way that the employee was in the wrong here, was that she filed the wrong type of lawsuit. It was sexual harassment, not gender discrimination. That's a possibility I would not rule out. One has to wonder though, did the worker feel harassed? The decision not to sue for harassment suggests there might have been witnesses it was a two way attraction. Not saying I know, though.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd December 2012 at 01:23 PM.*

22nd December 2012, 01:28 PM	#76
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,613	Originally Posted by sgtbaker I think claiming she was fired because she was too hot is oversimplifying the issue. We only have the claims of all parties involved to go on and it's a little weird to cherry pick which parts we will call truth. What we are presented with: ...Everyone brings their own biased opinions to discussions like this and I am open to evidence that shows otherwise but to me, this looks like a budding affair, the wife caught on and put the breaks on it. ... Own biases is all we have given the small amount of info in the news report. I read the story similarly to your post. In addition, I work with hundreds of dentists as an employee health provider. The offices are small and relationships can at times be mini soap operas. That is undoubtedly biasing my opinion.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)