Of course it’s not okay and it’s immoral and it might be illegal, but clearly he can do it and in a legal office with only a few employees, it’s very unlikely he would face any consequences should he choose to discriminate on the basis of sex or gender in order to assuage his wife’s fears. He can discriminate if he wanted to (an example of privilege), and by acceding to his wife’s demands now, he is discriminating now.
My point is that the situation that the OP describes is simple, clear sex/gender discrimination, and there’s zero wiggle room about it. And the female paralegal is the one that faces the professional consequences, not the male boss. It is an example of social/institutional bias that is harming a woman for no other reason than she is a woman.
(And for Pete’s sake, why should the wife be so confident that he never had a romantic relationship with his male colleague or isn’t already gaming one with another woman. No one can ever be certain. You have to suck it up and make your peace with uncertainty.)
It is the OP’s responsibility to handle his personal relationship without burdening his employee’s professional life. If he would have taken his male paralegal on a trip, he should take his female paralegal, regardless of what his wife’s personal feelings are about it.
Which spouse are you talking about? The employee’s spouse is not something the OP can do anything about. It’s the OP’s decision regarding his own spouse that’s relevant.
I’ll make a clearer statement: The OP *must not *let his wife’s insecurities interfere with his employee’s professional development. It is his just burden as an employer to suffer the personal consequences at home for doing the right thing at work.
Sure, there is something to the argument that you don’t know what you will do if you’ve never been in a particular situation. People overestimate their ability to stick to their moral code. People are much weaker to temptation than they think.
However,cheating is not a single bad decision. It requires multiple bad decisions to get you where cheating would even be a possibility. It would be one thing if they were in the same room, on the same bed, both drunk and horny. Then, yeah, a single bad decision could lead to problems. But they aren’t.
The solution to the first paragraph is to put additional barriers. That is already why they are in separate rooms. To make it even more resolute, make it where you never even go into each other’s rooms, and never get drunk outside your room (if at all). Never be in the car unless you are driving to and from a place.
The solution is not to fire the woman and only hire men. That’s discrimination.
And, well, your spouses should trust you, unless you’ve given them actual reasons in the past to not trust you. You did swear to honor them (which means “not cheating on them”). Unless you have an open marriage, you clearly trusted them at some point to remain faithful.
Ah. Sorry. I completely misunderstood your point. For me, “can” is very strongly linked to morality by default. And I admit that I didn’t read carefully through this thread to see your other posts for context. (I just kinda let the arguments wash over me without paying attention to who said them.)
And referencing my previous post: that’s an example of a simple mistake.
A possible compromise that should meet all legal and moral guidelines:
-Decide that visits to inmates in prison are either mandatory or optional for your employee. You’re the boss, you can decide.
-Regardless of whether they’re mandatory or optional, provide a travel allowance for paralegals who go on these trips. Whatever you’d spend on booking a hotel room should be a good guideline for the travel allowance.
-Offer to book the hotel room for the paralegal, but don’t require it.
If your paralegal decides to go on the trip, she may decide to get up super-early and drive there on her own, meeting you at the prison, and asking for reimbursement for mileage. She may decide to book a room at a different hotel and put in for reimbursement for that room. She may decide to book at the same hotel and just get you to cover the bill.
The social aspect–the drinks at the watering hole after work–are absolutely not something you should be compelling. It’s the attendance at the meeting at prison which is work-relevant, and you can give your employee maximum flexibility in how they meet this work requirement.
I’ve done lots of time in the Army and other government work. I travelled. A LOT. And my bosses never bothered to ask what my spouse thought about it.
And if a superior ever came to me and said, “I’m going to this conference but you aren’t allowed to come because my spouse is uncomfortable with you…” Holy crap. His career would come to a screeching halt.
There are certain words in the English language that are being mis-used more and more in recent years. “Sexist” is one of those words. Many people in this thread are using it incorrectly. They are using it to mean “something that I find appalling”; rather than using it to mean what the dictionary says it means.
If the OP were a woman who had hired another woman; and if both of them were lesbians in committed lesbian relationships; and if the other people in the relationships were as uncomfortable with the situation as the actual spouses are – nobody would be claiming that the others were being sexist.
The situation in the OP has to do with several things: trust issues; the opportunity (whether taken or not) to be unfaithful; issues of perception; the issue of an unconventional situation; etc.
Pretty much this …
I mean, in the 20 years of marriage while my husband was active duty, he had several long land-based deployments [one boat did something infernally long in um, Charleston [?] and one did 17 months in the shipyard in Kittery Maine, and his third boat did 14 months in some other shipyard, and then he did at least 5 or 6 different schools over the years.] <Spadefish, Miami and San Juan>
If I was nervous at the idea of his screwing around, he would have had plenty of time over the 2 decades, including port calls in HookerHaven Germany, La Mad, Toulon, Holyloch and Tromso on the European side, and Rosy Roads PR, Port Liquerdale and Everglades on the New World side of the Atlantic…
Yes, I know military spouses get the rep of screwing around while the spouse is deployed, but to be honest, the gang I hung out in were pretty much monogamous - I can really only think of one of the wives that was screwing around, mrAru commented that more of hte guys screwed around than the wives did.
Sorry. Wrong. It is a situation affecting a woman’s professional development solely because of her status as a woman. Her male predecessor faced no such obstacle. Sex discrimination. Period.
Firing someone capable of the job just because of a worker’s sex, and the sexist attitudes of her husband and the OP’s wife, is a serious wrong. And if this terrible suggestion came to be acted upon, I would hope the paralegal would have the guts to file a lawsuit and collect handsomely.
I totally agree with the others that the spouses are clearly being sexist and unreasonable. However, I will add that I don’t know how to address that with them. Having the paralegal along for this work seems very reasonable to me, and it would be a shame to have the OP’s representation of his clients suffer in some way (perhaps small, perhaps large) because of these attitudes. Clearly the spouses need to join the 20th century, if for no other reason than to have an attorney perform reasonable tasks in defense of a client.
The issue is that when you have a straight male boss and a straight female employee, the dynamics are different than when you have two people of the same sex. There are genuine differences between the sexes that should be acknowledged and respected.
OP and his previous male employee sharing a hotel room is not in the least bit scandalous either for spouses or casual observers.
However, were OP to share a hotel room with his female employee, even if they remained perfectly chaste, eyebrows would be raised and assumptions might be made both from their spouses and from casual observers that could be very destructive; personally, professionally, even legally, for either party.
Nobody should have to share a hotel room with anyone at work, regardless of sex or gender. The OP’s former paralegal is clearly an exceptional case and not solely because of his being a man.
Furthermore, not going on a business trip at all affects professional development in a way that not sharing a room with your boss doesn’t
Regardless, that’s not even on the table in the current scenario. It’s irrelevant.
Definitely not my case (some of my own deployments have been 3 months long), and you guys are the ones whose country fetishized fucking in a car… I’m from a rural area in Spain where anybody who wants to have sex can easily find a bed. Opportunity is where you make it, and it is not where you make it not.
Absolutely I agree. I just think that a male boss treating male employees and female employees differently in the sense of respecting sexual dynamics/perception is not necessarily “sex discrimination”.
I am a bit late to the party, but the biggest flag for me in reading this is the drinking of alcohol. You refer to them as “drinks”. It sounds to me link you have previously associated this “work” trip with a large amount of social activity. If I were your wife, I too would be not okay with this. When I travel for work, I only drink during a business dinner or otherwise with a client. This is for many reasons: 1. I try to minimize the impact of the trip on my life (I get as much work done as possible) 2. I try to be in my best shape mentally for events the next day. 3. I am in an unfamiliar place 4. If something were to happen, it may be not clear on legal and economic impact who is responsible.
I don’t know the structure of your firm, but I would tell your wife that no alcohol, or emphasis thereto, will be imbibed and it will be far clearer to everyone that this is indeed a work trip. Share your receipts for reimbursement that demonstrate that upon return.
I was putting another scenario out there, not referring to the OP. Specifically, I was saying what would Quartz, who is saying the OP should not go because he should honor his wife’s wishes, would suggest in the case that the OP was not decision maker. Like, the boss says “Hey Joe, as part of your job you need to do an overnight trip once a month with Jill here, and if you or your wife don’t like it, tough luck, it’s part of the job.”