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

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Kahalachan

It is based on gender. Could a guy have fired a guy for being too attractive?

Yes, in an at will state you can be fired for any reason, including the mere whim of the employer. And even in Illinois, which has an 'equal right's gender' part of its state constitution, the wait time for a hearing with the ILRB is very long.

The bar for discrimination is also very high, and so in this case it is a toss up. The case law and interpretation tends to favor the employer.

In Idaho a friend of mine was very professional and competent, he was fired because a family member of the owner took a dislike to him. My friend violated no policy, he made no errors, he did nothing wrong.

This is the same environment where employers complain about regulation.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by truethat

Common sense. Dearie. You know like the common sense that shows that talking to your employer about the bulge in his pants and your sex life is inappropriate.

What are you basing your logic on? You seriously wrote that it didn't bother her so it was OK?

No, the point is always going to be complex in a case like this. First there is the stipulation in many laws of a 'hostile work environment'.

If they both engaged in flirting at the time of the comment, then she has no recourse, which is very hard to prove either way in a court. The standard for sexual harassment is a very high one, which may not be ideal, but there it is. The case law and legislation will almost always favor the employer.

The context of the comments is crucial, if she was engaging in flirtatious behavior at the time it would be a hard case to win.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

But in this case, you said it was. What did she do wrong?

In this case, I feel she did not. I have been fired for similar reasons, it sucks. I had a position that I liked and had to leave because my supervisor was wanting to lie about things and not following stated policies.

It was a strange path this time however, another person lateral and higher in the structure helped me transfer, so I was not dismissed as I have been in the past.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

No, the point is always going to be complex in a case like this. First there is the stipulation in many laws of a 'hostile work environment'.

If they both engaged in flirting at the time of the comment, then she has no recourse, which is very hard to prove either way in a court. The standard for sexual harassment is a very high one, which may not be ideal, but there it is. The case law and legislation will almost always favor the employer.

The context of the comments is crucial, if she was engaging in flirtatious behavior at the time it would be a hard case to win.

I guess my experience is very different, mostly working for very large companies. Everything that appeared to happen in this case would have been a very clear violation of the HR policies of every large company* I have worked for. I know that HR policies <> law but this case and the ruling just seem so bizarre to me because it is so incongruous to my experiences in the work force.

* I did work for a small company for a short period but the only thing that came close to sexual harassment was more of nepotism (the owners girlfriend worked for the company and she was his girlfriend before she was his employee).

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by lionking

Courts are always right, are they?

So explain what this one got wrong legally.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Travis

My question to people in this thread is this: how would you feel if your spouse/significant other was a boss and came home to tell you that they had fired an attractive employee in order to save your relationship?

That's not what happened though, is it?

In this case it was the spouse who insisted upon the firing, not the boss. "She goes or I go".

Maybe you'd pick the employee over your wife, but he didn't.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Profanz

This whole story is hokey. She already worked there for ten years. The guys wife got jealous. That's it. He's a horn dog. He is to blame and she should have got some compensation for his sexual harassment if anything.

What sexual harrassment? Do you have access to information the courts didn't?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

No, the point is always going to be complex in a case like this.

7-0 affirming a lower court ruling shows this really wasn't a complex case. That's like saying the Packers-Titans game last Sunday was a close one.

I also note that not a single outraged person here has pointed out any legal errors in the ruling.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Travis

My question to people in this thread is this: how would you feel if your spouse/significant other was a boss and came home to tell you that they had fired an attractive employee in order to save your relationship?

Personally I'd find it a huge indictment of the long term viability of the relationship.

I don't agree. In a successful long term marriage things are not always perfect. The successful couples work through such times, the unsuccessful couples just get angry and don't.

Originally Posted by Travis

And if I was the employee that was fired because my boss thought I was too hot I'd be hugely pissed. If I get fired I expect it to be because my work is not up to par.

Yes.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

It is not paranoid in the least for an IT person, they can do damage and very easily (just reformat a drive on a server host would be enough, about ten seconds to initiate). Much less the whole 'going postal' thing.

Except the HR lessons are not confined to IT people. I've seen them do it to more than one hospital manager.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

But in this case, you said it was. What did she do wrong?

It was after she was fired. It's the lawsuit I found unwarranted.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Profanz

This whole story is hokey. She already worked there for ten years. The guys wife got jealous. That's it. He's a horn dog. He is to blame and she should have got some compensation for his sexual harassment if anything.

More than a month's severance?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by balrog666

No, they aren't.

So if Mom loves Mikey best that's illegal?

Your political comment was too ludicrous to reply to.

[3point14]

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.

******* her in the elevator is a choice. A choice made by two people to ****. There is no special power to it, no mystical pull towards each other that is irresistable.

Anyone who says 'I couldn't help it' pretty much means 'I chose to do it'.

A human being has self control. Anyone who doesn't have self control should be locked up for their own safety and that of others.

'I couldn't help it' is the excuse of a child.

The man in the story is a douche.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Kahalachan

It is based on gender. Could a guy have fired a guy for being too attractive?....

Can an employer be female or a gay man? This is a no brainer.

Your contingency also fails, the dentist could fire the handsome male because the dentist is jealous. His wife did work there.

[Ampulla of Vater]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

More than a month's severance?

He should have paid her more severance, in my opinion. I bet it takes her far longer than a month to find another job. This is a very bad economy in which to obtain a job. Not to mention, what do you tell a prospective employer about why your 10-year long position was terminated? A previous termination is a red flag to any prospective employer. This was not her fault and 10 years is a long time to dedicate to someone who then treats you like this. She probably had vacation/sick time accumulated, in which case he didn't "give" her a month's pay, some or all of that had been earned by her and was owed to her. Of course, we do not know these specific details.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by 3point14

******* her in the elevator is a choice. A choice made by two people to ****. There is no special power to it, no mystical pull towards each other that is irresistable.

Anyone who says 'I couldn't help it' pretty much means 'I chose to do it'.

A human being has self control. Anyone who doesn't have self control should be locked up for their own safety and that of others.

'I couldn't help it' is the excuse of a child.

The man in the story is a douche.

Ever go on a diet or try to quit smoking? It helps not to have sweet snacks or an open pack of smokes in front of you. Sometimes self control is accomplished by removing the temptation.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Ever go on a diet or try to quit smoking? It helps not to have sweet snacks or an open pack of smokes in front of you. Sometimes self control is accomplished by removing the temptation.

I don't see your point. I didn't say it was easy.


ETA - And at some point during the life of a grown up, it's not going to be possible to remove temptation. And we're not talking about smoking or sweets here, we're talking about the shattering of vows made solemnly in front of witnesses and all that. I maintain that he is acting like a two year old.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Have you never worked anywhere where the employees had 'inappropriate' discussions all the time? Welcome to the real world, dearie and check your prude coat at the door.

It was a dental office, the employee knew the dentist for 10 years. It's possible that kind of conversation was not an issue between the two until the wife decided it was.

That's your argument? I'm a prude? LOL Listen, try with the common sense and logic for a change instead of always using the "real world' or some other ridiculous argument where you have your personal little life experience bubble be the sum total of everything.

Yes I've worked someplace where people had sexual conversations with me. I considered it sexual harassment. It was definitely unwelcomed. Additionally I worked in low paying, uneducated jobs where low class people talked like this. Like a diner. Not a doctor's office.

The fact is, it doesn't matter if the conversation is welcomed or wanted. It is inappropriate and unprofessional to talk to people this way at work. Now maybe you aren't married so you are used to talking to men at work about your sex life. But I am married as are many people. And many people would consider it unprofessional and inappropriate to be married and discuss your sex life with your boss. It's not prudish to acknowledge this. It is rather, trashy and low class to think it's ok and has no impact on the professionalism of the workplace.

It made the others at work uncomfortable. Not to mention his wife who was also an employee.

And finally in case you didn't notice, it went to court. She lost. Many sexual harassment suits go to court and are lost. It's not "nothing" if the case is lost. It demonstrates that people are willing to go to court, lawyers think a case can be made.

In other words, it creates problems. So be professional. People who think it's no big deal to trash up the professional environment with sexual conversation really piss me off. They make it unprofessional for everyone else. You think it's a joke? You think it's "prudish" to expect people to behave like adult professionals at work

Wow.

[Ampulla of Vater]

Originally Posted by truethat

That's your argument? I'm a prude? LOL Listen, try with the common sense and logic for a change instead of always using the "real world' or some other ridiculous argument where you have your personal little life experience bubble be the sum total of everything.

Yes I've worked someplace where people had sexual conversations with me. I considered it sexual harassment. It was definitely unwelcomed. Additionally I worked in low paying, uneducated jobs where low class people talked like this. Like a diner. Not a doctor's office.

The fact is, it doesn't matter if the conversation is welcomed or wanted. It is inappropriate and unprofessional to talk to people this way at work. Now maybe you aren't married so you are used to talking to men at work about your sex life. But I am married as are many people. And many people would consider it unprofessional and inappropriate to be married and discuss your sex life with your boss. It's not prudish to acknowledge this. It is rather, trashy and low class to think it's ok and has no impact on the professionalism of the workplace.

It made the others at work uncomfortable. Not to mention his wife who was also an employee.

And finally in case you didn't notice, it went to court. She lost. Many sexual harassment suits go to court and are lost. It's not "nothing" if the case is lost. It demonstrates that people are willing to go to court, lawyers think a case can be made.

In other words, it creates problems. So be professional. People who think it's no big deal to trash up the professional environment with sexual conversation really piss me off. They make it unprofessional for everyone else. You think it's a joke? You think it's "prudish" to expect people to behave like adult professionals at work

Wow.

Maybe you should have left the place in which you did not feel comfortable. It is like that in some offices, especially small ones. And it is not necessarily a case where it creates problems, it depends on the tone of the office. I have worked in both atmospheres. It does matter if it is wanted or welcomed.

[Morrigan]

truethat, I take it you are siding with the employee here and disagree with the court ruling?

Originally Posted by Kahalachan

Could a guy have fired a guy

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Can an employer be female

........... -_-

[truethat]

No. I said the opposite of that. But surprise surprise.

Both the doctor and the assistant were inappropriate and unprofessional. However, the employment was "at will." He doesn't need an excuse to fire her. She knew this and also worked with his wife in the same office. Yet she chose to develop a personal relationship with him. She got fired. So she played with fire and got burned.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by 3point14

I don't see your point. I didn't say it was easy.


ETA - And at some point during the life of a grown up, it's not going to be possible to remove temptation. And we're not talking about smoking or sweets here, we're talking about the shattering of vows made solemnly in front of witnesses and all that. I maintain that he is acting like a two year old.

You don't see the point of removing the temptation?

People do not all have the same abilities. I don't find someone to be a moral failure because they felt the need to remove a temptation. People in the thread are so judgmental about this guy. He removed the temptation instead of giving in to it. He gave her a month's severance. He was honest as far as I can tell.

And yet people in the thread act like he's the scum of the Earth. No, he's a guy who isn't perfect, and from what I see, did what he felt he needed to because of it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by truethat

That's your argument? I'm a prude? LOL Listen, try with the common sense and logic for a change instead of always using the "real world' or some other ridiculous argument where you have your personal little life experience bubble be the sum total of everything.

What's "common sense" to you is prudish to me. Oh well.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

........... -_-

Sometimes 'guys" can refer to people in general, either sex, but that's beside the point. I addressed his contingency: "the dentist could fire the handsome male because the dentist is jealous. His wife did work there." It's a personal relations issue, not a gender issue. That's how the courts saw it according to their ruling. Gender was not the prime causal factor.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And yet people in the thread act like he's the scum of the Earth.

He sacked a long serving, competent employee because of his own pathetic weakness. Scum of the earth for mine.

And a generous severance payment? When I was once made redundant after 10 years service I received 30 weeks pay plus long service leave and annual leave entitlements, which amounted to over a year's pay. And others get more.

A month after 10 years? Pathetic.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What's "common sense" to you is prudish to me. Oh well.

What's "reality" to you is trashy and immature and low class to me. But there ya go I guess.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You don't see the point of removing the temptation?

People do not all have the same abilities. I don't find someone to be a moral failure because they felt the need to remove a temptation. People in the thread are so judgmental about this guy. He removed the temptation instead of giving in to it. He gave her a month's severance. He was honest as far as I can tell.

And yet people in the thread act like he's the scum of the Earth. No, he's a guy who isn't perfect, and from what I see, did what he felt he needed to because of it.

He's not the scum of the earth. But arguing that a grown man can't be responsible and mature and behave in a professional manner at his JOB is bizarre.

People who have self control and common decency don't need to tell their coworker that the bulge in their pants is an erection. I mean seriously??? Is this what happened at your job? Did you work for Ron Burgandy?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater

Maybe you should have left the place in which you did not feel comfortable. It is like that in some offices, especially small ones. And it is not necessarily a case where it creates problems, it depends on the tone of the office. I have worked in both atmospheres. It does matter if it is wanted or welcomed.

I'm stating that even if it was welcomed and wanted, it still creates an unprofessional workplace for other employees. Just because you welcome it doesn't mean others who work around you want to hear you discussing your penis and sex life at work.

I did leave jobs that this happened in. I also did not allow it to happen in jobs where I supervised staff. Ridiculous to see people arguing that this is OK. I mean seriously. The more I read the less it shocks me the way the world is. People have no sense of professional responsibility any more.

Read up on sexual harassment law. She would not have a case about sexual harassment because she participated in it at work. But the other women in the office certainly would.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by truethat

What's "reality" to you is trashy and immature and low class to me. But there ya go I guess.

And I should care, why?

Originally Posted by truethat

He's not the scum of the earth. But arguing that a grown man can't be responsible and mature and behave in a professional manner at his JOB is bizarre.

People who have self control and common decency don't need to tell their coworker that the bulge in their pants is an erection. I mean seriously??? Is this what happened at your job? Did you work for Ron Burgandy?

Not all men are good at controlling their little heads. If we wrote off every one of them, I believe surveys say that is a good chunk of men we'd be writing off.

Facts and Statistics About Infidelity

I'm not saying it's acceptable, but it is common enough to consider it 'normal'. I give this guy credit for removing the temptation, regardless of the 'unfairness' of it to the fired worker.

Like I said, it doesn't make him husband of the year, but it's better than the alternative given the situation.


Myths about Infidelity

Quote:

2. If you really love your partner, you’ll remain faithful.

Perhaps one of the most tragic misconceptions about cheating is that people stray because they have fallen out of love with their partners. We are taught to value fidelity as the litmus test of a relationship and conditioned to feel victimized if someone cheats on us. But my research shows that young men don’t cheat because they have fallen out of love with their partners. Rather, they cheat simply because they desire sex with someone else, even if they want to preserve their relationship.

I found that, though 78 percent of the men I interviewed had cheated on their current partner, only a handful said they cheated because they were near the end of their emotional relationships. And women may respond to similar pressures: According to a 1999 study in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 68 percent of female undergraduates also cheat. (Whether they cheat for sexual or emotional reasons remains unclear.)

I'm a loyal partner when I've been in relationships. That's my personality and I would not have a man who wasn't equally loyal. I don't think all people, men and women, have the personality that keeps them loyal in a relationship. It's just a fact of the human condition.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

There is a default font setting in the User CP

Yes but there's no way to change the default size. You can only use size tags in individual posts. I think. Could be hitting the egg nog a bit too hard.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by truethat

No. I said the opposite of that. But surprise surprise.

But... you are the one who insists that she was really sexually harassed. (Which I agree, btw, being told by my boss about a bulge in his pants would be sexual harassment)

Quote:

Both the doctor and the assistant were inappropriate and unprofessional. However, the employment was "at will." He doesn't need an excuse to fire her. She knew this and also worked with his wife in the same office. Yet she chose to develop a personal relationship with him. She got fired. So she played with fire and got burned.

Wait what? How was she inappropriate? You agreed she was being sexually harassed, FFS...

Originally Posted by lionking

He sacked a long serving, competent employee because of his own pathetic weakness. Scum of the earth for mine.

And a generous severance payment? When I was once made redundant after 10 years service I received 30 weeks pay plus long service leave and annual leave entitlements, which amounted to over a year's pay. And others get more.

A month after 10 years? Pathetic.

Agreed on all counts.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And I should care, why?



Not all men are good at controlling their little heads. If we wrote off every one of them, I believe surveys say that is a good chunk of men we'd be writing off.

Facts and Statistics About Infidelity

I'm not saying it's acceptable, but it is common enough to consider it 'normal'. I give this guy credit for removing the temptation, regardless of the 'unfairness' of it to the fired worker.

Like I said, it doesn't make him husband of the year, but it's better than the alternative given the situation.


Myths about Infidelity


I'm a loyal partner when I've been in relationships. That's my personality and I would not have a man who wasn't equally loyal. I don't think all people, men and women, have the personality that keeps them loyal in a relationship. It's just a fact of the human condition.

It is completely inappropriate for a married man to talk to a married woman that way and for a woman to respond to personal texts of her boss who is talking to her that way.

I guess you aren't married so maybe this doesn't seem so bad. But for a married person it's completely wrong.

I sometimes think you just try to find reasons to disagree with me no matter how ridiculous those reasons are.

Also I don't sexually objectify men I work with, the same way I don't expect them to sexually objectify me. I work with men professionally to gain their respect. I don't joke about their 'little heads' and if one of them referred to their penis in a conversation with me I'd document it and report it. Granted when I was younger I may have been too embarrassed to do anything, but this woman was no innocent naif.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

But... you are the one who insists that she was really sexually harassed. (Which I agree, btw, being told by my boss about a bulge in his pants would be sexual harassment)

I have never stated she was sexually harassed. I stated quite the opposite. YET again Morrigan. Are you ever going to actually read what I have written. I've only written it three times now.

The sexual harassment claim could be made by other women in the office for creating a quid pro quo environment. His wife could actually sue him for sexual harassment because as an employee she has a right to work in an environment where sexuality isn't brought into the mix.

Quote:

Wait what? How was she inappropriate? You agreed she was being sexually harassed, FFS...

No I didn't. Try reading it over and over again. What part of "they were both unprofessional" don't you understand.


This is why I just give up in replying to certain posters. I write X you say I wrote Y and start arguing with me over it. Go back and actually read it.

[Morrigan]

Oh wait. You said that the "bulge in pants" comment was clear sexual harassment... and I agree. But I get it. You seem to think that she made this comment. When it's the other way around.

It appears you're confused.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by truethat

It is completely inappropriate for a married man to talk to a married woman that way and for a woman to respond to personal texts of her boss who is talking to her that way.

I guess you aren't married so maybe this doesn't seem so bad. But for a married person it's completely wrong.

I have a broader perspective and think yours is rather narrow minded. It depends on the workplace and the employees involved. Do you think a woman who chooses to work on a crabbing vessel should expect the conversation to be nun-worthy?

Originally Posted by truethat

I sometimes think you just try to find reasons to disagree with me no matter how ridiculous those reasons are.

Nope, don't have to try.

Originally Posted by truethat

Also I don't sexually objectify men I work with, the same way I don't expect them to sexually objectify me. I work with men professionally to gain their respect. I don't joke about their 'little heads' and if one of them referred to their penis in a conversation with me I'd document it and report it. Granted when I was younger I may have been too embarrassed to do anything, but this woman was no innocent naif.

She wasn't bothered by the sex talk. She felt comfortable (per the court document). But you wouldn't be.

Doesn't it seem possible to you that not everyone holds the same moral standard you do when it comes to conversation they are comfortable with?

[Kahalachan]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Yes, in an at will state you can be fired for any reason, including the mere whim of the employer. And even in Illinois, which has an 'equal right's gender' part of its state constitution, the wait time for a hearing with the ILRB is very long.

The bar for discrimination is also very high, and so in this case it is a toss up. The case law and interpretation tends to favor the employer.

In Idaho a friend of mine was very professional and competent, he was fired because a family member of the owner took a dislike to him. My friend violated no policy, he made no errors, he did nothing wrong.

This is the same environment where employers complain about regulation.

I'm in an at will state. Which to me is a horrible idea because people can use the at will status as a cover to fire for discriminatory reasons.

I could fire someone for being gay, claim it's cause I didn't like the way they looked, and discriminate based on sexual orientation. If I kept up the trend I would be found out, but I could get away with something like this once in an at will state.

I'm saying at will is wrong. I'm saying this court ruling is wrong. I want less gov't in business because the ideal model for business is to operate based on efficiency and profit. When people let their personal sexual issues get involved, I'm fine with the gov't stepping in and saying "Nope, you can't fire for that reason" because those people hinder economic growth.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I have a broader perspective and think yours is rather narrow minded. It depends on the workplace and the employees involved. Do you think a woman who chooses to work on a crabbing vessel should expect the conversation to be nun-worthy?

Nope, don't have to try.

She wasn't bothered by the sex talk. She felt comfortable (per the court document). But you wouldn't be.

Doesn't it seem possible to you that not everyone holds the same moral standard you do when it comes to conversation they are comfortable with?

As usual you revert to your straw man argument. This is not a crabbing vessel. It's a doctor's office. Hello? And no I don't think it's professional or appropriate for people to discuss a man's penis at work. I guess if you feel comfortable talking about your colleagues "little heads" that's fine. But it isn't a moral standard that I'm talking about.

It's a professional standard. In this case the woman and the man created an environment that was unfair to the other women working on the job.

If you are working at a doctor's office and flirt and have sexual conversations with your doctor you create an uncomfortable environment for the other employees. Even if they look the other way you put them in an awkward position if you are both married and engaging in this kind of trashy behavior.

It is especially unfair in this case since the doctor's wife worked in the office.

Your strawman arguments are so wearisome by now.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Stout

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

You'd be surprised the things people discuss at the workplace.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Oh wait. You said that the "bulge in pants" comment was clear sexual harassment... and I agree. But I get it. You seem to think that she made this comment. When it's the other way around.

It appears you're confused.

No I don't. I think he made the statement to her. I also think she engaged in text messages with the doctor of a personal nature. His wife found the text messages. Please stop replying to me. It's obvious you assume you know what I think instead of simply reading what I actually wrote.

I stated that she didn't have a case for sexual harassment since she engaged in a personal relationship with her doctor. So it is obvious that this lawsuit was an attempt to try to circumvent the 'at will" firing. It didn't work.

In my opinion she and the doctor both created a hostile work environment for the other women in the office and also his wife who worked in the office. They are the ones who were sexually harassed. Not the doctor or the woman. The workplace is supposed to be a professional environment. Not one where one employee receives preferential favor from the boss due to a flirtatious relationship. (I have also stated I don't think she flirted with him) She engaged in a personal relationship instead of keeping it professional. Read sexual harassment law. The other employees had a case. She did not.



If you still don't understand it I give up. Seriously, it's gotten really old.

[Morrigan]

Hahahaha ok