OK then use the big head and tell us what the “non-stupid” solution is to the previously posed scenario.
I’d imagine anyone thats been married has backpedaled away from a friendship that started changing. It’s no ones fault. Sometimes boy girl friendships can get serious very unexpectedly. It’s happened to me a couple times and I’ve skedaddled back to my wife and home. No way would I do anything to hurt my marriage.
Thankfully I’ve never had it happen with a coworker. That would be awkward. We don’t know what the relationship was between the dentist and his assistant. But it sounded pretty chummy and they had worked together 10 years. There wasn’t much else he could do except let her go. His marriage and family has to come first.
He could have saved his long-time employee from suddenly losing her job of 10 years by doing ANYTHING else but firing her. Come on! This is simple, guys. There are so many other ways to handle this without screwing over another a human being, and all begin with NOT firing her, and then proceeding toward an equitable solution agreed to by both parties.
The dentist is the one with the problem, not the worker. He needs to resolve his problem. But, without any active part played by the worker in the creation of the dentist’s problem, how could anyone conclude that the dentist was within his right to terminate her? Don’t tell me what the law says, I have read the Supreme Court opinion. Instead, tell me what is right.
I agree. It absolutely isn’t right. But after reading the ruling, I can’t find fault with the court’s decision-making process. They certainly had plenty of precedent. (The precedent also sucks.)
This is a pretty good example of why relatives shouldn’t work together. Jeez, the least he could have done is find her a job with one of his friends in the industry.
We never made it there because I refused to stop and ask for directions. <canned laughter>
What? It’s not like I’m going to let my *wife *drive! <canned laughter> <applause>
Nobody’s really arguing with you here, but we are looking for you to provide, oh call it two of the many other ways to handle the situation. And firing his wife isn’t an option.
I mean, sure, the guy probably had been neglecting is own marriage, and it sounds like she may have as well; and he made the unprofessional blunder of getting too much knowledge of his employee’s personal life–but that’s all water under the bridge at the time he canned her. So what else besides a termination should he have pulled out of his hat to fix the crummy situation?
Why so coy? People asked you what to do in that situation. Saying there are “so many other ways” is not an answer. If there are “so many other ways”, name some of them.
I don’t see a problem here. he’s the boss, and bosses can do any number of asshole things. Just because.
He values his marriage and sees that there’s a potential problem. There’s some indication that his long time relationship with the employee was becoming too comfortable and familiar. So he got rid of the problem.
Employees today have little loyalty to their employers and quit after receiving many hours of paid training from their company that allow them to command a higher salary somewhere else. It’s an attitude that I disagree with, but that’s another thread. If employees can leave on a whim, then employers are entitled to equally tenuous reasons.
He replaced the woman with another woman. No sexual discrimination. In various threads on the subject, some have implied that the man you just keep his urges in check. As a man, I think that feminist viewpoint assumes too much. My sexual drive is very powerful. I’m not going to go out and rape anyone, but I become very distracted by a beautiful woman and it’s a function of my biology. To ignore same for days on end is the same as telling me not to eat for a week because I’m a few pounds overweight.
The last sentence of my post #24 is one possible solution. (In a perfect world.)
By the by, I couldn’t help but notice that the employer was afraid to talk to either the employee, or her husband, without a pastor in the room. :rolleyes:
That being said, it was a crappy situation with very few, if any, reasonable alternatives, and though the man was clearly acting like a pig, the court cited many, many cases of legal precedent for upholding the decision. When I first read the story (prior to reading the ruling in full), I thought, “Well, it’ll just get overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court”, but now, I doubt that will happen, or that they’ll even look at it.
Independent witnesses can be very powerful legal allies. Nevertheless, my reading was that only boss & his wife went to their pastor–which would be more appropriate because the main problem was between boss and his [del]jealous shrew of a[/del] wife
If his marriage and family has to come first, how about stopping with the leering and sexting and inappropriate comments at work? It’s clear that his family is a distant second to his libido, and that firing this woman was a sop to his wife. It won’t stop him from acting out again with the next pretty face he becomes obsessed with.
It’s clear also that she did not return his interest. So just what did he mean when he said he couldn’t trust himself to be around her? Seems to me he’s hinting at rape or some other physical advances. She’s lucky to be out of that work situation, but he could have just told her that she needed to find another situation and given her time to find one, instead of putting her in the position of having to file a lawsuit. The guy is a putz.
How is this clear?
It’s important to remember that because the case was dismissed without a trial, the legal decisions operate from the perspective of an assumption that all her allegations are true. That doesn’t mean they actually are, and the appeals court noted in a footnote that the guy disputes this very issue.
Why so stupid?
Wait a moment, allow me to put on my mens rights reality glasses. This ought to help me.
Oh, ok. I was wrong. Now, I can see this issue from your perspective: Because the dentist is a pig and a coward, terminating his employee was the only course of action open to him.
I should have seen it before.
According to her interview with the press, she claimed to have zero interest in the guy sexually, and considered him to be a ‘father figure’ (her words); of course he would dispute that. Short of hearing any recorded interchanges between them, that pretty much has to suffice. I have no quarrel with the legal process, just with the way it was handled by the guy. It really didn’t have to get ugly or wind up in court.
So apart from name calling and ad hominem you’ve got nothing? Not that there’s anything wrong with that–so far only one reasonable option has been advanced: transferring her to a colleague.
Is this a “for cause” termination? Arguably it is, but you usually think of “for cause” terminations as being for some culpable reason (e.g. poor performance, misconduct, absenteeism), rather than something you can’t really help. Can you stop being hot? I wonder how the unemployment office is going to handle this. How is she going to phrase this in interviews?
E.g.
Manager: Why did you leave your last job?
Her: I was to hot to hold
BTW and FWIW, I think all this talk about the woman being too hot is a mistake. The issue is that the guy got infatuated with her. People get infatuated with other people despite them not necessarily being the hottest people around. Charles got infatuated with Camilla Parker-Bowles and ruined his marriage with Diana despite the former not being particularly good looking at all.
Once he was already infatuated with her then her wearing tight clothing etc. would be an issue. But that doesn’t mean that’s what it was all about.
Update: the Iowa Supreme Court has granted a motion for rehearing.
The dentist will probably be on the hook for some sort of compensation. I’m okay with that. It’s the price you pay when you’re too stupid to come up with a better reason than, “My assistant is too hot to work with so I fired her.”
Also, are the tattoo photos there just to make him look like a douche? If so, mission accomplished.
They can’t do that.
Where will they find another man of his calibre?
ba-da-bump tish!