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

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lionking

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

I don't know who this is directed at but don't confuse my comments with sympathy for him. I'm just saying I don't have that much sympathy for the fired employee either.

I think they all handled it poorly.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

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/

You don't have to go by my "beautiful theory" if you think it's too idealistic. You can just go by a rule of this thing we call honesty. Like I told Prom, if you decide at some point within the relationship, that you no longer feel that attracted to the person to be able to not **** anyone else, then you have a responsibility to be sincere with her and tell her that your feelings have changed. As opposed to cheating on her, or firing your employee because you don't know if you'll be able to resist *********** her in the elevator.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

...

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

Clearly.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by tsig

I once got a security escort to the door.

That's bizarrely common. It's some human resources paranoia thing.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

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

That's because he's the boss and she's the employee.

Do you have any legal issues with the court decision?

[WildCat]

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.

Explain the failure of the legal system... please cite the legal errors you think the court made.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't know who this is directed at but don't confuse my comments with sympathy for him. I'm just saying I don't have that much sympathy for the fired employee either.

I think they all handled it poorly.

What exactly did she do wrong?

Re-reading the link in the OP, it seems the court explicitly acknowledged in its ruling that the woman did not engage in any flirtatious behavior, so that can't be it.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by SezMe

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.

Sorry, I think my laziness told me to click quote to the last post versus the generic reply.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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?

Exactly.

If Bruce Springsteen has a personality clash with someone in the band, it's not going to be Bruce that gets sent packing.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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

It's his business, did you miss that part? And when the dentist leaves the dentist office what will the remaining employees do, sell lemonade out front?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by StankApe

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

Why was the ruling dumb?

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

You don't have to go by my "beautiful theory" if you think it's too idealistic. You can just go by a rule of this thing we call honesty. Like I told Prom, if you decide at some point within the relationship, that you no longer feel that attracted to the person to be able to not **** anyone else, then you have a responsibility to be sincere with her and tell her that your feelings have changed. As opposed to cheating on her, or firing your employee because you don't know if you'll be able to resist *********** her in the elevator.

Did you read what I wrote? What I am explaining is, having desires for one person doesn't mean you stopped loving another. We are no so simple as to only being capable of having feelings for one person at a time.

This woman may have not realized that his comments, the text conversations about her personal life, and discussions about her lackluster sex life were all that inappropriate, but I have to say, were I the wife discovering this personal relationship between she and my husband, and I wanted to try and save my marriage, I would demand she leave, too.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That's bizarrely common. It's some human resources paranoia thing.

It's not bizarre or paranoia. If someone is let go or (especially) fired, that person can do a lot of damage before seeing the door. Not physical damage but computer damage. Change passwords. Enter bad data. If an IT person, he/she could screw up a computer system so badly it could bring the company down. Taking precautions to prevent such actions in a large company is good personnel practice.

Mind you, I wish it weren't so. If someone really likes their job but is let go, the process of being escorted to the door just adds humiliation to an already bad scene.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

Even in at-will states, you can be terminated unlawfully.

Free people properly demand of their government clear laws, rather than judges making it up as they go along.

This is a case of if you don't like it, talk to your legislature.

[sophia8]

Originally Posted by SezMe

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

The boss is 53, his wife is probably around the same age. Can you say 'mid-life crisis'? I certainly can.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

What exactly did she do wrong?

Re-reading the link in the OP, it seems the court explicitly acknowledged in its ruling that the woman did not engage in any flirtatious behavior, so that can't be it.

I'm not sure how the court defined "flirtatious behavior".

The examples of conversation between the dentist and the employee certainly imply the atmosphere between them was flirtatious. If it bothered her there's no evidence she said so. She didn't dress differently and remember, this is a dental office, not a bar or restaurant.

The dentist admits to being attracted to the employee. Everyone keeps saying he should have controlled his lust. That has some merit, but I've asked and it hasn't been answered, what were his options?

He could have handled it better, that seems clear. He should have helped her get a different job, even kept her on until that happened. His wife might have been an unreasonable witch, who knows.

But I don't think firing the worker in and by itself, was wrong. When there is a people problem in a small dental office, there aren't a lot of solutions.

So like I said, poorly handled but besides handling it better, what were the dentist's options?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by SezMe

It's not bizarre or paranoia. If someone is let go or (especially) fired, that person can do a lot of damage before seeing the door. Not physical damage but computer damage. Change passwords. Enter bad data. If an IT person, he/she could screw up a computer system so badly it could bring the company down. Taking precautions to prevent such actions in a large company is good personnel practice.

Mind you, I wish it weren't so. If someone really likes their job but is let go, the process of being escorted to the door just adds humiliation to an already bad scene.

Yeah, that's the "how to fire an employee" propaganda they teach in HR classes. And I imagine very rarely it may happen. But honestly, I've seen employers do it to people they've worked with and known personally for years. It's a bit paranoid IMO.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

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

What rights were violated?

She doesn't have a right to that job. She has it as long as she and the manager agree to work together. If they don't, guess what? The boss is going to stick around. Sorry, but that's the way it goes--the boss is almost certainly worth more to the company than she is. There's nothing LEGALLY wrong with what happened.

SOCIALLY and MORALLY, yes. The guy's a pig, and has admitted that he's incapable of self-control. That makes him flat-out dangerous, to be honest--I wouldn't trust the guy to make dinner, much less take care of anything involving serious health issues (and dentists do on occasion deal with that sort of thing). I'd love to see this guy economically destroyed. He's admitted he's a child, so we shouldn't treat him as an adult. But that's a social issue. It's frankly impossible to write a law that dictates punishment for this sort of thing without punishing people who have done nothing wrong, so the law has to stay out of it.

In other words, yes, the guy's an immature pig. The solution is to act mature ourselves. That means not running to Mommy Congress and Daddy President to deal with it. It means being mature enough to say "You know what? That crosses a line. I refuse to do business with you anymore", then having the moral fiber to carry out that threat.

[Janadele]

The employee should have left of her own accord and got on with her life. That she took legal action is ridiculous. The wife was the wise one.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm not sure how the court defined "flirtatious behavior".

The examples of conversation between the dentist and the employee certainly imply the atmosphere between them was flirtatious. If it bothered her there's no evidence she said so. She didn't dress differently and remember, this is a dental office, not a bar or restaurant.

I don't think this is a fair characterization of what we've been given. We've seen examples of things the dentist said to the employee; we do not have any examples or evidence of what she said in return or how she reacted. The article did not say that she didn't dress differently in response to the comments. It seems to me the fact she brought these incidents up in court is highly suggestive that she didn't think they were entirely appropriate.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The dentist admits to being attracted to the employee. Everyone keeps saying he should have controlled his lust. That has some merit, but I've asked and it hasn't been answered, what were his options?

He could have handled it better, that seems clear. He should have helped her get a different job, even kept her on until that happened. His wife might have been an unreasonable witch, who knows.

But I don't think firing the worker in and by itself, was wrong. When there is a people problem in a small dental office, there aren't a lot of solutions.

So like I said, poorly handled but besides handling it better, what were the dentist's options?

I gave one, which is taking himself and his wife to marriage counseling rather than firing someone who hadn't done anything. They're obviously the ones with the problem.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Did you read what I wrote? What I am explaining is, having desires for one person doesn't mean you stopped loving another. We are no so simple as to only being capable of having feelings for one person at a time.

Looks like you're the one who didn't read what I wrote. I never denied that just because you're in a relationship, you stop feeling sexually attracted to other people. But that doesn't mean you actually have to go ahead and have sex with them.

So let me start again, and see if I can make myself clear: When you really really like someone, and you feel like you wanna have something serious, and the other person feels the same way, you make a deal (Or if you get married, it's more of a legal contract) that the two of you like each other enough that you are willing to commit to each other in a monogamous relationship. Are we good so far?

But then, people change. Over time, either one might start losing interest or not be that much into the relationship (This happens and in fact, happens too much) At that point, whoever feels like they're not sure if they care enough about the relationship to remain monogamous, that person has a moral obligation with their mate to tell them the truth.

So the guy clearly reached that point where he's not sure what he wants. He not only find the girl attractive, he's not sure he can hold his sexual urges for too long. You don't need to be neither a mind reader nor a psychologist to know that the guy isn't 100% sure he wants to remain in a monogamous relationship with his wife. So the course of action is speak with his wife about this and then the two of them have to settle it. Most likely, get a divorce.

Of course, this is not what's going to happen. I'm not amazed at all that he just fired the girl. Why? Because that's the easy way. That's the one thing we humans are best at: Lets just throw the blame and responsibility on someone else and wipe our hands of the matter. But like I said, since the girl is not the problem, this "solution" is only temporary. It'll be a matter of time until another girl shows up and he's attracted to her. And maybe not at work. And when/if that happens, the excuse of "Just fire her and we've saved our marriage" won't do. He just happened to be lucky enough this time that he was in a position of power, with the law on his side, where he was able to just fire the girl and hand-wave the real problem away, like someone sweeping the dust under the carpet.

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

This woman may have not realized that his comments, the text conversations about her personal life, and discussions about her lackluster sex life were all that inappropriate, but I have to say, were I the wife discovering this personal relationship between she and my husband, and I wanted to try and save my marriage, I would demand she leave, too.

And if I were the wife, I would simply tell him something in the lines of "Looks like you're not sure what you really want. So why don't you look at me in the eyes and tell me what you want?" instead of this whole "This woman is threatening our marriage!! You better do something about her!" ********.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The dentist admits to being attracted to the employee. Everyone keeps saying he should have controlled his lust. That has some merit, but I've asked and it hasn't been answered, what were his options?

I said it before and I'll say it again: his options is only one: Check himself. Do some soul searching. Ask himself who he wants to be with. Does he want to be with both women? Does he want to leave his wife? But I bet he didn't even bother to ask himself these questions. Because both the husband and the wife are looking at it from the perspective of the girl being the problem. So the only "solutions" they have thought of are "solutions" that have to do with how to get rid of the girl. When in reality, the problem is the uncertainty that the husband is going through.

[commandlinegamer]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Exactly.

If Bruce Springsteen has a personality clash with someone in the band, it's not going to be Bruce that gets sent packing.

Okay, but who are the official Beach Boys now?

[truethat]

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)

Half the statements in this thread don't make any sense. People read headlines and interpret it the way the article leads, rather than thinking logically and reasonably.


He obviously didn't tell her this when he fired her. This is a response to her lawsuit.

He fired her in the way he is allowed as an at will employee. He owes her no explanation. Knowing you can be fired 'at will' it would behoove a married woman with two kids, not to cross a line between personal and professional at work.

She chose to do this when she texted him about private matters.


Wife found out. She gets fired.

She probably went to the lawyer to try to go for a sexual harassment law suit, only to be told that her behavior made her complicit. She wouldn't have won.

So the lawyer comes up with another idea. And his lawyer came up with a defense, which is what he presented in court.

This was a frivolous lawsuit as a money grab and the court saw through it.


But standard M.O. on this website is always 'woman as victim' "man as perpetrator.'

How about this.... Don't cross professional boundaries at work when you know you are working 'at will.'

oh and also "Don't cross professional boundaries when you are married."

But no.........the guy must be completely responsible. And the woman must always be a completely innocent victim in all situations, not an intelligent woman who played with fire and got burned.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by Janadele

The employee should have left of her own accord and got on with her life. That she took legal action is ridiculous. The wife was the wise one.

I . .. What?

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by truethat

Half the statements in this thread don't make any sense. People read headlines and interpret it the way the article leads, rather than thinking logically and reasonably.

Thanks for putting all us illogical dolts straight. It is amazing how you know what really happened and aren't influenced by any biases.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Looks like you're the one who didn't read what I wrote. I never denied that just because you're in a relationship, you stop feeling sexually attracted to other people. But that doesn't mean you actually have to go ahead and have sex with them.

So let me start again, and see if I can make myself clear: When you really really like someone, and you feel like you wanna have something serious, and the other person feels the same way, you make a deal (Or if you get married, it's more of a legal contract) that the two of you like each other enough that you are willing to commit to each other in a monogamous relationship. Are we good so far?

But then, people change. Over time, either one might start losing interest or not be that much into the relationship (This happens and in fact, happens too much) At that point, whoever feels like they're not sure if they care enough about the relationship to remain monogamous, that person has a moral obligation with their mate to tell them the truth.

Or you are forgetting the most common reason; couples, despite the fact that they love each other, begin to take each other for granted. They lose that zing that keeps them trying to please the other person. The original statement I was arguing against was; if they truly loved each other, there wouldn't be any threat. It's simply not true.

Quote:

So the guy clearly reached that point where he's not sure what he wants. He not only find the girl attractive, he's not sure he can hold his sexual urges for too long. You don't need to be neither a mind reader nor a psychologist to know that the guy isn't 100% sure he wants to remain in a monogamous relationship with his wife. So the course of action is speak with his wife about this and then the two of them have to settle it. Most likely, get a divorce.

Or they wonder when they stopped trying to excite each other and work on their relationship.

Quote:

Of course, this is not what's going to happen. I'm not amazed at all that he just fired the girl. Why? Because that's the easy way. That's the one thing we humans are best at: Lets just throw the blame and responsibility on someone else and wipe our hands of the matter. But like I said, since the girl is not the problem, this "solution" is only temporary. It'll be a matter of time until another girl shows up and he's attracted to her. And maybe not at work. And when/if that happens, the excuse of "Just fire her and we've saved our marriage" won't do. He just happened to be lucky enough this time that he was in a position of power, with the law on his side, where he was able to just fire the girl and hand-wave the real problem away, like someone sweeping the dust under the carpet.



And if I were the wife, I would simply tell him something in the lines of "Looks like you're not sure what you really want. So why don't you look at me in the eyes and tell me what you want?" instead of this whole "This woman is threatening our marriage!! You better do something about her!" ******

It seems that she did do what you would have done. They went to counseling and he chose his wife. It was recommended to them that he get rid of the woman.

I would consider what he was having was an emotional affair with her. For what ever reason, he was seeking from her what he wasn't getting from his marriage. His wife is fully aware of that. Whether or not the woman was actively participating in the emotional affair, she had no problems, by her own words, with the way he was talking to her and allowed further boundaries to be crossed by discussing her sex life with him as well as engaging in text discussions about their private lives. Why in the world should the wife be forced to accept her husband continuing a professional relationship with her?

[Stout]

Originally Posted by truethat

Half the statements in this thread don't make any sense. People read headlines and interpret it the way the article leads, rather than thinking logically and reasonably.

I fully side that

If we read this article

Click on the link to the court's decision and scroll down to page 4 we see that the wife had way more to do with this than she's being given credit for.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Stout

I fully side that

If we read this article

Click on the link to the court's decision and scroll down to page 4 we see that the wife had way more to do with this than she's being given credit for.

I think my interpretation is consistent with the court ruling.

Quote:

Usually our legal focus is on the employer’s motivation, not on whether the discharge in a broader sense is fair because the employee did something to “deserve it.” Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act are not general fairness laws, and an employer does not violate them by treating an employee unfairly so long as the employer does not engage in discrimination based upon the employee’s protected status....

...As we have indicated above, the issue before us is not whether a jury could find that Dr. Knight treated Nelson badly. We are asked to decide only if a genuine fact issue exists as to whether Dr. Knight engaged in unlawful gender discrimination when he fired Nelson at the request of his wife. For the reasons previously discussed, we believe this conduct did not amount to unlawful discrimination, and therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court.

The court document reveals a bit more about the actual relationship. The worker did not believe she was flirting and she may not have been. Maybe she just felt comfortable discussing his bulging pants and her frequency of sex with her husband because she was on such a friendly basis with her boss. I could see that. People at work can discuss risque stuff and it frequently wouldn't constitute flirting. The worker admits the conversation did not bother her.

The wife was the first to complain about her husband's behavior after finding the text messages. Maybe she needed the worker gone because the wife didn't like seeing her at work and the husband complied. I think the dentist is better than a husband who would give in to his lust. You see someone everyday in an intimate work setting that you find attractive and you walk away. Sure, the guy should have been able to control his behavior. But at least he didn't act on it.

IOW, he had three options, control himself (ideal), end the association (better than nothing), or proposition the worker (that would be the sleaze option).

The court paper notes he gave the worker a month's severance pay and had the pastor there when he fired her. It does suggest that the dentist and his wife really did seek marriage counseling (lots of churches play this role for couples) and made the decision to fire the worker.

After reading the decision, I find it harder to judge the motive of the fired worker. Clearly she felt wronged. Life is not always fair. I'm still not sure she should have filed the lawsuit. I wonder if the attorney she hired gave her the best advice.

If there's a lesson to be learned here, it's, be sure to be just as friendly to the wife as to the husband in a situation like this one. It does seem like a lot of went on didn't include the wife who then later found out. That makes me wonder why that was. Usually if people are socially conversing with each other at work, you wouldn't chat up the husband and snub the wife.

Or, maybe the wife was a jealous witch from the start and wasn't friendly to the worker, who knows, but the bottom line is that kind of relationship shouldn't be secreted from the wife if she worked in the same office.

[Stout]

The thing that strikes me as odd in the court decision is the wife complaining about Melissa's clothing. Right there in the CNN interview, we have Melissa saying she was wearing scrubs, but maybe this was an after hours, thing, when the scrubs came off. I dunno, but I can't say I've ever seen any scrubs that could be considered sexy, fetishes notwithstanding.

The dentist strikes me as being honest to a fault, like he was willing to loose this lawsuit. Why on earth would he openly admit to saying the things he did ? Good Christian honest guy ? Guilt ? Getting back at the wife for forcing him into a course of action he was hesitant about ? Again, dunno.

Ideally, yes, he should have controlled his behaviour but as far as this looks from the information we have at hand the "flirting" was mutual and may never have progressed beyond that. Telling Melissa's husband that he might start an affair with her ? Good grief man, that's going way over the top, so far over the top that looks like the dentist is willingly walking up the steps to the gallows and putting his own head in the noose.

One would think, that should the employee have a problem with the boss's wife, that employee would be out looking for another job rather than playing interpersonal politics, playing a game she knows she can't actually "win"

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

What rights were violated?

Rights-based moral discourse is usually rather pointless. Someone asserts "I have a right to X" and the other person says "No you don't" and nothing of any value is accomplished.

From a more socially advanced perspective (I think it's fair to call the more liberal and progressive societies more socially advanced) it's rather obvious that what USians euphemistically call "at will" employment is a social system which gives enormous financial power to the wealthy elite over their subordinates, which is frequently abused. This case is an excellent example of such abuse.

Since the reality is that most people depend on their employment to pay the bills, stringent social controls on employers' ability to fire employees for any reason other than genuine business necessity, proven unethical conduct or provable incompetence are a very good idea for preventing bad outcomes, where "bad" can been suboptimal at the society-wide level and also unjust.

The firing was probably legal in the USA, but lots of things are legal in the USA that aren't in more advanced cultures. Hopefully the USians will get their act together and fix this one.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I think my interpretation is consistent with the court ruling.

The court document reveals a bit more about the actual relationship. The worker did not believe she was flirting and she may not have been. Maybe she just felt comfortable discussing his bulging pants and her frequency of sex with her husband because she was on such a friendly basis with her boss. I could see that. People at work can discuss risque stuff and it frequently wouldn't constitute flirting. The worker admits the conversation did not bother her.

The wife was the first to complain about her husband's behavior after finding the text messages. Maybe she needed the worker gone because the wife didn't like seeing her at work and the husband complied. I think the dentist is better than a husband who would give in to his lust. You see someone everyday in an intimate work setting that you find attractive and you walk away. Sure, the guy should have been able to control his behavior. But at least he didn't act on it.

IOW, he had three options, control himself (ideal), end the association (better than nothing), or proposition the worker (that would be the sleaze option).

The court paper notes he gave the worker a month's severance pay and had the pastor there when he fired her. It does suggest that the dentist and his wife really did seek marriage counseling (lots of churches play this role for couples) and made the decision to fire the worker.

After reading the decision, I find it harder to judge the motive of the fired worker. Clearly she felt wronged. Life is not always fair. I'm still not sure she should have filed the lawsuit. I wonder if the attorney she hired gave her the best advice.

If there's a lesson to be learned here, it's, be sure to be just as friendly to the wife as to the husband in a situation like this one. It does seem like a lot of went on didn't include the wife who then later found out. That makes me wonder why that was. Usually if people are socially conversing with each other at work, you wouldn't chat up the husband and snub the wife.

Or, maybe the wife was a jealous witch from the start and wasn't friendly to the worker, who knows, but the bottom line is that kind of relationship shouldn't be secreted from the wife if she worked in the same office.

Discussing a man's bulgin pants and your sex life isn't 'comfortable' professional work place banter. It is completely sexual and inappropriate and unprofessional. I do agree that the wife may have had a lot to do with it. Seems to me it may be his 'revenge' for her causing all this to point out how sexy he thought the woman was. LOL

But the woman seems to have thought she could turn this into a sexual harassment lawsuit. Willing participation means you are not a victim. She apparently thought she could make some cash off this.

Whenever people try for dumb lawsuits like this, I crack up. Who is going to hire you now sweetie?

At will means at will.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by truethat

Discussing a man's bulgin pants and your sex life isn't 'comfortable' professional work place banter. It is completely sexual and inappropriate and unprofessional.

This from the person who posted, "People read headlines and interpret it the way the article leads, rather than thinking logically and reasonably."

Here are quotes from the court ruling:

Quote:

Nelson in turn acknowledges that Dr. Knight generally treated her with respect, and she believed him to be a person of high integrity....

...During the last six months or so of Nelson’s employment, Dr. Knight and Nelson started texting each other on both work and personal matters outside the workplace. Neither objected to the other’s texting.

...Dr. Knight acknowledges he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing. On another occasion, Dr. Knight texted Nelson saying the shirt she had worn that day was too tight. After Nelson responded that she did not think he was being fair, Dr. Knight replied that it was a good thing Nelson did not wear tight pants too because then he would get it coming and going. Dr. Knight also recalls that after Nelson allegedly made a statement regarding infrequency in her sex life, he responded to her, “[T]hat’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.” Nelson recalls
that Dr. Knight once texted her to ask how often she experienced an orgasm. Nelson did not answer the text. However, Nelson does not remember ever telling Dr. Knight not to text her or telling him that she was offended.

...Nelson’s one-count petition alleges that Dr. Knight discriminated against her on the basis of sex. Nelson does not contend that her employer committed sexual harassment.

...Her argument, rather, is that Dr. Knight terminated her because of her gender and would not have terminated her if she was male.

...Nelson argues that a firing by a boss to avoid committing sexual harassment should be treated similarly....

Every one of them supports the conclusion the worker did not feel harassed by the risque comments.

Originally Posted by truethat

....Seems to me it may be his 'revenge' for her causing all this to point out how sexy he thought the woman was.

... Willing participation means you are not a victim. She apparently thought she could make some cash off this.

You should have stopped at "may be his 'revenge'". Except I wonder if you meant "her" revenge.

You don't know what she thought.

[truethat]

It doesn't matter if she didn't feel offended. Have you never taken a sexual harassment workshop? It is inappropriate and unprofessional.

You're not seriously going to argue otherwise are you?

OMG

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by Janadele

The employee should have left of her own accord and got on with her life. That she took legal action is ridiculous. The wife was the wise one.

...........Have I just stepped into bizarro world?

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

...........Have I just stepped into bizarro world?

Yes; Janadele is a bible-believing church-going Christian.

[Silly Green Monkey]

I'm still wondering what the employee did that was so wrong she deserved to be fired.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

I'm still wondering what the employee did that was so wrong she deserved to be fired.

It's an at-will state. There doesn't have to be a reason.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

having desires for one person doesn't mean you stopped loving another... couples, despite the fact that they love each other, begin to take each other for granted. They lose that zing that keeps them trying to please the other person. The original statement I was arguing against was; if they truly loved each other, there wouldn't be any threat. It's simply not true... they wonder when they stopped trying to excite each other... he was seeking from her what he wasn't getting from his marriage.

What you've described does sound like a loss of "love" to me. This looks like a miscommunication in which you both thought the same thing was happening but didn't have the same definition in mind for "love". (Another example of why that's just a useless word.)

And the odd timing, with this only coming up after they'd already known each other for years, certainly looks like something recently happened somewhere else (such as with his wife) to make it start now after nothing happened before. Whether that means they're not in "love" anymore or not is just a semantic issue, not really a matter of what actually happened.

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

she had no problems, by her own words, with the way he was talking to her and allowed further boundaries to be crossed by discussing her sex life with him as well as engaging in text discussions about their private lives.

I don't see the part where she did anything boundary-crossing. The "personal" stuff they're said to have texted about was their children, it would be pretty weird for 10-year co-workers not to occasionally text each other, or not know who had a "significant other" and who didn't. She'd need to be practically antisocial to have avoided that kind of routine workplace socialization. And as for "flirtacious" behavior on her part, not only do we not have any specific alleged examples of it to try to judge, but that word is nearly as useless as "love", with different people often declaring with absolute certainty contradictory impressions of exactly the same behavior.

Originally Posted by Stout

The thing that strikes me as odd in the court decision is the wife complaining about Melissa's clothing. Right there in the CNN interview, we have Melissa saying she was wearing scrubs... I dunno, but I can't say I've ever seen any scrubs that could be considered sexy

You must not have been into a medical facility or a store that sells scrubs lately. (Or seen those commercials for schools where the girl listing the great benefits of working in a medical field and ending the list with "and don't forget those cute scrubs, too!".) I am male and needed to get scrubs for myself a few months ago, and found that scrubs that are explicitly designed to show off femininty have taken over so much of the market that "unisex" (relatively straight cut & monochrome) ones are actually hard to get. (There is, of course, no such thing as just "men's" scrubs.) I was restricted to one corner of the store where there wasn't even enough space to include each combination of color & size, and even those have what I've been calling a "prom-dress" neckline which forces me to either wear a T-shirt or appear to be trying to show off my chest. The rest of the selection was dominated by swervy lines from ribcage area to waist to hip, prints & color combos and ruffled edges and overall cut shapes that would only appear in women's fashion, and cinched-in elastic strips around the waist. It actually takes effort to avoid scrubs that are the kind of thing women wear in order to be "sexy" or "cute" or such. And having worked in hospitals and clinics, I can easily see why (as well as hear it in some of the conversations there): because most of the staff in places like that are female, and this is what they want to buy.

Originally Posted by Stout

One would think, that should the employee have a problem with the boss's wife, that employee would be out looking for another job rather than playing interpersonal politics, playing a game she knows she can't actually "win"

What did she do that you call "playing", and where is the evidence that she knew there was an issue at all before getting fired?

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Delvo

What did she do that you call "playing", and where is the evidence that she knew there was an issue at all before getting fired?

Cheers, thanks for the scrubs info, I actually hadn't noticed but I'll keep an eye out.

What I'm calling playing is maintaining a close relationship with the boss while being chilly to the wife who works in the same office. Is this a true accounting of what went on in that office ? Could be but we only have the wife's input on this ( via the court decision ).