You're too hot - I might do ya. You're FIRED - Page 3

StankApe · 22nd December 2012, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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

You didn't read the link did you?

It was his dental practice....so where do you propose he work? Open another dental practice?

Not that i support this pretty dumb ruling, but your statement doesn't make any sense (in this instance)

thaiboxerken · 22nd December 2012, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

You didn't read the link did you?

It was his dental practice....so where do you propose he work? Open another dental practice?

Not that i support this pretty dumb ruling, but your statement doesn't make any sense (in this instance)

He should've fired his wife.

StankApe · 22nd December 2012, 03:17 PM

why is it fair to fire his wife?

and do you think any man would think this a wise decision?

rwguinn · 22nd December 2012, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

why is it fair to fire his wife?

and do you think any man would think this a wise decision?

Tyhe big question still remains:
How long has he been married to his current wife, and how long had she been working in his office?
It doth make a world of difference (in the wife's perception)...

thaiboxerken · 22nd December 2012, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

why is it fair to fire his wife?

and do you think any man would think this a wise decision?

Because she's the one with the problem.

The wisdom of it depends on his relationship with this wife.

StankApe · 22nd December 2012, 03:35 PM

I don't think anybody should have been fired really. They either needed to make it work or something.

It's a pretty darn complicated scenario, but he should have known better than to hire someone who might cause some problems between he and his wife.

lionking · 22nd December 2012, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

It's a pretty darn complicated scenario, but he should have known better than to hire someone who might cause some problems between he and his wife.

What, like a woman?

Knight behaved entirely improperly and unprofessionally. No blame at all should be placed on the victim.

StankApe · 22nd December 2012, 03:54 PM

I wasn't putting blame on the victim (as I stated i think the ruling is wrong and will be overturned in a higher court) but if he thought there would be a potential problem, I feel it's more prudent to avoid the hiring than to engage in the later firing.

But apparently he probably hired her BECAUSE she was a good looking woman, not thinking down the road of the potential problems, and then when the problems occurred, he totally chickened out and fired her rather than deal with it like an adult.

NewtonTrino · 22nd December 2012, 05:25 PM

Nobody has a right to a job.

lionking · 22nd December 2012, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Nobody has a right to a job.

No crap?

Tell you something else, nobody has the right to sexually harass somebody on the job. Yeah, I know sexual harassment action wasn't taken, but what do you think of the "if you see a bulge in my pants" comment? Textbook harassment I believe.

Ron_Tomkins · 22nd December 2012, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Prometheus

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.

With all due respect, Prom, that's silly. If I have a wife and she puts me between the sword and the wall with an ultimatum of "Either fire that hot woman in your work or we're getting a divorce", then I'd really have to wonder if this wife of mine is the woman for me.

Now, I know the wife didn't technically did that. But still, the premise is absurd. On one hand, the whole "This woman is too hot so I'm firing her because I don't know if I can control my urges" is idiotic, unfair to the woman and irresponsible on behalf of the guy. On the other hand, if the wife thinks this hot girl is a threat, and we give her the right to make this ultimatum then where do we draw the line? Can she then dictate when any woman surrounding her husband in any context (work, social gatherings, etc) is a threat and then make that ultimatum "it's either her or me"?

I think jealousy, to some degree is healthy... maybe not "healthy" but it's at least an indicator that there's a serious interest, as opposed to indifference. But to take that to the other extreme, it's just a sign of insecurity. If two people know they love each other and promise to not betray their love, then that should be it. That doesn't mean that they're not going to find other people attractive. It just means they made a vow not to betray that trust. But certainly they should be allowed to hang out with and work with people they find attractive. As long as they're not doing anything, there's no crime.

Loss Leader · 22nd December 2012, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Are you kidding me????

The decision is in line with current US jurisprudence.

SezMe · 22nd December 2012, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

It's a pretty darn complicated scenario, but he should have known better than to hire someone who might cause some problems between he and his wife.

So he hires this woman who does excellent work for 10 years. Then he starts sporting wood over her so fires her. And he should have foreseen this eventually a decade ago? You need to rethink that. Generally, as men age they become less sexually impulsive. So if this woman didn't give him a rise 10 years ago, it is reasonable for him to decide it won't happen at all.

And if you stay with that position, then he can only hire men or ugly women. Not a good scenario.

Prometheus · 22nd December 2012, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

With all due respect, Prom, that's silly. If I have a wife and she puts me between the sword and the wall with an ultimatum of "Either fire that hot woman in your work or we're getting a divorce", then I'd really have to wonder if this wife of mine is the woman for me.

With all due respect, Ron, calling my argument silly and justifying that characterization with nothing but straw is itself somewhat silly. If the wife were doing that then I would agree that he ought to seriously reconsider whether she were the right woman for him. And if, upon careful reconsideration he were then to decide that, in fact, his wife is the right woman for him (maybe they're both into S&M/mind games, or something), we'd be right back at assessing where to draw the line between his conflicting obligations to his wife and to his employee.

You've still given no reason to assume that his obligation to the employee must outweigh his obligation to his wife. Well, why should it? Under what circumstances?

There's also no reason to assume that his wife did issue such an ultimatum. Suppose in a moment of guilt he confessed his attraction for the employee to his wife--who, for all we know, may be suffering from depression or some personality disorder--becomes disconsolate or even suicidal? Can you rule out some such possibility? Does one's employee have some sort of universal right to her job that trumps the health or even the life of one's spouse?

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I think jealousy, to some degree is healthy... maybe not "healthy" but it's at least an indicator that there's a serious interest, as opposed to indifference. But to take that to the other extreme, it's just a sign of insecurity. If two people know they love each other and promise to not betray their love, then that should be it. That doesn't mean that they're not going to find other people attractive. It just means they made a vow not to betray that trust. But certainly they should be allowed to hang out with and work with people they find attractive. As long as they're not doing anything, there's no crime.

I would completely agree with you on every point. But neither your nor my personal value judgements are the least bit relevant. None of this alters the basic ethical question here. He has conflicting obligations to two different people. He cannot, in his own assessment, fulfil both sets of obligations. It doesn't even matter if we stipulate that he must be a giant dickhead for putting himself in such a position in the first place. He still has to decide which obligation to honor and which one to renege on.

I'm merely suggesting that the default position is to say his obligation to his wife outweighs his obligation to his employee. Perhaps there might be possible sets of circumstances under which it would be appropriate not to go with the default. Regardless, we don't have enough information to decide whether that might be the case here.

bpesta22 · 22nd December 2012, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

So he hires this woman who does excellent work for 10 years. Then he starts sporting wood over her so fires her. And he should have foreseen this eventually a decade ago? You need to rethink that. Generally, as men age they become less sexually impulsive. So if this woman didn't give him a rise 10 years ago, it is reasonable for him to decide it won't happen at all.

And if you stay with that position, then he can only hire men or ugly women. Not a good scenario.

Not a lawyer, though I do teach employment discrimination law to MBA students. I think the court made the right decision here.

This was a bad reason to fire her, but it wasn't an illegal reason. Non-union employers should be able to hire/fire for any, no or bad reasons (they risk their capital, time, effort, etc., to operate their business; they should be allowed to make decisions-- good or bad-- on whom they hire or fire. I say this as a relative hippie/liberal, not a libertarian...).

At will employment goes both ways-- employees may quit at any time, for any reason. Employees wanting more security than the non-specific "I show up to work every day" and "you pay me" should consider unionizing. Perhaps even the threat of unionizing might motivate the at-will employer to make better employment decisions?

We have carved out relatively narrow but valid exceptions to at will employment (e.g., protected classes), but this example wasn't one of them.

Some people also seem to confuse "at will" states with "right to work" states. All states are at-will (except perhaps Montana). Some just recognize more exceptions to the at-will principal than do others.

Faydra · 22nd December 2012, 08:11 PM

Sexy is not a protected class - neither is ugly or fat for that matter. You can fire them at will.

Welcome to America.

Darth Rotor · 22nd December 2012, 08:20 PM

My wife works for a dentist. All women in the office, one male dentist. Now, his son is taking over, so there are two men, only one full time: the son.

To put it mildly, my wife frequently comes home utterly wound up over the drama in the office.
She loves her boss, loves his wife.
Second best dentist she's worked for of the nine or ten she's had as employers in the past twenty plus years.

Last year, the incredibly hot hygienist (I met her once and nearly drooled on the floor) who was full time left the office.
Not due to being harassed, or being too hot, but due to the cattiness and drama that drove her nuts.
(She and the Missus still keep in touch. Her "hunk husband" has done the pest control at our house for the past two years. The Missus worked that out, go figure).

In a small business, the interpersonal tension and friction can ruin an office's climate. Sometimes people are let to go to avoid ruining the climate of the workplace. (I've seen that in bigger companies).

I don't understand this case beyond that background, but it would seem to me at least modestly gallant to contact other dentists in the area and try to find her a new place before letting her go.

If the wife says she has to go, I don't see there being much room to maneuver.
My wife has experienced that problem at least twice herself, and seen it numerous times. Dentist's wife doesn't like someone and that person is let go.

Suspect this will be appealed. It looks very badly handled, at the least.

SezMe · 22nd December 2012, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Not a lawyer, though I do teach employment discrimination law to MBA students. I think the court made the right decision here. <snip>

I have no quibble with your post at all but I am unclear why it was posted in response to my post which had nothing to do with at will employment law and practice at all.

Ron_Tomkins · 22nd December 2012, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Prometheus

With all due respect, Ron, calling my argument silly and justifying that characterization with nothing but straw is itself somewhat silly. If the wife were doing that then I would agree that he ought to seriously reconsider whether she were the right woman for him. And if, upon careful reconsideration he were then to decide that, in fact, his wife is the right woman for him (maybe they're both into S&M/mind games, or something), we'd be right back at assessing where to draw the line between his conflicting obligations to his wife and to his employee.

You've still given no reason to assume that his obligation to the employee must outweigh his obligation to his wife. Well, why should it? Under what circumstances?

I'm not saying that his obligation to his employees outweighs his obligation to his wife. But that doesn't mean that this is the case. You can't just use the "You have an obligation to your wife" as an excuse for every possible scenario. What if my wife said "I don't want you to look at any other woman other than me?". Do you think I still have an obligation to my wife there?

But it's silly that you and I continue arguing over this when neither you nor I know exactly what's going on with them.

Lets take a look at what the article says:

Quote:

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

Honestly, I find it really hard to buy the argument that two people, assuming they truly love each other, find a third person "a threat to their marriage" unless such person is trying to kill them, or such person has a magic potion that can make them stop loving each other. But if both the husband and the wife know they love each other and that their love is sincere, not even the hottest human being on earth posing naked in front of them is any kind of threat to their marriage. The only realistic threat to their marriage is themselves, what they feel for each other. What doubts they may become harvesting about each other So the fact that they consider the girl a threat to their marriage most likely is because they know or suspect that the guy seriously doesn't know what he wants. He's begun to become really attracted to this girl and now his mind is filled with doubts. And if that is the case, firing the girl is a completely bogus, irresponsible, immature thing to do. Just because he doesn't know what he wants to do with his life, doesn't mean the girl is to be fired. If he's uncertain about whether or not he would cheat on his wife, then he needs to start reconsidering getting a divorce.

My main point here: This couple is diverging the real issue. They're trying to make the issue about the girl, when the real problem is themselves. What they feel for each other. Throwing the responsibility on another person is stupid and immature.

Blue Mountain · 22nd December 2012, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

(snip) I don't understand this case beyond that background, but it would seem to me at least modestly gallant to contact other dentists in the area and try to find her a new place before letting her go.

That idea also occurred to me: call up a couple of other dentists in the area and maybe arrange to exchange employees. Not that it would be straightforward. If I was a dentist on the receiving end of such a call my first reaction would be "Hell no! I need that person at my practice! She's your employee and your problem; sorry, you get to fix it."

A good receptionist / secretary / office manager is a huge asset to a business. They know the clientele. They have a good handle on who's had what done in the last five years. They know how well patients and suppliers pay their bills. Now, in the end this dentist did let such an asset go, but it was easier than trying to negotiate with another practice.

And as others have pointed out, in such a small practice, what else could he have done? Maybe arrange a leave for her, perhaps a month or two, to see if the dynamics changed when she came back? But if she goes on leave, who pays her salary?

lionking · 22nd December 2012, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

And as others have pointed out, in such a small practice, what else could he have done? Maybe arrange a leave for her, perhaps a month or two, to see if the dynamics changed when she came back? But if she goes on leave, who pays her salary?

I've said this before, but maybe Knight could have changed his behaviour. He was sexually harassing a staff member, and if there is any justice in the world, will soon have to face this charge. Nobody deserves to get sacked when the boss can't handle an erection.

I simply can't understand the seeming sympathy for this idiot.

rikzilla · 22nd December 2012, 11:29 PM

What can a guy do in this situation? It's his business so HE'S not the one going anywhere. He could have lied to her and made up some other reason for her firing. That would have been an easy way out...so being honest is at least one commendable attribute this guy has...

But as stated above; he could have exercised a little mature self control and everyone could have gone on as before...
but maybe that's asking too much?

As ever...men are dogs.
Except for the fact that most of us really aren't.

-z

lionking · 22nd December 2012, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by rikzilla

What can a guy do in this situation?

Behave as a mature, responsible adult and not a 17 year old. Not that hard (excuse the pun).

SezMe · 22nd December 2012, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

....But it's silly that you and I continue arguing over this when neither you nor I know exactly what's going on with them....

Which is then followed by a paragraph containing speculation about what's going on with them.

Dancing David · 23rd December 2012, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by cwalner

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

2. WTF

"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.”"

Wow, that puts a different light on it.

That would likely be sexual harassment, which is a very high bar, but that gets quite close.

Dancing David · 23rd December 2012, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by Morrigan

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

In the US the burden falls on the employee to substantiate the claims, the bar for harassment is set very high and hard to meet.

Dancing David · 23rd December 2012, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by cwalner

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.

Due to the deliberate nature of most harassment laws, the bar is set very high. There is a standard of the 'hostile work environment' and need for documented events and failure to act.

This is the result of a corporate heavy law system and also the 'settlement out of court' system. Things settled out of court do not become case law as readily.

In the US the system in general favors the employer all around, despite the whining of the corporate spin meisters about the burden of unfair laws, they almost always favor the employer.

Dancing David · 23rd December 2012, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

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

Life is soo unfair for employers.

Dancing David · 23rd December 2012, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

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.

Most employers don't give you severance at all.

Dancing David · 23rd December 2012, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

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.

That is bizarre, yes if people acted reasonably there would be no need for a judicial system.

commandlinegamer · 23rd December 2012, 06:32 AM

One does wonder if this were France, whether this would be an issue at all.

Prometheus · 23rd December 2012, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

I'm not saying that his obligation to his employees outweighs his obligation to his wife. But that doesn't mean that this is the case. You can't just use the "You have an obligation to your wife" as an excuse for every possible scenario. What if my wife said "I don't want you to look at any other woman other than me?". Do you think I still have an obligation to my wife there?

I'm not trying to use this as an excuse for every possible scenario. I'm saying its the default position. Of course there might be something in this case which would change that, but we don't know. Barring other such circumstances being brought to light, I'm going with the default position.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

But it's silly that you and I continue arguing over this when neither you nor I know exactly what's going on with them.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Honestly, I find it really hard to buy the argument that two people, assuming they truly love each other, find a third person "a threat to their marriage" unless such person is trying to kill them, or such person has a magic potion that can make them stop loving each other.

I also find it hard to believe. I just don't think an unsupported argument from incredulity is enough to budge from the default position.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

But if both the husband and the wife know they love each other and that their love is sincere, not even the hottest human being on earth posing naked in front of them is any kind of threat to their marriage.

And assuming the've not achieved such an ideal state of marital bliss(How many married couples ever do?), do you then place the employee's rather thin claim to her job (remember the law is on his side) over and above the couples' right to attempt to save their own marriage as they, and their pastor feel is appropriate?

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

The only realistic threat to their marriage is themselves, what they feel for each other. What doubts they may become harvesting about each other So the fact that they consider the girl a threat to their marriage most likely is because they know or suspect that the guy seriously doesn't know what he wants. He's begun to become really attracted to this girl and now his mind is filled with doubts. And if that is the case,

Up to this point, I agree with you. It's obvious the guy is not exactly a paragon of moral character. So what?

But here:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

firing the girl is a completely bogus, irresponsible, immature thing to do.

you go too far. He has a right to fire her for almost any reason he chooses, and the court has reaffirmed that right, so it's not "completely bogus". We don't have enough information about the bacground to determine whether he's being irresponsible and immature or not. He could be. He could also be doing what's necessary to save his wife's life, or the truth could be somewhere in between.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Just because he doesn't know what he wants to do with his life, doesn't mean the girl is to be fired. If he's uncertain about whether or not he would cheat on his wife, then he needs to start reconsidering getting a divorce.

I think he does know what he wants to do with his life. He wants to appease his wife, and run his business without this particular distraction, as he is legally entitled to do. Who said he's uncertain? Perhaps he knows that he would cheat on his wife. Does recognition that one has a particular weakness morally require one to face up to it rather than avoid situations where it might rear its head? I think you'd have a rather difficult time making the case that that is a universal rule. But if you think it is, then let's have a go at it. Facing one's fears/weaknesses is often the morally laudable thing to do, but I don't see how it can be made an absoulute requirement. So we're right back at square one. What circumstances, if any, would cause his obligation to the employee to outweigh his obligation to his wife? And do you see any evidence here that would suggest such circumstances might be the case. If not, then I'm still going with the default.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

My main point here: This couple is diverging the real issue. They're trying to make the issue about the girl, when the real problem is themselves. What they feel for each other. Throwing the responsibility on another person is stupid and immature.

That may be true. It also doesn't matter. Of course it's entirely possible (I'd even go so far as to say it's quite likely) that their marriage is rather shaky and they've both got personal failings that need to be worked on. If all they do is get rid of the girl, assume she's the only problem they have, and go on as before without attempting to make any other effort at saving their marriage, then I'd say they're doomed. Just because they're mistaken about the depth of their problems doesn't mean they don't have a right to work on them.

Dessi · 23rd December 2012, 08:13 AM

I was under the impression that sex discriminated was more broad than discrimination against against gender, gender norms, but sexual harassment as well? Is that assumption wrong?

Checkmite · 23rd December 2012, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Does recognition that one has a particular weakness morally require one to face up to it rather than avoid situations where it might rear its head? I think you'd have a rather difficult time making the case that that is a universal rule.

In the case where "avoiding the situation" means abruptly putting someone on the street who hasn't done anything to deserve such mistreatment, it's not unreasonable to suggest that other options should've been explored. Several obvious and common-sense possibilities have been mentioned in this thread already.

cwalner · 23rd December 2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Dessi

I was under the impression that sex discriminated was more broad than discrimination against against gender, gender norms, but sexual harassment as well? Is that assumption wrong?

I would guess technically, yes. The problem with determining that is that when such discrimination happens, it is most likely during hiring, not firing decisions. In fact, I would not be surprised if many small business owners specifically don't hire employees they find too attractive, because they know it will cause problems in the office.

However, the person just has to say 'I'm sorry, we found a more qualified candidate.' and the victim never knows that she was discriminated against because the employer wanted to jump her bones.

When firing somebody, though, usually they know (or think they know) the real reason they were let go even if the reason given is different. In this case, the employer had clearly made his attraction known. She also had enough experience to know if there were issues with her work performance or not. So it would not matter what reason the boss gave, she knew it had to do with his being attracted to her.

sgtbaker · 23rd December 2012, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Honestly, I find it really hard to buy the argument that two people, assuming they truly love each other, find a third person "a threat to their marriage" unless such person is trying to kill them, or such person has a magic potion that can make them stop loving each other. But if both the husband and the wife know they love each other and that their love is sincere, not even the hottest human being on earth posing naked in front of them is any kind of threat to their marriage.

That's a beautiful theory on love an marriage. If only human emotions and desires were that simple. Infidelity doesn't always have to be about love or lack there of. In most cases, the neurochemistry of sexual attraction is impeding to one's sensibilities. Even if they don't immediately act on it, merely communicating with the object of their affections, getting non-negative feedback give you a high. There are different chemicals associated with long term love and they most certainly do not give you the same heroine like feeling of infatuation, in the build up stages. Just think back to the early stages of any long term relationship. In the beginning it feels like an addiction and you can't get enough of them. Ask any couple that has been together for a year, two years, five years, more; it doesn't matter. I would bet money that most couples don't have nearly as much sex as they used to. It doesn't mean they love each other less, it just means that the infactuation neurochemicals have subsided. He very well could still have that long term love for his wife while being distracted by the early stages of infactuation for someone else.

According to marriage infidelity statistics, 74% of men and 68%% of women asked, admit that they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught. Either there are a whole lot of married people who don't love their spouses or possibly, humans are slightly more complex than we tend to acknowledge.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/infidelity-statistics/

Darth Rotor · 23rd December 2012, 09:01 AM

If the dentist found her dress unprofessional, then he has ample opportunity as her employer to offer guidance about the way people in his business present themselves to the public.

It seems to me that "if the way you dress gives me wood, you are out of the dress code" is badly framed guidance on the dress code, and I'll even say unprofessional.

It is possible that he and his wife had looked into the problem of dress codes and the inferred sexual harassment issues on telling people what they have to do, and may have run into some damned if you do damned if you don't customs.

Still, on the face of it, this looks badly handled even though the court agreed with the dentist.

Ron_Tomkins · 23rd December 2012, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Prometheus

you go too far. He has a right to fire her for almost any reason he chooses, and the court has reaffirmed that right, so it's not "completely bogus". We don't have enough information about the bacground to determine whether he's being irresponsible and immature or not. He could be. He could also be doing what's necessary to save his wife's life, or the truth could be somewhere in between.

Are you speaking seriously? Really? So you're justifying this on the basis that he has a legal right to fire her? Would you also justify someone firing a person because of their ethnicity if they had a legal right to do so? Sorry, Prom, but just because the law approves of this, doesn't mean it's right. There's lots of things that you can legally do, but just because of that, doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I think he does know what he wants to do with his life. He wants to appease his wife, and run his business without this particular distraction, as he is legally entitled to do. Who said he's uncertain? Perhaps he knows that he would cheat on his wife. Does recognition that one has a particular weakness morally require one to face up to it rather than avoid situations where it might rear its head?

Prom, we're not talking about a weakness. We're talking about a simple contract: When you marry someone, and you both decide that you're going to be in a monogamous relationship, that's a contract you make with each other and each one of you has a responsibility to keep your vow. That means that you can both trust each other that whenever you're not in the same place, wherever your wife is, and whoever she's with, no matter how hot they are, your wife is not going to break the vow and viceversa. If, at some point, you change your mind, because you no longer feel that attracted to the person, or any other reason (which can and does happen because we're human and our needs change) then you have a responsibility to tell the other person that. If the guy feels he's no longer able to keep his vow, then he has to take action with his marriage, not with the other people. It's inconceivable that you cant have enough trust in a marriage to be able to have attractive people in your workplace. That's like something taken out of The Office (the show).

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I think you'd have a rather difficult time making the case that that is a universal rule. But if you think it is, then let's have a go at it. Facing one's fears/weaknesses is often the morally laudable thing to do, but I don't see how it can be made an absoulute requirement. So we're right back at square one. What circumstances, if any, would cause his obligation to the employee to outweigh his obligation to his wife?

I already told you. If the man is feeling insecure about himself, about what he's capable of doing, if he feels like he would cheat on his wife with this girl, then he needs to do some personal soul searching and find out what he wants to do with his relationship. He only has to answer himself one question, sincerely: does he still really want to stay in a monogamous relationship with his wife or not? That's the decision he has to make.

Originally Posted by Prometheus

That may be true. It also doesn't matter. Of course it's entirely possible (I'd even go so far as to say it's quite likely) that their marriage is rather shaky and they've both got personal failings that need to be worked on. If all they do is get rid of the girl, assume she's the only problem they have, and go on as before without attempting to make any other effort at saving their marriage, then I'd say they're doomed. Just because they're mistaken about the depth of their problems doesn't mean they don't have a right to work on them.

You really think that firing the girl solves the problem, Prom? Then you're being incredibly naive. Doing this will only temporarily "solve the problem" until another hot girl shows up. Maybe not at work. Maybe the guy finds a really hot girl who works at the store where he shops everyday. And now once again, he can't resist. So he has to shop somewhere else. Maybe then, he and his wife have a baby and they get a nanny to take care of the baby and the nanny is really hot, and once again, he can't resist.... the bottom line is, that the problem is not the other people. The problem is this man who doesn't know if he really wants to be in a monogamous relationship with his wife.

tsig · 23rd December 2012, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Behave as a mature, responsible adult and not a 17 year old. Not that hard (excuse the pun).

There's probably pills he could take for that 'pants bulge' thing.

However we should never expect a man to have to change his behavior since we all know it's always the woman's fault.

tsig · 23rd December 2012, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Most employers don't give you severance at all.

I once got a security escort to the door.

22nd December 2012, 03:09 PM	#81
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken He should've found another place to work instead of firing her. You didn't read the link did you? It was his dental practice....so where do you propose he work? Open another dental practice? Not that i support this pretty dumb ruling, but your statement doesn't make any sense (in this instance)
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

22nd December 2012, 03:14 PM	#82
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,965	Originally Posted by StankApe You didn't read the link did you? It was his dental practice....so where do you propose he work? Open another dental practice? Not that i support this pretty dumb ruling, but your statement doesn't make any sense (in this instance) He should've fired his wife.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

22nd December 2012, 03:17 PM	#83
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	why is it fair to fire his wife? and do you think any man would think this a wise decision?
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

22nd December 2012, 03:23 PM	#84
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,441	Originally Posted by StankApe why is it fair to fire his wife? and do you think any man would think this a wise decision? Tyhe big question still remains: How long has he been married to his current wife, and how long had she been working in his office? It doth make a world of difference (in the wife's perception)...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

22nd December 2012, 03:29 PM	#85
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,965	Originally Posted by StankApe why is it fair to fire his wife? and do you think any man would think this a wise decision? Because she's the one with the problem. The wisdom of it depends on his relationship with this wife.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

22nd December 2012, 03:35 PM	#86
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	I don't think anybody should have been fired really. They either needed to make it work or something. It's a pretty darn complicated scenario, but he should have known better than to hire someone who might cause some problems between he and his wife.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

22nd December 2012, 03:44 PM	#87
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,653	Originally Posted by StankApe It's a pretty darn complicated scenario, but he should have known better than to hire someone who might cause some problems between he and his wife. What, like a woman? Knight behaved entirely improperly and unprofessionally. No blame at all should be placed on the victim.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

22nd December 2012, 03:54 PM	#88
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	I wasn't putting blame on the victim (as I stated i think the ruling is wrong and will be overturned in a higher court) but if he thought there would be a potential problem, I feel it's more prudent to avoid the hiring than to engage in the later firing. But apparently he probably hired her BECAUSE she was a good looking woman, not thinking down the road of the potential problems, and then when the problems occurred, he totally chickened out and fired her rather than deal with it like an adult.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

22nd December 2012, 05:25 PM	#89
NewtonTrino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 3,782	Nobody has a right to a job.

22nd December 2012, 05:42 PM	#90
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,653	Originally Posted by NewtonTrino Nobody has a right to a job. No crap? Tell you something else, nobody has the right to sexually harass somebody on the job. Yeah, I know sexual harassment action wasn't taken, but what do you think of the "if you see a bulge in my pants" comment? Textbook harassment I believe.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

22nd December 2012, 07:03 PM	#91
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,023	Originally Posted by Prometheus 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. With all due respect, Prom, that's silly. If I have a wife and she puts me between the sword and the wall with an ultimatum of "Either fire that hot woman in your work or we're getting a divorce", then I'd really have to wonder if this wife of mine is the woman for me. Now, I know the wife didn't technically did that. But still, the premise is absurd. On one hand, the whole "This woman is too hot so I'm firing her because I don't know if I can control my urges" is idiotic, unfair to the woman and irresponsible on behalf of the guy. On the other hand, if the wife thinks this hot girl is a threat, and we give her the right to make this ultimatum then where do we draw the line? Can she then dictate when any woman surrounding her husband in any context (work, social gatherings, etc) is a threat and then make that ultimatum "it's either her or me"? I think jealousy, to some degree is healthy... maybe not "healthy" but it's at least an indicator that there's a serious interest, as opposed to indifference. But to take that to the other extreme, it's just a sign of insecurity. If two people know they love each other and promise to not betray their love, then that should be it. That doesn't mean that they're not going to find other people attractive. It just means they made a vow not to betray that trust. But certainly they should be allowed to hang out with and work with people they find attractive. As long as they're not doing anything, there's no crime.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 22nd December 2012 at 07:06 PM.

22nd December 2012, 07:11 PM	#92
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by NoahFence Are you kidding me???? The decision is in line with current US jurisprudence.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

22nd December 2012, 07:22 PM	#93
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Originally Posted by StankApe It's a pretty darn complicated scenario, but he should have known better than to hire someone who might cause some problems between he and his wife. So he hires this woman who does excellent work for 10 years. Then he starts sporting wood over her so fires her. And he should have foreseen this eventually a decade ago? You need to rethink that. Generally, as men age they become less sexually impulsive. So if this woman didn't give him a rise 10 years ago, it is reasonable for him to decide it won't happen at all. And if you stay with that position, then he can only hire men or ugly women. Not a good scenario.
	Last edited by SezMe; 22nd December 2012 at 07:24 PM.

22nd December 2012, 07:55 PM	#94
Prometheus Acolyte of Víðarr Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North of Reality Posts: 42,998	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins With all due respect, Prom, that's silly. If I have a wife and she puts me between the sword and the wall with an ultimatum of "Either fire that hot woman in your work or we're getting a divorce", then I'd really have to wonder if this wife of mine is the woman for me. With all due respect, Ron, calling my argument silly and justifying that characterization with nothing but straw is itself somewhat silly. If the wife were doing that then I would agree that he ought to seriously reconsider whether she were the right woman for him. And if, upon careful reconsideration he were then to decide that, in fact, his wife is the right woman for him (maybe they're both into S&M/mind games, or something), we'd be right back at assessing where to draw the line between his conflicting obligations to his wife and to his employee. You've still given no reason to assume that his obligation to the employee must outweigh his obligation to his wife. Well, why should it? Under what circumstances? There's also no reason to assume that his wife did issue such an ultimatum. Suppose in a moment of guilt he confessed his attraction for the employee to his wife--who, for all we know, may be suffering from depression or some personality disorder--becomes disconsolate or even suicidal? Can you rule out some such possibility? Does one's employee have some sort of universal right to her job that trumps the health or even the life of one's spouse? Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins I think jealousy, to some degree is healthy... maybe not "healthy" but it's at least an indicator that there's a serious interest, as opposed to indifference. But to take that to the other extreme, it's just a sign of insecurity. If two people know they love each other and promise to not betray their love, then that should be it. That doesn't mean that they're not going to find other people attractive. It just means they made a vow not to betray that trust. But certainly they should be allowed to hang out with and work with people they find attractive. As long as they're not doing anything, there's no crime. I would completely agree with you on every point. But neither your nor my personal value judgements are the least bit relevant. None of this alters the basic ethical question here. He has conflicting obligations to two different people. He cannot, in his own assessment, fulfil both sets of obligations. It doesn't even matter if we stipulate that he must be a giant dickhead for putting himself in such a position in the first place. He still has to decide which obligation to honor and which one to renege on. I'm merely suggesting that the default position is to say his obligation to his wife outweighs his obligation to his employee. Perhaps there might be possible sets of circumstances under which it would be appropriate not to go with the default. Regardless, we don't have enough information to decide whether that might be the case here.
	__________________ 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, 08:08 PM	#95
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by SezMe So he hires this woman who does excellent work for 10 years. Then he starts sporting wood over her so fires her. And he should have foreseen this eventually a decade ago? You need to rethink that. Generally, as men age they become less sexually impulsive. So if this woman didn't give him a rise 10 years ago, it is reasonable for him to decide it won't happen at all. And if you stay with that position, then he can only hire men or ugly women. Not a good scenario. Not a lawyer, though I do teach employment discrimination law to MBA students. I think the court made the right decision here. This was a bad reason to fire her, but it wasn't an illegal reason. Non-union employers should be able to hire/fire for any, no or bad reasons (they risk their capital, time, effort, etc., to operate their business; they should be allowed to make decisions-- good or bad-- on whom they hire or fire. I say this as a relative hippie/liberal, not a libertarian...). At will employment goes both ways-- employees may quit at any time, for any reason. Employees wanting more security than the non-specific "I show up to work every day" and "you pay me" should consider unionizing. Perhaps even the threat of unionizing might motivate the at-will employer to make better employment decisions? We have carved out relatively narrow but valid exceptions to at will employment (e.g., protected classes), but this example wasn't one of them. Some people also seem to confuse "at will" states with "right to work" states. All states are at-will (except perhaps Montana). Some just recognize more exceptions to the at-will principal than do others.
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

22nd December 2012, 08:11 PM	#96
Faydra sinning sybarite Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Beaverton, OR Posts: 3,202	Sexy is not a protected class - neither is ugly or fat for that matter. You can fire them at will. Welcome to America.
	Last edited by Faydra; 22nd December 2012 at 08:12 PM.

22nd December 2012, 08:20 PM	#97
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	My wife works for a dentist. All women in the office, one male dentist. Now, his son is taking over, so there are two men, only one full time: the son. To put it mildly, my wife frequently comes home utterly wound up over the drama in the office. She loves her boss, loves his wife. Second best dentist she's worked for of the nine or ten she's had as employers in the past twenty plus years. Last year, the incredibly hot hygienist (I met her once and nearly drooled on the floor) who was full time left the office. Not due to being harassed, or being too hot, but due to the cattiness and drama that drove her nuts. (She and the Missus still keep in touch. Her "hunk husband" has done the pest control at our house for the past two years. The Missus worked that out, go figure). In a small business, the interpersonal tension and friction can ruin an office's climate. Sometimes people are let to go to avoid ruining the climate of the workplace. (I've seen that in bigger companies). I don't understand this case beyond that background, but it would seem to me at least modestly gallant to contact other dentists in the area and try to find her a new place before letting her go. If the wife says she has to go, I don't see there being much room to maneuver. My wife has experienced that problem at least twice herself, and seen it numerous times. Dentist's wife doesn't like someone and that person is let go. Suspect this will be appealed. It looks very badly handled, at the least.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 22nd December 2012 at 08:23 PM.

22nd December 2012, 09:00 PM	#98
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Originally Posted by bpesta22 Not a lawyer, though I do teach employment discrimination law to MBA students. I think the court made the right decision here. <snip> I have no quibble with your post at all but I am unclear why it was posted in response to my post which had nothing to do with at will employment law and practice at all.

22nd December 2012, 09:09 PM	#99
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,023	Originally Posted by Prometheus With all due respect, Ron, calling my argument silly and justifying that characterization with nothing but straw is itself somewhat silly. If the wife were doing that then I would agree that he ought to seriously reconsider whether she were the right woman for him. And if, upon careful reconsideration he were then to decide that, in fact, his wife is the right woman for him (maybe they're both into S&M/mind games, or something), we'd be right back at assessing where to draw the line between his conflicting obligations to his wife and to his employee. You've still given no reason to assume that his obligation to the employee must outweigh his obligation to his wife. Well, why should it? Under what circumstances? I'm not saying that his obligation to his employees outweighs his obligation to his wife. But that doesn't mean that this is the case. You can't just use the "You have an obligation to your wife" as an excuse for every possible scenario. What if my wife said "I don't want you to look at any other woman other than me?". Do you think I still have an obligation to my wife there? But it's silly that you and I continue arguing over this when neither you nor I know exactly what's going on with them. Lets take a look at what the article says: Quote: 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 Honestly, I find it really hard to buy the argument that two people, assuming they truly love each other, find a third person "a threat to their marriage" unless such person is trying to kill them, or such person has a magic potion that can make them stop loving each other. But if both the husband and the wife know they love each other and that their love is sincere, not even the hottest human being on earth posing naked in front of them is any kind of threat to their marriage. The only realistic threat to their marriage is themselves, what they feel for each other. What doubts they may become harvesting about each other So the fact that they consider the girl a threat to their marriage most likely is because they know or suspect that the guy seriously doesn't know what he wants. He's begun to become really attracted to this girl and now his mind is filled with doubts. And if that is the case, firing the girl is a completely bogus, irresponsible, immature thing to do. Just because he doesn't know what he wants to do with his life, doesn't mean the girl is to be fired. If he's uncertain about whether or not he would cheat on his wife, then he needs to start reconsidering getting a divorce. My main point here: This couple is diverging the real issue. They're trying to make the issue about the girl, when the real problem is themselves. What they feel for each other. Throwing the responsibility on another person is stupid and immature.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 22nd December 2012 at 09:11 PM.

22nd December 2012, 10:33 PM	#100
Blue Mountain Resident Skeptical Hobbit Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg Posts: 3,636	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor (snip) I don't understand this case beyond that background, but it would seem to me at least modestly gallant to contact other dentists in the area and try to find her a new place before letting her go. That idea also occurred to me: call up a couple of other dentists in the area and maybe arrange to exchange employees. Not that it would be straightforward. If I was a dentist on the receiving end of such a call my first reaction would be "Hell no! I need that person at my practice! She's your employee and your problem; sorry, you get to fix it." A good receptionist / secretary / office manager is a huge asset to a business. They know the clientele. They have a good handle on who's had what done in the last five years. They know how well patients and suppliers pay their bills. Now, in the end this dentist did let such an asset go, but it was easier than trying to negotiate with another practice. And as others have pointed out, in such a small practice, what else could he have done? Maybe arrange a leave for her, perhaps a month or two, to see if the dynamics changed when she came back? But if she goes on leave, who pays her salary?
	__________________ The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French) Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.

22nd December 2012, 10:55 PM	#101
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,653	Originally Posted by Blue Mountain And as others have pointed out, in such a small practice, what else could he have done? Maybe arrange a leave for her, perhaps a month or two, to see if the dynamics changed when she came back? But if she goes on leave, who pays her salary? I've said this before, but maybe Knight could have changed his behaviour. He was sexually harassing a staff member, and if there is any justice in the world, will soon have to face this charge. Nobody deserves to get sacked when the boss can't handle an erection. I simply can't understand the seeming sympathy for this idiot.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

22nd December 2012, 11:29 PM	#102
rikzilla Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,001	What can a guy do in this situation? It's his business so HE'S not the one going anywhere. He could have lied to her and made up some other reason for her firing. That would have been an easy way out...so being honest is at least one commendable attribute this guy has... But as stated above; he could have exercised a little mature self control and everyone could have gone on as before... but maybe that's asking too much? As ever...men are dogs. Except for the fact that most of us really aren't. -z
	__________________ "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon." -Chancellor Gorkon "inside Mr .Skinny lives a big man" -pillory (18 Jan 2007) Last edited by rikzilla; 22nd December 2012 at 11:33 PM. Reason: comedic effect

22nd December 2012, 11:30 PM	#103
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,653	Originally Posted by rikzilla What can a guy do in this situation? Behave as a mature, responsible adult and not a 17 year old. Not that hard (excuse the pun).
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

22nd December 2012, 11:47 PM	#104
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,369	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins ....But it's silly that you and I continue arguing over this when neither you nor I know exactly what's going on with them.... Which is then followed by a paragraph containing speculation about what's going on with them.

23rd December 2012, 04:14 AM	#105
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,711	Originally Posted by cwalner 1. The plaintiff made a mistake in her filing. This should have been filed as sexual harrasment. 2. WTF "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.”" Wow, that puts a different light on it. That would likely be sexual harassment, which is a very high bar, but that gets quite close.
	__________________ 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

23rd December 2012, 04:16 AM	#106
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,711	Originally Posted by Morrigan Agreed with lionking. He fired her due to his own failings, and the court rewarded him. Unbelievable. In the US the burden falls on the employee to substantiate the claims, the bar for harassment is set very high and hard to meet.
	__________________ 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

23rd December 2012, 04:20 AM	#107
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,711	Originally Posted by cwalner 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. Due to the deliberate nature of most harassment laws, the bar is set very high. There is a standard of the 'hostile work environment' and need for documented events and failure to act. This is the result of a corporate heavy law system and also the 'settlement out of court' system. Things settled out of court do not become case law as readily. In the US the system in general favors the employer all around, despite the whining of the corporate spin meisters about the burden of unfair laws, they almost always favor the employer.
	__________________ 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

23rd December 2012, 04:22 AM	#108
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,711	Originally Posted by commandlinegamer Yeah, damn all that pesky anti-discrimination legislation, those outrageous health and safety regulations. Life is soo unfair for employers.
	__________________ 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

23rd December 2012, 04:23 AM	#109
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,711	Originally Posted by joesixpack 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. Most employers don't give you severance at all.
	__________________ 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

23rd December 2012, 04:25 AM	#110
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,711	Originally Posted by SezMe 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. That is bizarre, yes if people acted reasonably there would be no need for a judicial system.
	__________________ 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

23rd December 2012, 06:32 AM	#111
commandlinegamer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mazes of Menace Posts: 5,899	One does wonder if this were France, whether this would be an issue at all.
	__________________ He bade me take any rug in the house.

23rd December 2012, 08:07 AM	#112
Prometheus Acolyte of Víðarr Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North of Reality Posts: 42,998	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins I'm not saying that his obligation to his employees outweighs his obligation to his wife. But that doesn't mean that this is the case. You can't just use the "You have an obligation to your wife" as an excuse for every possible scenario. What if my wife said "I don't want you to look at any other woman other than me?". Do you think I still have an obligation to my wife there? I'm not trying to use this as an excuse for every possible scenario. I'm saying its the default position. Of course there might be something in this case which would change that, but we don't know. Barring other such circumstances being brought to light, I'm going with the default position. Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins But it's silly that you and I continue arguing over this when neither you nor I know exactly what's going on with them. Agreed. Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins Honestly, I find it really hard to buy the argument that two people, assuming they truly love each other, find a third person "a threat to their marriage" unless such person is trying to kill them, or such person has a magic potion that can make them stop loving each other. I also find it hard to believe. I just don't think an unsupported argument from incredulity is enough to budge from the default position. Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins But if both the husband and the wife know they love each other and that their love is sincere, not even the hottest human being on earth posing naked in front of them is any kind of threat to their marriage. And assuming the've not achieved such an ideal state of marital bliss(How many married couples ever do?), do you then place the employee's rather thin claim to her job (remember the law is on his side) over and above the couples' right to attempt to save their own marriage as they, and their pastor feel is appropriate? Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins The only realistic threat to their marriage is themselves, what they feel for each other. What doubts they may become harvesting about each other So the fact that they consider the girl a threat to their marriage most likely is because they know or suspect that the guy seriously doesn't know what he wants. He's begun to become really attracted to this girl and now his mind is filled with doubts. And if that is the case, Up to this point, I agree with you. It's obvious the guy is not exactly a paragon of moral character. So what? But here: Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins firing the girl is a completely bogus, irresponsible, immature thing to do. you go too far. He has a right to fire her for almost any reason he chooses, and the court has reaffirmed that right, so it's not "completely bogus". We don't have enough information about the bacground to determine whether he's being irresponsible and immature or not. He could be. He could also be doing what's necessary to save his wife's life, or the truth could be somewhere in between. Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins Just because he doesn't know what he wants to do with his life, doesn't mean the girl is to be fired. If he's uncertain about whether or not he would cheat on his wife, then he needs to start reconsidering getting a divorce. I think he does know what he wants to do with his life. He wants to appease his wife, and run his business without this particular distraction, as he is legally entitled to do. Who said he's uncertain? Perhaps he knows that he would cheat on his wife. Does recognition that one has a particular weakness morally require one to face up to it rather than avoid situations where it might rear its head? I think you'd have a rather difficult time making the case that that is a universal rule. But if you think it is, then let's have a go at it. Facing one's fears/weaknesses is often the morally laudable thing to do, but I don't see how it can be made an absoulute requirement. So we're right back at square one. What circumstances, if any, would cause his obligation to the employee to outweigh his obligation to his wife? And do you see any evidence here that would suggest such circumstances might be the case. If not, then I'm still going with the default. Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins My main point here: This couple is diverging the real issue. They're trying to make the issue about the girl, when the real problem is themselves. What they feel for each other. Throwing the responsibility on another person is stupid and immature. That may be true. It also doesn't matter. Of course it's entirely possible (I'd even go so far as to say it's quite likely) that their marriage is rather shaky and they've both got personal failings that need to be worked on. If all they do is get rid of the girl, assume she's the only problem they have, and go on as before without attempting to make any other effort at saving their marriage, then I'd say they're doomed. Just because they're mistaken about the depth of their problems doesn't mean they don't have a right to work on them.
	__________________ 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.

23rd December 2012, 08:13 AM	#113
Dessi Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 1,916	I was under the impression that sex discriminated was more broad than discrimination against against gender, gender norms, but sexual harassment as well? Is that assumption wrong?
	__________________ >^.^< Last edited by Dessi; 23rd December 2012 at 08:21 AM.

23rd December 2012, 08:17 AM	#114
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,881	Originally Posted by Prometheus Does recognition that one has a particular weakness morally require one to face up to it rather than avoid situations where it might rear its head? I think you'd have a rather difficult time making the case that that is a universal rule. In the case where "avoiding the situation" means abruptly putting someone on the street who hasn't done anything to deserve such mistreatment, it's not unreasonable to suggest that other options should've been explored. Several obvious and common-sense possibilities have been mentioned in this thread already.

23rd December 2012, 08:37 AM	#115
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,703	Originally Posted by Dessi I was under the impression that sex discriminated was more broad than discrimination against against gender, gender norms, but sexual harassment as well? Is that assumption wrong? I would guess technically, yes. The problem with determining that is that when such discrimination happens, it is most likely during hiring, not firing decisions. In fact, I would not be surprised if many small business owners specifically don't hire employees they find too attractive, because they know it will cause problems in the office. However, the person just has to say 'I'm sorry, we found a more qualified candidate.' and the victim never knows that she was discriminated against because the employer wanted to jump her bones. When firing somebody, though, usually they know (or think they know) the real reason they were let go even if the reason given is different. In this case, the employer had clearly made his attraction known. She also had enough experience to know if there were issues with her work performance or not. So it would not matter what reason the boss gave, she knew it had to do with his being attracted to her.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.