Bosses can legally fire employees they see as an 'irresistible attraction'

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Why would mediation be necessary? Whatever happened to "lets have a chat." if youve been working with someone for ten years why wouldnt you let them know they were bugging the shit out of you? Why wouldnt you give them some warning or indication that they were getting on your nerves?


And by protection of the employer i meant from lawsuits like these. Even though he won i imagine he wont be getting a lot of customers and may be out of work himself. But youre right in that people up and leaving you fucks you over.

So, once again, you're talking about what everyone "should" do in order to be nicer people. And you want to implement that into public policy how?

If I've been working with someone for ten years, odds are that "you're just getting on my nerves these days" is not going to be an especially productive chat. It might be the kind of thing that relationship therapy could help, but really, in a small work environment like that most people are going to try to come up with ways to work things out. Hiring and training an employee is hard and expensive.

So again, my question is, how do you implement "trying to work things out" as an enforceable public policy? And does it go both ways, or are employees not, under your envisioned public policy, required to also "try to work things out" before giving notice?

I don't think you've really thought this through, because it's not workable... it's a pipe dream world where everybody is just a better person. What you're saying is self-contradictory... do you want it to be policy (aka "law") or do you want it to be voluntary? If you want it to be policy, exactly what do those laws look like, how are they enforced, and where does funding come from? Do you want it to be the law that an employer has to document the reasons they want to fire an employee, and have a conversation about those reasons, even when the employee has done nothing wrong?

Can you please describe the policies and procedures you would like to see enacted for the protection of employees and employers?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I don't know Nigel. Not all ideas start off fully baked. Of course I haven't thought this all the way through. Preferably it would be a voluntary thing, like anything else. I just don't think that people should be fired for stupid reasons, especially if they have no idea that anything is going on.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't know Nigel. Not all ideas start off fully baked. Of course I haven't thought this all the way through. Preferably it would be a voluntary thing, like anything else. I just don't think that people should be fired for stupid reasons, especially if they have no idea that anything is going on.

The thing is, this conversation is about whether the court should have mandated that the dentist could not fire his employee for the reason he did. It's about legality, not morality. It almost sounds as if you're wanting to have a different conversation, about what is right from a moral perspective, ie. how people should, ideally, behave, rather than the conversation we are in about whether the legal system should wield their power to force people to behave according to a particular code.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In other words "I don't think people should be fired for stupid reasons" is a different conversation from "I think the government should regulate what reasons people can be fired for".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Much as "I don't think people should be jerks" is a very different discussion from "I think the government should regulate speech to prevent people being jerks".

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.

Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.

But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.

Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.

But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.

Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.

She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or  not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.

Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses...  people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.

Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.

But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.

Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.

She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or  not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.

Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses...  people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.

I know that he didn't break the law in firing her. He did break the law in sexually harassing her. He just lucked out she didn't see it that way. Probably because of the different ways that men and women tend to view things (e.g.- "she totally wants my junk"ism vs. "I'm being friendly and sociable with a man who is old enough to be my father")

Personally, I can't sympathize with him, but again, I'm running around right now. I'll give this more thought when I'm bouncing about less.

[Salty]

I think some of the confusion here is that it seems wrong that he's clearly discriminating. He absolutely is, but that's a loaded word. We discriminate daily and make harsh decisions based on our personal preferences. You do not want a corporation doing this because Shit Gets Bad.

Sexual discrimination is one thing, sexual harassment is another.

People are people. Sweaty, stupid, religious people, and they shouldn't be punished for that.

Especially when, you know, there a many other more important issues like quality control, actually unsafe work conditions, and healthcare cry out for attention.

[Salty]

I take back the whole they shouldn't be punished thing. I'm all for that.

Only by me.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.

Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.

But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.

Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.

She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or  not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.

Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses...  people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.

I know that he didn't break the law in firing her. He did break the law in sexually harassing her. He just lucked out she didn't see it that way. Probably because of the different ways that men and women tend to view things (e.g.- "she totally wants my junk"ism vs. "I'm being friendly and sociable with a man who is old enough to be my father")

Personally, I can't sympathize with him, but again, I'm running around right now. I'll give this more thought when I'm bouncing about less.

You seem to be under the impression that sexual innuendo, jokes, or comments in the workplace are simply illegal. Sexual harassment isn't codified as a distinct set of actions or words, it's entirely about feelings, which is one of the reasons it's so hard to quantify. Is it sexual harassment for you to kiss your wife in front of your co-worker? No, unless they feel sexually harassed. Is it illegal to hit on your employee? No, unless you are coercive about it, or unless your behavior continues after they rebuff your advances. That's why there are so many protocols around identifying the behavior and asking for it to stop, or providing evidence that you felt afraid to ask for it to stop because of a reasonable fear of coercion.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.

Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.

But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.

Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.

She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or  not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.

Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses...  people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.

I know that he didn't break the law in firing her. He did break the law in sexually harassing her. He just lucked out she didn't see it that way. Probably because of the different ways that men and women tend to view things (e.g.- "she totally wants my junk"ism vs. "I'm being friendly and sociable with a man who is old enough to be my father")

Personally, I can't sympathize with him, but again, I'm running around right now. I'll give this more thought when I'm bouncing about less.

You seem to be under the impression that sexual innuendo, jokes, or comments in the workplace are simply illegal. Sexual harassment isn't codified as a distinct set of actions or words, it's entirely about feelings, which is one of the reasons it's so hard to quantify. Is it sexual harassment for you to kiss your wife in front of your co-worker? No, unless they feel sexually harassed. Is it illegal to hit on your employee? No, unless you are coercive about it, or unless your behavior continues after they rebuff your advances. That's why there are so many protocols around identifying the behavior and asking for it to stop, or providing evidence that you felt afraid to ask for it to stop because of a reasonable fear of coercion.

I'm not. A male friend of mine in high school used to call a mutual female friend "Sugartits." He's also very obviously gay. I can tell the difference between friendly jests.

I saw in another article elsewhere that he texted her asking how many orgasms she had in x amount of days. Articles says she didn't respond to that text. Hmm. A female coworker did ask me about my frequency with Villager around my birthday. I made a joke about my birthday coming up- this was around the time of the bedbug infestation, where I wasn't getting any very much.

Matter of fact, LMNO asked me in person when the last time I got laid was, a few weeks after this. I mentioned my birthday again.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.

Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.

But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.

Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.

She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or  not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.

Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses...  people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.

I know that he didn't break the law in firing her. He did break the law in sexually harassing her. He just lucked out she didn't see it that way. Probably because of the different ways that men and women tend to view things (e.g.- "she totally wants my junk"ism vs. "I'm being friendly and sociable with a man who is old enough to be my father")

Personally, I can't sympathize with him, but again, I'm running around right now. I'll give this more thought when I'm bouncing about less.

You seem to be under the impression that sexual innuendo, jokes, or comments in the workplace are simply illegal. Sexual harassment isn't codified as a distinct set of actions or words, it's entirely about feelings, which is one of the reasons it's so hard to quantify. Is it sexual harassment for you to kiss your wife in front of your co-worker? No, unless they feel sexually harassed. Is it illegal to hit on your employee? No, unless you are coercive about it, or unless your behavior continues after they rebuff your advances. That's why there are so many protocols around identifying the behavior and asking for it to stop, or providing evidence that you felt afraid to ask for it to stop because of a reasonable fear of coercion.

I'm not. A male friend of mine in high school used to call a mutual female friend "Sugartits." He's also very obviously gay. I can tell the difference between friendly jests.

I saw in another article elsewhere that he texted her asking how many orgasms she had in x amount of days. Articles says she didn't respond to that text. Hmm. A female coworker did ask me about my frequency with Villager around my birthday. I made a joke about my birthday coming up- this was around the time of the bedbug infestation, where I wasn't getting any very much.

Matter of fact, LMNO asked me in person when the last time I got laid was, a few weeks after this. I mentioned my birthday again.

OK... so I guess I am wondering why you made the statement that "the fact is, he did break the law"? 

I am really confused about what, exactly, you're arguing. Don't take this the wrong way, but are you drinking while you cook? (I would be, if why I ask, and you're not making a whole lot of sense.)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Small businesses can't survive the HR hilarity found at large companies.  If they don't break the law, well, I guess they can do what they like.

Is the guy in the story a complete shitlicker?  Yes.

Should he be able to do what he did?  Unfortunately, yes.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.

Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.

But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.

Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.

She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or  not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.

Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses...  people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.

I know that he didn't break the law in firing her. He did break the law in sexually harassing her. He just lucked out she didn't see it that way. Probably because of the different ways that men and women tend to view things (e.g.- "she totally wants my junk"ism vs. "I'm being friendly and sociable with a man who is old enough to be my father")

Personally, I can't sympathize with him, but again, I'm running around right now. I'll give this more thought when I'm bouncing about less.

You seem to be under the impression that sexual innuendo, jokes, or comments in the workplace are simply illegal. Sexual harassment isn't codified as a distinct set of actions or words, it's entirely about feelings, which is one of the reasons it's so hard to quantify. Is it sexual harassment for you to kiss your wife in front of your co-worker? No, unless they feel sexually harassed. Is it illegal to hit on your employee? No, unless you are coercive about it, or unless your behavior continues after they rebuff your advances. That's why there are so many protocols around identifying the behavior and asking for it to stop, or providing evidence that you felt afraid to ask for it to stop because of a reasonable fear of coercion.

I'm not. A male friend of mine in high school used to call a mutual female friend "Sugartits." He's also very obviously gay. I can tell the difference between friendly jests.

I saw in another article elsewhere that he texted her asking how many orgasms she had in x amount of days. Articles says she didn't respond to that text. Hmm. A female coworker did ask me about my frequency with Villager around my birthday. I made a joke about my birthday coming up- this was around the time of the bedbug infestation, where I wasn't getting any very much.

Matter of fact, LMNO asked me in person when the last time I got laid was, a few weeks after this. I mentioned my birthday again.

OK... so I guess I am wondering why you made the statement that "the fact is, he did break the law"? 

I am really confused about what, exactly, you're arguing. Don't take this the wrong way, but are you drinking while you cook? (I would be, if why I ask, and you're not making a whole lot of sense.)

I'm reconsidering my position, Nigel. Hence the "Hmmm."