Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Technically it's more then a month's because of unemployment benefits that the employer has been paying into for a decade.Aaron MkII wrote:A month? I was thinking of a years worth.
The difference is her appearance wasn't relevant to her job at a dentist's office.ryacko wrote:Technically it's more then a month's because of unemployment benefits that the employer has been paying into for a decade.Aaron MkII wrote:A month? I was thinking of a years worth.
Though really, Hooters has already proven that they can hire and fire based on sexiness.
Yep. Some of those questions were rhetorical.General Zod wrote:Did you read any of the articles already posted?Simon_Jester wrote:How much say did Mr. Knight have in this decision? Did he make it on his own? Was it the result of an ultimatum by Mrs. Knight? Mrs. Nelson, the assistant- is there any evidence that she was actively pursuing a sexual relationship with Mr. Knight? Is there evidence that Mr. Knight ever did anything to pursue a relationship with Mrs. Nelson?
I can't think of any ethical code that makes it acceptable to fire an employee based on whether or not your spouse likes them.Simon_Jester wrote:Yep. Some of those questions were rhetorical.General Zod wrote:Did you read any of the articles already posted?Simon_Jester wrote:How much say did Mr. Knight have in this decision? Did he make it on his own? Was it the result of an ultimatum by Mrs. Knight? Mrs. Nelson, the assistant- is there any evidence that she was actively pursuing a sexual relationship with Mr. Knight? Is there evidence that Mr. Knight ever did anything to pursue a relationship with Mrs. Nelson?
Did Mr. Knight make the decision on his own? No, we're told it had to do with pressure from his wife.
Is there evidence that Mrs. Nelson was pursuing a relationship with Mr. Knight? No, nor vice versa.
Reading between the lines, there are two possibilities. One: Mr. Knight is a colossal jackass who unilaterally fired Mrs. Nelson because he couldn't stop wanting to hit on her. Two: Mr. Knight was stuck between a rock and a hard place by his wife's suspicion, whether that suspicion was well-founded or not.
I could see either of those being the case. I'm wondering what you'd do in Case Two.
It amuses me to question if this train of logic makes his wife a "gender traitor", since we are informed that ostensibly it was pressure from his wife that contributed to his decision.Lord Falcon wrote:Words fail me. This is just so disgusting and it makes me fear for the future of women in this country...
OK, so you're saying:General Zod wrote:I can't think of any ethical code that makes it acceptable to fire an employee based on whether or not your spouse likes them.
Arguably it would have been completely avoidable if the guy had kept his proverbial dick in his pants.Simon_Jester wrote:OK, so you're saying:General Zod wrote:I can't think of any ethical code that makes it acceptable to fire an employee based on whether or not your spouse likes them.
Don't fire the assistant, and if your wife files for divorce, that's just how the cookie crumbles. Bad news, but not something you could have avoided. Right?
I'd argue that in a real sense, this is the better and more honorable way to handle the situation. It's also a bit difficult for most men to carry out, I suspect.
The problem is is that the entire situation comes across as a blatant 'blame the victim' sort of thing. She has to face the consequences for his lack of self control (and apparent maturity) in dealing with people. As others have said, she evidently exhibited no interest and did nothing to encourage the behaviour, and yet he persisted in attempting to flirt and ask suggestive questions that - in my opinion - were way too invasive for their professional relationship.bilateralrope wrote:Are you going to answer my question or not ?General Zod wrote:It seems to me that Mrs Nelson wasn't the one putting his marriage in danger.
Should he have remained in a situation where he didn't think his self control would hold out indefinitely ?
Or do you see a third option that I can't ?
True as that may be, assuming we accept that the texting happened already, what should have been the next step that would have been acceptable to all parties involved? He's not a middle manager who can be fired or moved, if it's his own practice. I'm leaning on the "better severance package" as the best of a bad situation, but that also comes off as bribery if it's too generous,no?Connor MacLeod wrote:The problem is is that the entire situation comes across as a blatant 'blame the victim' sort of thing. She has to face the consequences for his lack of self control (and apparent maturity) in dealing with people. As others have said, she evidently exhibited no interest and did nothing to encourage the behaviour, and yet he persisted in attempting to flirt and ask suggestive questions that - in my opinion - were way too invasive for their professional relationship.bilateralrope wrote:Are you going to answer my question or not ?General Zod wrote:It seems to me that Mrs Nelson wasn't the one putting his marriage in danger.
Should he have remained in a situation where he didn't think his self control would hold out indefinitely ?
Or do you see a third option that I can't ?
Another way to put it is 'he's a guy, he can't help his urges and has no control, the woman shouldn't have put him in a position of temptation to begin with.' Can you see how silly the idea that sounds?
Fact is: This wouldn't have been an issue if the guy had more self control and hadn't sent the damn texts his wife had found in the first place. It was his one-sided attraction that brought this about, period.
He mans up and explains the situation to his wife and agrees to marriage counselling? If he's still stuck firing her he should be forced to give a very generous severance package seeing as she did nothing wrong.AniThyng wrote:True as that may be, assuming we accept that the texting happened already, what should have been the next step that would have been acceptable to all parties involved? He's not a middle manager who can be fired or moved, if it's his own practice. I'm leaning on the "better severance package" as the best of a bad situation, but that also comes off as bribery if it's too generous,no?
Hold up there. I meant it in the context of "assume we discuss this issue starting from a point where the texts already were sent", because the discussion is meaningless if we start from "if he had never done anything wrong in the first place...". But at least it prompted the 3rd way response that nobody gave on page 1.Connor MacLeod wrote:Why the hell should we 'assume' that? I don't even see how it changes matters. Is the guy any less responsible now that he's already sent the texts? Is there some sort of reason he DOESN'T have to keep it in his pants, or act like a fucking adult?
Maybe the couple should have gotten some goddamn counseling rather than trying to blame it on the assistant? If there's fear of infidelity because of some one sided suggestive texts there's some deeper problems there (she doesnt' trust him, or he isn't happy with her, or whatever.)
What's even more hilarious, for me, is that the two had worked together for ten years. If there were problems, there are lots of ways they could have resolved it in that time so that this would not have happened. Many places I've worked at have rules about what you can or can't wear to work (for safety reasons, so as not to give offense, etc.) and there's no reason such couldn't be done here. Indeed, the fact he apparently took no action OTHER than to complain makes me more than a little suspicious - it would be interesting to know when those 'complaints' about what she wore took place.
I'd like to know what code of ethics makes it acceptable to punish someone else for your own indiscretion.AniThyng wrote:Hold up there. I meant it in the context of "assume we discuss this with the texts already sent", because the discussion is meaningless if we start from "if he had never done anything wrong in the first place".Connor MacLeod wrote:Why the hell should we 'assume' that? I don't even see how it changes matters. Is the guy any less responsible now that he's already sent the texts? Is there some sort of reason he DOESN'T have to keep it in his pants, or act like a fucking adult?
Maybe the couple should have gotten some goddamn counseling rather than trying to blame it on the assistant? If there's fear of infidelity because of some one sided suggestive texts there's some deeper problems there (she doesnt' trust him, or he isn't happy with her, or whatever.)
What's even more hilarious, for me, is that the two had worked together for ten years. If there were problems, there are lots of ways they could have resolved it in that time so that this would not have happened. Many places I've worked at have rules about what you can or can't wear to work (for safety reasons, so as not to give offense, etc.) and there's no reason such couldn't be done here. Indeed, the fact he apparently took no action OTHER than to complain makes me more than a little suspicious - it would be interesting to know when those 'complaints' about what she wore took place.
I think we can all agree that if he was a executive/middle manager working for someone else he could have been moved to a different location or forced to resign, or less desirably if he had other locations or other dentists/partners, the dental assistant could be assigned to another dentist at the practice etc.Connor MacLeod wrote:I can actually improve on what I said in the previous post. The simple fact is, nothing changes the fact that the guy is responsible for his own actions. If he sent the texts, then he and he alone bears responsibility for the consequences. If that means he puts his marriage in jeopardy, that's his own fault, and not the assistant's. Keeping his own happiness and trying to escape his own fuckups does not justify depriving someone of their livelihood or employment.
More to the point, I have no sympathy for the wife either, since she's evidnetly deciding to 'blame the victim' as well, rather than hold her husband accountable (pressuring him into doing so isn't any better.) I really have to wonder what the fuck is going on in their marriage, since near as I can make sense of it either she knows he has a record (or at least a tendency) towards doing stupid shit like this (or being unfaithful), or she is simply paranoid and insecure. Either way its something they need to work out between themselves (and probably through cousneling) and has no bearing on the professional aspect.
I do welcome anyone trying to explain why this guy is more entitled to keeping his marriage and placating his wife despite what he did, than his assistant is entitled to being able to work and be who she is.
He pays her usually weekly wage until she finds a job better or equal to the one she lost. He gets rid of the temptation and she isn't stuck losing income because this guys home life is messed up. I would even find it fair if he was sued by the woman that he fired on the grounds of discrimination due to gender, but without knowing local laws this might fall flat due to the small size of the practice.AniThyng wrote:Well I think no one is saying what he ultimately did was ethical. I'm interested in divining what his alternatives were that result in fair outcomes for everyone involved, including the families involved.
So she's wearing scrubs that are.. tight fitting? I presume she's not buying them sizes too smaller deliberately, and I'm willing to bet she's buying/wearing the same stuff she's worn for years on end, so this right off the bat makes me less than sympathetic to the guy, because he must have been exposed to it for years without problems.According to the high court's decision, Knight complained to Nelson toward the end of her employment that her clothes were tight and "distracting." Cochrane said Knight asked her repeatedly to dress differently.
Nelson denied that what she wore was out of place, and when asked by CNN's Lemon whether she dressed appropriately at work, she said she wore scrubs.
So what does he do when he complains about her outfit? He makes an even more provocative, suggestive comment! Well, I can see why he had no choice then.At one point, Knight told Nelson that "if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing," the decision read.
Ah even better. He's flirting with a MARRIED woman on the job while he's married himself! Yet more proof of this guy's moral rectitude. And even better, his wife works at the place Nelson worked at and the only time she has an issue is.. when she discovers the texts. So why didn't Mr Dentist let his wife know about them? Didn't he think she might be offended or upset? Again bastion of moral rectitude he is....Nelson and Knight, both married with children, also exchanged text messages to each other outside of work. Neither objected to the texting.
But Knight's wife, who was employed at the same dental office, found out about those messages in late 2009 and demanded he fire Nelson.
err.. relationship? As I recall they were just coworkers, not much of a relationship, and hardly threatening. This guy makes it seem like there was more going on than there actually was. If there was, it was probably in his own head, given his own perverted comments.In response, Knight argued that Nelson was fired because of the "nature of their relationship and the perceived threat" to his marriage, not because of her gender. "
Can I say I find this even more disturbing? The guy only employs women? Isn't that like.. asking for trouble if he has issues interacting with women? More to the point, he's able to replace Nelson with someone else on his staff with no problems, implying that there were other assistants doing similar jobs. So he couldn't have rotated Nelson out but just kept her doing work elsewhere? Seriously? He was 'tempted' by simply being in the same fucking building?In fact, he said, Knight only employs women and replaced Nelson with another female worker.
If that is serious, the guy sounds like he has a fucking ego problem. She makes it explicit she's not interested in him so... how is an affair going to happen?Despite Nelson being 21 years younger than him, married, and 'not interested in a relationship,' Knight believed it would be too hard not to start an affair with her
Again this points to the issues being more with the guy than the woman.. she's wearing scrubs.. but he can't look at her and not get turned on? at work? The guy has the self control of a hyperactive ferret.While her former boss claimed her clothes were so tight he couldn't look at her without being aroused, Nelson said the only outfit she wore to work was standard scrubs worn by many nurses and assistants in dental offices.
Again I'm at a loss for words at this guy. The more I read, the more he comes off as a complete pervert and utter asshole. Who seriously talks to coworkers of the opposite gender that way and does not consider it offensive?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.
which reeks of hypocrisy. HE makes suggestive comments and flirts with her, both in person and in text, and he's 'religious?'Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.
