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

[Bu🤠ns]

My issue with this is that the responsibility for maintaining professionalism is being projected on the woman and not the one holding the view.  Any way you swing it, the argument goes somewhere along the lines of the dentist relinquishing accountability for his own thoughts and actions and, as a result, objectifying the woman.  The man is responsible for his own marriage not the woman. 

I had to think about the small business argument and while that does throw things a bit I'm not sure it should apply.  From what I've understood, to do it legally one puts the employee on a set of disciplinary actions, thoroughly documented, that if not followed results in termination.  Of course, Nigel's case might have been more unique as it sounds behavioral...so I can't really go much further in that regard.

As far as the dentist, if things get weird and uncomfortable at least it would present her with the CHOICE of staying or leaving rather than a full-on canning.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hm. I'm of mixed feelings on this. Before y'all jump me, let me explain.

In a larger business setting and you find that you're in an awkward relational or emotional situation with an employee, you kind of have to suck it up... but you also have a built-in support network of other coworkers and management. When you are a small business owner such as a dentist or, as in my own case as a small glass supply business, you are working alone with maybe one to five other employees present at a time.

I am a firm believer in small businesses (under, say, 50 employees) being able to let employees go for issues as trivial as personality clashes or sexual distraction. Working with a guy or chick you hate (or like too much) could make a huge difference in the bottom line... at that level, you're talking about YOUR business, YOUR ability to focus, in relation to your business success. You CAN'T get away from them in a small business that size. I let go of a guy who simply bugged the shit out of me. If I had been unable to let him go (we're still friends BTW) I would have gladly collapsed the whole business and sacked everyone in order to not work with him anymore.

Yeah, I cannot fly with this one, sorry. Mostly because I have been the young girl (17) who was being sexually harassed by her boss (and when I finally worked up the courage to report him I was asked what I did to make him think his behaviour would be welcome, but that's a different story). I cannot get on board with the idea that because Person A finds Person B sexually attractive, a feeling that is not reciprocated, Person B should lose their job. Seriously, why should I be punished -- lost my freaking job -- because my boss has decided I'm fuckable?

I've worked in small businesses where I've been attracted to someone. I've also worked in small businesses with incompetent, bigoted assholes. I think it's harder with the personality clashes, and I do see your point there Nigel, although I think there should be a time limit on it. In this case, the woman had worked in this dental office for ten years, so I'm not sure how she suddenly became such a distraction that he had to let her go. But in cases where you're attracted to a coworker? You suck it the fuck up and move on. It is possible to maintain a professional working relationship with someone you want to drag into bed; I've done it more than once (and hell, Pæs and I work in the same office!)

This woman's argument that she couldn't have been let go if she had been a man is, in this context, flawed because it assumes that business owners are never attracted to men. She presumes that there is never a situation in a small business setting where a business owner could be attracted to a male employee to such an extent that it jeopardizes the well-being of the owner and therefore of the business. That's manifestly incorrect.

Agreed, and that argument struck me as a little odd. I got what she was trying to say -- that it was a gender-based firing because her presumably heterosexual boss wouldn't have wanted to stick it to her if she'd been a man -- but the argument as she made it is flawed.

The thing is, with a business that small, working in close proximity with someone, IT DOESN'T MATTER why he fired her. It really just doesn't. He wasn't sexually harassing her, so that's a strawman. He just wanted her out of his life and his business. Like I said before, if this kind of thing happens in larger business setting, you HAVE to suck it up... but you have the corporate buffer, as well. When you're a small business owner, you don't have that buffer and the well-being of your business depends on your ability to hold your shit together.

Is it ideal? No. But at least he was honest about it, which means she gets a good reference and can collect unemployment. If he was being an asshole about it, he could have come up with some bullshit to pin on her and cheated her out of her reference and unemployment eligibility.

You seem to be claiming that the court did something fucked by upholding the dentist's right to fire an employee simply because he was uncomfortable. I disagree. The court was right; small business owners are not and should not be forced to retain employees they are uncomfortable with, regardless of whether it's the fault of the employee.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

  I find myself agreeing with Nigel again.

[Bruno]

This is a perfect example why I no longer feel that small businesses are inherently any better than large corporations, and have thus stopped supporting them.


Go Wal-Mart!

[Salty]

This is a perfect example why I no longer feel that small businesses are inherently any better than large corporations, and have thus stopped supporting them.


Go Wal-Mart!

I dunno. I think the attitude that this dentist is supposed to I've daily with an unpleasant situation comes from the plastic, PC, SHH or HR will hear you, corporate world. Its great that big companies put things in place to protect people from that kind of discrimination because those jobs are meant to be as fillable as possible. Any meat sack with thumbs, OR NOT, will do. Now customers expect such rigidity in their service people, they don't want them to glands, or bills, or anything but a shit swallowing grin.

Of course small business can be terrible, they're still the product of human beings.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, "that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

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.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month's severance. He later told Nelson's husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

How is this not sexual harassment? Also, it seems like he's not really in control here, since it was his wife's and his pastor's idea to fire her.

I kinda see Nigel's point, but considering the rest of the article, I can't agree with the court's ruling.

[Salty]

The again, where exactly does it end for small business? What if you don't want to employ someone who's black because you're a racist piece of garbage?

On one hand, its their business and it may fail or succeed based in the small choices they make and the relationships they build or fail yo build.

On the other hand they're a racist piece of garbage.

This guys sounds like an asshole who needs to get his monkey brain in check and/or get laid.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

If he was afraid that he was going to try and start an affair, that's on him to fix in his own head, or maybe go to marriage counseling.

Or maybe because he is in his 50s and she's in her early 30s it's a midlife crisis thing. He's a dentist, he can go get a flash car if he likes.

[Bruno]

This is a perfect example why I no longer feel that small businesses are inherently any better than large corporations, and have thus stopped supporting them.


Go Wal-Mart!

I dunno. I think the attitude that this dentist is supposed to I've daily with an unpleasant situation comes from the plastic, PC, SHH or HR will hear you, corporate world. Its great that big companies put things in place to protect people from that kind of discrimination because those jobs are meant to be as fillable as possible. Any meat sack with thumbs, OR NOT, will do. Now customers expect such rigidity in their service people, they don't want them to glands, or bills, or anything but a shit swallowing grin.

Of course small business can be terrible, they're still the product of human beings.

Yeah, it's more about how the business is run. Wal-Mart was a facetious example. Costco or Starbucks would probably be better.

Some of the worst stories I've heard about people on the job were from folks working for some Little Napoleon, alcoholic/cokehead/Christian zealot, small business owner who has wild swings of emotion.

[Signora Pæsior]

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, "that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

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.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month's severance. He later told Nelson's husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

How is this not sexual harassment? Also, it seems like he's not really in control here, since it was his wife's and his pastor's idea to fire her.

I kinda see Nigel's point, but considering the rest of the article, I can't agree with the court's ruling.

Yeah, this. I mean, on one hand, she has quite clearly said that, to her, it didn't reach the level of sexual harassment. And that's awesome, and I don't want to try and label someone else's experiences. But I don't think it's much of a leap to say that someone else in that situation would have absolutely found his comments to be sexual harassment. Which is why, IMO, saying that talking about sexual harassment in this specific instance is a strawman is somewhat disingenuous.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

She might not have seen it as sexual harassment because she didnt expect that from him. Article even says she was surprised. Its also that peoplee equate sexual harassment with the worplace equivalent of tits or gtfo. The end result is the same though. Boss couldnt bonk this woman so she gets fired.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The car comment is especially skeezy. And also suggests again midlife crisis

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This is a perfect example why I no longer feel that small businesses are inherently any better than large corporations, and have thus stopped supporting them.


Go Wal-Mart!

I dunno. I think the attitude that this dentist is supposed to I've daily with an unpleasant situation comes from the plastic, PC, SHH or HR will hear you, corporate world. Its great that big companies put things in place to protect people from that kind of discrimination because those jobs are meant to be as fillable as possible. Any meat sack with thumbs, OR NOT, will do. Now customers expect such rigidity in their service people, they don't want them to glands, or bills, or anything but a shit swallowing grin.

Of course small business can be terrible, they're still the product of human beings.

Yes, small business owners are not inherently better people. It's just a better model on a lot of levels.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, "that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

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.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month's severance. He later told Nelson's husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

How is this not sexual harassment? Also, it seems like he's not really in control here, since it was his wife's and his pastor's idea to fire her.

I kinda see Nigel's point, but considering the rest of the article, I can't agree with the court's ruling.

OK, those comments are sexual harassment (IMO) and I think she would have been justified in filing a sexual harassment lawsuit. That, however, is a different issue from whether the court should have ruled that he had no right to fire her. Whether he's morally right is also a different issue from whether the court should rule that he had no right to fire her.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The again, where exactly does it end for small business? What if you don't want to employ someone who's black because you're a racist piece of garbage?

On one hand, its their business and it may fail or succeed based in the small choices they make and the relationships they build or fail yo build.

On the other hand they're a racist piece of garbage.

This guys sounds like an asshole who needs to get his monkey brain in check and/or get laid.

Courts have ruled that small businesses can practice certain types of hiring discrimination if it suits their business model. Some large businesses can also practice hiring discrimination... Hooters, for example. Many small business owners practice racial preference in hiring... unless they tell someone, who's going to know? You're describing something that is more or less impossible to legislate.

My argument isn't whether the business owner is right, it's whether the court was right in upholding his right to fire an employee for the simple reason that he doesn't, for whatever reason, want to work with her anymore. In my opinion, a small business owner should not be legally forced to continue to work with an employee they don't want to work with, for any reason. For the court to rule otherwise would throw a huge wrench in the ability of small business owners to run their businesses, which is why the rules are different for them in the first place.

Mang's argument is that the burden should be upon the business owner to get therapy so that he can deal with his issue of being attracted to his assistant.

How far do you really want to take that, if it became a precedent? I don't think any of you guys are really thinking through the absurdity of the ramifications you're proposing. Sure, in this case, you're like "That guy is wrong! It's his problem and he should have to suck it up and deal with it!" but the burden that precedent could potentially place on small business owners or other smalltime employers is pretty heavy. Alty and Mang, as small business owners, I'd like you to imagine for a moment that you found yourself the employer of an assistant that for some reason made you really uncomfortable, but you could not legally let go. Going to work puts a knot in your stomach... you hate it. The stress of the situation is taking a toll on your marriage. You are powerless to do anything about it, and your emotional state and ability to do your job is slipping.

What do you do?

That's the situation a court ruling against him would have put thousands of small business owners like yourselves in.