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

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by truethat

It is rather, trashy and low class to think it's ok and has no impact on the professionalism of the workplace.

I guess I must always be working in "trashy and low class" places.

The "classy" or "what my HR department called professional in their ppts" arguments seem the most flimsy and subjective to me, so I don't see how you can come to such black and white conclusions.

Please tell me you wear a monocle.

[truethat]

Seriously. You guys crack me up. You think it's "black and white" to say that discussing erections and your sex life with your colleagues at work is unprofessional? You don't think that this is very clearly inappropriate?

Wow

[tsig]

Originally Posted by truethat

Seriously. You guys crack me up. You think it's "black and white" to say that discussing erections and your sex life with your colleagues at work is unprofessional? You don't think that this is very clearly inappropriate?

Wow

You seem to be discussing a different case.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by truethat

As usual you revert to your straw man argument. This is not a crabbing vessel. It's a doctor's office. Hello?

Hello, I'm familiar with over 100 dental and medical offices. I provide employee health services for a large area. They are nothing like a large clinic or hospital. There are a couple people in many of them who know each other quite well. The standard depends on the make up of the employees.

You seem to think the world is all prudish, even in a small medical office. It isn't.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Hello, I'm familiar with over 100 dental and medical offices. I provide employee health services for a large area. They are nothing like a large clinic or hospital. There are a couple people in many of them who know each other quite well. The standard depends on the make up of the employees.

You seem to think the world is all prudish, even in a small medical office. It isn't.

No, more strawman arguments. We are not talking about your life experience. We are discussing a specific court case. We are discussing law. So take your silly 'prudish" argument and toss it.

The standard doesn't depend on the make up of the employees from a legal standpoint. The law is the law. If 5 people out of 8 all think it's fine to make jokes about erections and discuss their sex life at work, it can legally interfere with the rights of the 3 that don't want to participate.

BTW you can keep saying "prudish" and I"ll keep saying low class. Joking with your male colleagues about their erections at work is definitely low class in my book. I'm not prudish. I would joke with friends etc. But at work I'm a professional. I'm sorry this is a confusing concept for you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You do know the worker lost the court case, right?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by truethat

No I don't. I think he made the statement to her.

Wrong. This is what you said:

Quote:

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.

You owe Morrigan an apology.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by cwalner

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).

Sure, but that means you have a proactive HR team. My school district, which is largish as such things go had a failure of the HR director, a violation of what policy that did occur and the usual shenanigans.

The issue in the case is if they were both engaged in flirting when those strange comments occurred, if they were one sided, then there might be more of a case. Then there is the state law to deal with.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

Hairsplitting commence!



I now counter that an appeals court just rules on the procedural elements and transcripts of the case to see if an error of law or gross misinterpretation of statute occurred. It does not reflect on the general complexity of the original case.

And as I stated it will revolve upon the context of the comments. The complexity which may or may not be reflected in the appeals review, as much of discovery is outside the transcript. IANAL

My guess is that the context made the case.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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

Sure, I now. It is a policy issue in that generally they want to stop any discussion of why someone was let go.

[Dancing David]

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.

Welcome to the US. Most of us work without a safety net in anyway. You can be fired for almost any reason in Illinois.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Kahalachan

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.

I agree at will sucks. I have been fired three times for some very specious reasons. Mostly that people decided they did not like me, once in violation of policy and once for not following an unethical directive.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Welcome to the US. Most of us work without a safety net in anyway. You can be fired for almost any reason in Illinois.

Yeah I know that, but don't apologise for pointing out that there are other ways which nations not as rich as the US can implement. The wealth discrepancy is your biggest problem in my opinion, but any suggestions to ease this, even by something so sensible as a UHS, is dismissed as socialism. The ordinary worker will continue suffer if things like the tax regime, which favours the rich (compared to other countries) continues.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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

Do you have any legal issues with the court decision?

I think people are mostly discussing the moral issues, or haven't you noticed ?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by lionking

Wrong. This is what you said:



You owe Morrigan an apology.

No I don't.

The response to a boss stating that the bulge in his pants is due to how you turn him on, is not to continue having personal conversations with the guy and sharing personal details from your private life.

The response is to let him know that what he said was inappropriate and unprofessional and unwelcomed.

But I don't expect you to understand this distinction.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by truethat

No I don't.

The response to a boss stating that the bulge in his pants is due to how you turn him on, is not to continue having personal conversations with the guy and sharing personal details from your private life.

The response is to let him know that what he said was inappropriate and unprofessional and unwelcomed.

But I don't expect you to understand this distinction.

What? Repeated again with emphasis:

Quote:

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.

You said Knight talked to her employer about the bulge in his pants. This is patently untrue. Just admit it and move on.

[Janadele]

It is amazing to me that this thread is still active

It is a crazy world when an employer cannot fire an employee without a court case ensuing. It is a wonder anyone would want to hire, nor start a business at all... it would certainly stop many from doing so.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by lionking

What? Repeated again with emphasis:





You said Knight talked to her employer about the bulge in his pants. This is patently untrue. Just admit it and move on.

It is not. But again with emphasis, I don't expect you to be able to see the nuance.

The appropriate response to a boss discussing his erection with you is to tell him to stop it. Not to continue with personal text messages and conversations about your sex life with your husband.

[Silly Green Monkey]

And did she? You're making a ton of assumptions about the interactions here.

[truethat]

No I'm not. Read the article.

Quote:

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”
Knight and Nelson – both married with children – started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.


She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight’s conduct may not have risen to that level and didn’t particularly offend her, Fiedler said.

Read more: http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x4...#ixzz2GAYvpK8M


Read more: http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x4...#ixzz2GAWzYS59

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by truethat

Seriously. You guys crack me up. You think it's "black and white" to say that discussing erections and your sex life with your colleagues at work is unprofessional? You don't think that this is very clearly inappropriate?

Wow

It is unprofessional, imnsho, that does not mean anything about the particulars of this case. If one person with the potential of power engages in such behaviors that is more likely harassment. But if both people engaged in the behavior, mutually, it becomes more complicated.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by truethat

No, more strawman arguments. We are not talking about your life experience. We are discussing a specific court case. We are discussing law. So take your silly 'prudish" argument and toss it.

So present the actual facts of the case, not second and third hand news stories.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by lionking

Yeah I know that, but don't apologise for pointing out that there are other ways which nations not as rich as the US can implement. The wealth discrepancy is your biggest problem in my opinion, but any suggestions to ease this, even by something so sensible as a UHS, is dismissed as socialism. The ordinary worker will continue suffer if things like the tax regime, which favours the rich (compared to other countries) continues.

Sometimes it gets better sometimes it gets worse.

[truethat]

Double post nvm

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by truethat

No I'm not. Read the article.

how is an AP stringer story the facts of the case?

Here is a UPI story

Knight also recalled "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.'"

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...#ixzz2GAZrpDwi

So what does that say about the facts of the case?
Both are allegations.

Niente

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

It is unprofessional, imnsho, that does not mean anything about the particulars of this case. If one person with the potential of power engages in such behaviors that is more likely harassment. But if both people engaged in the behavior, mutually, it becomes more complicated.

Exactly. However she is not suing for sexual harassment because she stated she wasn't bothered by the conversation. This creates a strange environment for other employees at the job. There were other women working at the job. One of those employees was the man's wife. I can't fathom how it's considered appropriate to engage in discussions about your sex life with your husband or lack thereof and your boss's penis and erections when his wife works in the same office.

Both she and the doctor created an unprofessional environment for the others in the office.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

And did she? You're making a ton of assumptions about the interactions here.

Presumably not, based on the very limited information we have here.

For all we know, the banter could have continued until the dentist retired were it not for the wife stepping in and issuing what looks like an ultimatum.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by truethat

Both she and the doctor created an unprofessional environment for the others in the office.

I'd be hard pressed to counter that statement save to suggest that the other employees may not have been aware that these exchanges were going on. Do we know if there were any witnesses to the my-pants-are-a-bulgin' comment, or was it made in the after hours when Melissa was purported to be hanging around ?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

how is an AP stringer story the facts of the case?

Here is a UPI story

Knight also recalled "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.'"

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...#ixzz2GAZrpDwi

So what does that say about the facts of the case?
Both are allegations.

Niente

Well we're going by the facts presented. And you know, that thing called common sense. Discussing your sex life with your husband with your boss is engaging in unprofessional and sexual talk at work.

I suppose I'm a prude in thinking that it's an off limits conversation with my boss to be talking about my sex life. But hey that's just me. I'm old fashioned that way, when I'm at work I talk about work and other non sexual things like my kids.

[pgwenthold]

What would a court make of the argument that he fired an employee he was tempted to sleep with while not firing an employee he was sleeping with? The wife worked in the office, too, right?

If they weren't married, this would be a clear case of sexual discrimination (firing an employee to accomodate an employee you are sleeping with? Ha)

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Stout

I'd be hard pressed to counter that statement save to suggest that the other employees may not have been aware that these exchanges were going on. Do we know if there were any witnesses to the my-pants-are-a-bulgin' comment, or was it made in the after hours when Melissa was purported to be hanging around ?

Where does it say in sexual harassment law that others have to hear it? Are ya just going to keep tossing that common sense out the window?

She was an at will employee and crossed the professional boundary to a very personal one and he decided to let her go. Don't cross professional boundaries when you can be fired at will, especially not when his wife is in the office.

And his wife is the one who found personal text messages and confronted the doctor. Obviously she thought something was up, otherwise what would the big deal be?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

What would a court make of the argument that he fired an employee he was tempted to sleep with while not firing an employee he was sleeping with? The wife worked in the office, too, right?

If they weren't married, this would be a clear case of sexual discrimination (firing an employee to accomodate an employee you are sleeping with? Ha)

That's what I think is interesting about this, technically the wife could sue him for sexual harassment.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by truethat

Where does it say in sexual harassment law that others have to hear it? Are ya just going to keep tossing that common sense out the window?

She was an at will employee and crossed the professional boundary to a very personal one and he decided to let her go. Don't cross professional boundaries when you can be fired at will, especially not when his wife is in the office.

And his wife is the one who found personal text messages and confronted the doctor. Obviously she thought something was up, otherwise what would the big deal be?

I wasn't talking about sexual harassment law, I was responding to your suggestion that the banter was creating an unprofessional environment. Should Melissa's lawyer feel that Melissa had a sexual harassment case she would have suggested filing a sexual harassment case, not a wrongfull dismissal one.

We don't know that "he decided" to let her go, based on the available information it's entirely possible he was forced to let her go.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Stout

I wasn't talking about sexual harassment law, I was responding to your suggestion that the banter was creating an unprofessional environment. Should Melissa's lawyer feel that Melissa had a sexual harassment case she would have suggested filing a sexual harassment case, not a wrongfull dismissal one.

We don't know that "he decided" to let her go, based on the available information it's entirely possible he was forced to let her go.

The banter does create an unprofessional environment. Just because people engage in this behavior doesn't make it legal. It is illegal if someone wants to make a case of it. I've listed the sexual harassment law around it. It seems many people think that as long as the banter is welcomed it isn't sexual harassment. It may not be a case of sexual harassment of the woman Melissa Nelson, however it can be a legal matter if others in the office feel she was given special treatment or that it made them uncomfortable in the office.

I'm not saying this is exactly the case here because we don't have enough information or testimony from the other employees. However I and many women and men I know would be very offended to hear this kind of discussion at work. I am a professional and expect the environment to remain professional while working. No one should be required to work under circumstances like this and if the others in the office wanted to sue for sexual harassment I would think they had a case for it.


Also, did you read the story? How do you get he was "forced" to let her go? Forced by whom?


Here's some more information on what sexual harassment law discusses.

Quote:

Sexually Themed Jokes: The Montana Human Rights Commission has found a hostile environment based solely on off-color jokes and cartoons displayed in the workplace. None of the jokes were said specifically to the complainant; none referred to her; the cartoons were distributed by men and women alike, apparently once or twice a month over several years; the cartoons weren't even sexist or misogynistic. The Commission, however, was not amused. It concluded that the jokes "ha[d] no humorous value to a reasonable person," and "offended [complainant] as a woman." The Commission ordered the city to pay damages, to "not . . . permit, tolerate, or condone the sexual harassment of any employee" (apparently including such humor), and to "evaluate on an annual basis the performance of each department head on the basis of the quality and success of their efforts to implement and enforce the antidiscrimination policies." 39

Another court has found a hostile environment based largely (though not entirely) on "caricatures of naked men and women, animals with human genitalia, . . . a cartoon entitled `Highway Signs You Should Know´ [that showed] twelve drawings of sexually graphic `road signs' (entitled, for example, `merge,´ `road open,´ etc.)," and so on. 40 Though "[m]any of the sexual cartoons and jokes . . . depicted both men and women," the court concluded that "widespread verbal and visual sexual humor -- particularly vulgar and degrading jokes and cartoons . . . may tend to demean women." 41 The court ultimately held that "every incident reported by [plaintiff]" -- the jokes as well as the other conduct -- "involves sexual harassment." 42

Similarly, the EEOC recently concluded that an employee's allegation that she was "sexually harassed by offensive jokes-of-the-day circulated to her and her co-workers, and by the Supervisor's praise [in a department meeting] of the co-worker circulating the jokes" was sufficient to state a claim under Title VII; 43 the jokes were neither at the offending employee's expense nor were they even generally sexist or misogynist. 44 The New Jersey Office of Administrative Law likewise found one incident of 11 pages worth of jokes being forwarded by e-mail to the whole department to be "sexual harassment" creating an "offensive work environment"; the judge "f[ou]nd the 'jokes' degrade, shame, humiliate, defame and dishonor men and women based upon their gender, sexual preference, religion, skin pigmentation and national and ethnic origin" and were thus illegal. 45

An official U.S. Department of Labor pamphlet likewise defines harassment as including cases where "[s]omeone made sexual jokes or said sexual things that you didn't like," with no requirement that the jokes be insulting or even misogynistic. 46 A Seattle Human Rights Department pamphlet gives "the secretary who was frequently told sexual jokes by her co-workers and supervisor" as an example of sexual harassment. 47 A Hanson, Massachusetts harassment policy for city employees defines sexual harassment as "any unwelcome action, sexual in content or implication, in the workplace that includes . . . sex oriented `kidding´ or `jokes' [and] sexually suggestive objects in the workplace." 48

Employment experts have gotten the message, and are passing it along to employers. Thus, they recommend, to avoid liability employers should purge workplaces of "blonde jokes" (on the plausible theory that they convey offensive attitudes towards women), 49 discussions of scenes from sex comedies such as "There's Something About Mary" -- "`It's exactly the sort of thing that could create a problem for somebody,´ says Carla Hatcher, a Dallas attorney who handles office sexual harassment cases" 50 -- and Clinton-Lewinsky jokes. 51

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/breadth.htm

As a supervisor in the past, I routinely had to make this distinction clear to employees. Although you and your pal might not care, it might not matter and may just constitute joking around, others in the workplace should not be subjected to this kind of banter. It creates a hostile work environment and brings favoritism into play which ultimately may affect non participating employees in their ability to do their job.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by truethat

Also, did you read the story? How do you get he was "forced" to let her go? Forced by whom?

His wife.

Based on the courts decision, posted a couple pages back ( link to PDF embedded in a CNN story, link posted by me ) where, on page 4 of the PDF we have the wife complaining about Melissa's clothing among other things.

It would appear the wife had a larger role in the firing than she's being given "credit" for.

[Janadele]

Naturally.

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by Janadele

It is amazing to me that this thread is still active

It is a crazy world when an employer cannot fire an employee without a court case ensuing. It is a wonder anyone would want to hire, nor start a business at all... it would certainly stop many from doing so.

The lawsuit isn't about the woman being fired, it's about her being fired for being a woman. Do you have daughters? Would you really want their careers beholden to the sexual desires of the men who employ them and their wives?

If women like this let sexism and misogyny roll over them then women will remain second class citizens, losing the status they've gained since the 1950's. Then again, you're Mormon, a faith that recently started excluding menstruating women from proxy baptisms. A woman wanting to be judged by her skill and competence instead of her ownership of a vagina may be a foreign concept to you.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

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

No, I see the point of removing temptation, I just didn't see your point.

Quote:

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.

What it seems to me that you're doing here is removing from him all responsibility for his own actions. If it is necessary for the temptation to be removed, the implication is that he would not be able to resist it, otherwise, why remove it? If resisting it is merely difficult or very difficult, then, I'm afraid, it's welcome to the world of grown ups which is very full of all sorts of temptation and we who live in it resist that temptation every day.

Short of actual psychological damage or very, very extreme provocation (which this wasn't) a human being, a member of a functioning society has the capacity to control their own actions. What if the temptation couldn't be removed? Further still, what if she could resist temptation and he couldn't, then what? Would you absolve him of responsibility for his own actions in that case? After all, he couldn't control himself.


I, and the rest of society, face temptation every day and resist it very successfully. What's so special about this bloke?

[NoahFence]

Has anyone ever seen a source for the "bulge in the pants" comment??

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by truethat

Seriously. You guys crack me up. You think it's "black and white" to say that discussing erections and your sex life with your colleagues at work is unprofessional? You don't think that this is very clearly inappropriate?

Wow

Okay, so now you are name-calling and then appealing to your incredulity (and mixing the allegations in the case).

You can toss around more HR lingo, but I've never seen the work world you are describing in the meatspace.