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

[Nephew Twiddleton]

To answer your question directly, yes. But you're asking about inconsistency where I'm actually rethinking my position based on personal experience and perception of such. I'm not contradicting myself except in the sense that I'm possibly changing my mind.

[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."

For example, in context, LMNO was genuinely curious. He wasn't getting off on it. Villager started getting sick shortly after I lost the infestation. I forget why Tanya brought it up. It did make me blush, but I forget the context. Plus she and I are both in stable relationships.

Interesting side note, she and I used to be enemies, and today she gave me a Christmas hug.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To answer your question directly, yes. But you're asking about inconsistency where I'm actually rethinking my position based on personal experience and perception of such. I'm not contradicting myself except in the sense that I'm possibly changing my mind.

Oh, OK.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

S'all good boss

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

S'all good boss

[LMNO]

I have to agree with Nigel.  The lawsuit, in the way it was framed, was baseless.  At the same time, I feel that the owner was wrong in terminating her employement.  She should have tried a different angle.

At least in my company, our sexual harassment policy encompasses the entire environment, not just what happens between two people; and it also doesn't matter how the person feels about it.

In a strict interpretation, the employer's actions were harassment, even if the woman who was fired didn't feel harassed.  The owner acted in a way that created a "potentially hostile environment" for everyone in the office, employees and clients alike.  It would still be a tough case to make, but at least it would have a chance.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I have to agree with Nigel.  The lawsuit, in the way it was framed, was baseless.  At the same time, I feel that the owner was wrong in terminating her employement.  She should have tried a different angle.

At least in my company, our sexual harassment policy encompasses the entire environment, not just what happens between two people; and it also doesn't matter how the person feels about it.

In a strict interpretation, the employer's actions were harassment, even if the woman who was fired didn't feel harassed.  The owner acted in a way that created a "potentially hostile environment" for everyone in the office, employees and clients alike.  It would still be a tough case to make, but at least it would have a chance.

That's your company's policy, though. Not the law. The law doesn't presume to dictate what, exactly, constitutes sexual harassment, for a number of very valid reasons.

If she felt sexually harassed, she could have filed a sexual harassment lawsuit. Apparently, according to her, she didn't. For other people to say that she SHOULD have felt harassed is kind of... paternalistic and gross. It puts me in mind of telling an adult woman that the consensual sexual encounter she had was actually rape because YOU don't approve of it.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Yeah i see what youre saying there.