Employers can fire workers they find too sexy

[bilateralrope]

There is another implication here that I think people may have missed. This decision can be used as cover for anyone sued for sexual harassment and subsequent unlawful termination.

"I did not fire her because she would not put out. I fired her because she was so attractive, it created a workplace distraction"

Ok, that is a big problem.

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.

Now that I think about it more, I realize that I can't. So I now realize that my previously stated position was wrong.

Oh and some interesting tidbits from Zod's cnn article on page one.. just to show the caliber of guy we're dealing with.
...

And now he looks even worse. Making my previous position even harder to justify.

[General Zod]

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.

I don't understand why you think everyone involved deserves a fair outcome. The other employees and Mrs. Nelson, sure. Doctor Feelgood and his wife? I'm not terribly sympathetic towards either one and have to wonder at what point you think someone should be forced to deal with the repercussions of their unethical behavior.

[AniThyng]

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.

I don't understand why you think everyone involved deserves a fair outcome. The other employees and Mrs. Nelson, sure. Doctor Feelgood and his wife? I'm not terribly sympathetic towards either one and have to wonder at what point you think someone should be forced to deal with the repercussions of their unethical behavior.

Well fair doesn't necessarily mean "good". If you think that the fair outcome is he should pay Mrs. Nelson a handsome sum in severance/attend mandatory sexual harrasment courses/sell off his clinic, have his wife realize she could do better and leave him, and the community stop going to his practice, okay.

Or perhaps he should have just done that whole counselling thing. Yeah I can go with that.

[Connor MacLeod]

The only thing left to wonder is why this sorry state of affairs managed to last an entire decade under those conditions. Something to do with a larger issue of women being expected to put up with such things, yes?

I don't think there is much to wonder at if you read the links provided. It seems that while they've been working together for more than ten years, the problems are of a more recent vintage (within the last year or so prior to getting fired.) And given the woman's attitude on the matter vs what the guy said, it seems that it was more on his side of things than hers. She says she viewed him as more of a father figure, while its evident he felt something else entirely.

What I find disturbing is all the mention of 'irresistible' and all this other shit. either he's bullshitting to cover his ass, or this guy has some other issues with the woman that are damn unhealthy and lead to this (pretty much as Aaron read it, honestly.) I mean when I was hunting up more articles I saw some pictures of the woman - she's damn attractive, but hardly the level of 'goddess' that this guy makes her out to be. Hell she even says that about herself!

Honeslty its hard to justify the guy getting ANY sort of fair shake because of all the shit you read into this. My take on it is that the guy developed an unhealthy fixation on her, and it lead to all this bullshit. all the 'irresistable' and 'distracting' bullshit, all the 'to save my marriage', and all that really just act as a smokescreen to hide the fact this guy couldn't cope with the mere existence of a woman he was attracted to in his vicinity so he had to get rid of her. That speaks of the guy (and probably his wife) having issues, and this guy having problems being able to adapt to new circumstances. If it caused him problems, he should have sought better cousnelling than a pastor - or the guy simply shouldn't be associating with women period.

And I'll be honest, I may be overreacting a bit, but I feel its justfied. The way this guy acts just comes off as being unhealthy as fuck to me.

[Keevan_Colton]

It's interesting to consider the decision if you turn things around a bit, since sexual orientation and gender are protected classes...and she is being fired because of the sexual orientation of her employer and her gender...

[lance]

I'd like to know what code of ethics makes it acceptable to punish someone else for your own indiscretion.

Utilitarianism

[houser2112]

In fact, he said, Knight only employs women and replaced Nelson with another female worker.

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?

I'm not going to comment on the case itself since everything's been said that I would say, but I believe it's likely he has no choice but to hire women for the hygienist role. Every single dental practice I've been exposed to as an actual or potential patient, has had every non-dentist role in the office filled by females. I'm sure there must be male hygienists out there, but they are quite rare.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I'm not going to comment on the case itself since everything's been said that I would say, but I believe it's likely he has no choice but to hire women for the hygienist role. Every single dental practice I've been exposed to as an actual or potential patient, has had every non-dentist role in the office filled by females. I'm sure there must be male hygienists out there, but they are quite rare.

Rare, yes. But this guy either searched for one and couldn't find, or never bothered to specifically search for a male assistant, or actually specifically employed only females. Given that he seemed unable to keep it in his pants, odds are he looked specifically for women. If the article had specified attractive women, the case would be even worse against him.

[lazerus]

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.

Utilitarianism.

I own and run a small business in the United States, and to be perfectly frank, it's not for my employees benefit. If one of them is interfering in the efficient operation of the business for any reason not specifically protected by law (such as race), that is justification to fire them. You can argue that the dentist here is being an insecure, weak-willed jackass, and I won't say you're wrong, but just because his actions are personally offensive does not mean they're legally or morally improper.

[weemadando]

Yes. Yes they are.

You may be running a business for profit, but you are also responsible for the wellbeing of your employees, which includes not firing them because you want to stick your dick in them.

[Scrib]

If the doctor does not feel that he can't resist exposing himself to a potentially devastating sexual harassment suit isn't it more to his benefit to fire one to save the rest.

[weemadando]

Maybe he should have paid out a serious severance package or arranged a transfer to another practice rather than just firing them then?

[lazerus]

Yes. Yes they are.

You may be running a business for profit, but you are also responsible for the wellbeing of your employees, which includes not firing them because you want to stick your dick in them.

In my position as manager and owner, I am responsible for my employees well-being only insofar as they are employees, and that responsibility is subordinate to my responsibility to ensure the business is efficiently run. If I believe an employee is seriously harming the business with their presence (say, by destroying my marriage which will slightly impair my ability to run things), then it is my job to fire them. The dentist in this case is a prick because he's evidently so spineless he can't just get over it, but the fact remains, he evidently can't, so he's within his rights.

In short, the girl in question isn't being fired for being too sexy. She's being fired because the dentists wife said, "Get rid of her," and he considers the end of his marriage to be slightly more disruptive than replacing a single employee.

Maybe he should have paid out a serious severance package or arranged a transfer to another practice rather than just firing them then?

That would have been better, yes.

[weemadando]

Yes. Yes they are.

You may be running a business for profit, but you are also responsible for the wellbeing of your employees, which includes not firing them because you want to stick your dick in them.

In my position as manager and owner, I am responsible for my employees well-being only insofar as they are employees, and that responsibility is subordinate to my responsibility to ensure the business is efficiently run. If I believe an employee is seriously harming the business with their presence (say, by destroying my marriage which will slightly impair my ability to run things), then it is my job to fire them. The dentist in this case is a prick because he's evidently so spineless he can't just get over it, but the fact remains, he evidently can't, so he's within his rights.

In short, the girl in question isn't being fired for being too sexy. She's being fired because the dentists wife said, "Get rid of her," and he considers the end of his marriage to be slightly more disruptive than replacing a single employee.

That's still unfair dismissal in anywhere that has any workplace laws.

[Ralin]

Utilitarianism.

I own and run a small business in the United States, and to be perfectly frank, it's not for my employees benefit. If one of them is interfering in the efficient operation of the business for any reason not specifically protected by law (such as race), that is justification to fire them. You can argue that the dentist here is being an insecure, weak-willed jackass, and I won't say you're wrong, but just because his actions are personally offensive does not mean they're legally or morally improper.

Utilitarianism means maximizing happiness for all concerned, not just oneself. And the employee losing her livelihood generates way more negative utils than him being distracted and having his wife be angry at him.

[bilateralrope]

Utilitarianism.

I own and run a small business in the United States, and to be perfectly frank, it's not for my employees benefit. If one of them is interfering in the efficient operation of the business for any reason not specifically protected by law (such as race), that is justification to fire them. You can argue that the dentist here is being an insecure, weak-willed jackass, and I won't say you're wrong, but just because his actions are personally offensive does not mean they're legally or morally improper.

Utilitarianism means maximizing happiness for all concerned, not just oneself. And the employee losing her livelihood generates way more negative utils than him being distracted and having his wife be angry at him.

How does that change if the employer arranges the employee a similar job elsewhere ?

[Ralin]

How does that change if the employer arranges the employee a similar job elsewhere ?

I suppose that could be justifiable on utilitarian grounds. At least before you bring in things like the utility of having worker protection laws that would stop that sort of firing.

[lazerus]

Yes. Yes they are.

You may be running a business for profit, but you are also responsible for the wellbeing of your employees, which includes not firing them because you want to stick your dick in them.

In my position as manager and owner, I am responsible for my employees well-being only insofar as they are employees, and that responsibility is subordinate to my responsibility to ensure the business is efficiently run. If I believe an employee is seriously harming the business with their presence (say, by destroying my marriage which will slightly impair my ability to run things), then it is my job to fire them. The dentist in this case is a prick because he's evidently so spineless he can't just get over it, but the fact remains, he evidently can't, so he's within his rights.

In short, the girl in question isn't being fired for being too sexy. She's being fired because the dentists wife said, "Get rid of her," and he considers the end of his marriage to be slightly more disruptive than replacing a single employee.

That's still unfair dismissal in anywhere that has any workplace laws.

Not in the US.

[lance]

Utilitarianism.

I own and run a small business in the United States, and to be perfectly frank, it's not for my employees benefit. If one of them is interfering in the efficient operation of the business for any reason not specifically protected by law (such as race), that is justification to fire them. You can argue that the dentist here is being an insecure, weak-willed jackass, and I won't say you're wrong, but just because his actions are personally offensive does not mean they're legally or morally improper.

Utilitarianism means maximizing happiness for all concerned, not just oneself. And the employee losing her livelihood generates way more negative utils than him being distracted and having his wife be angry at him.

Arguably its against everybody losing their livelihood in the wake of a damaging divorce.

[Ralin]

Arguably its against everybody losing their livelihood in the wake of a damaging divorce.

I would argue that a relationship that can't survive the husband working with someone he finds attractive probably is probably going to end messily anyway.

[Gil Hamilton]

In my position as manager and owner, I am responsible for my employees well-being only insofar as they are employees, and that responsibility is subordinate to my responsibility to ensure the business is efficiently run. If I believe an employee is seriously harming the business with their presence (say, by destroying my marriage which will slightly impair my ability to run things), then it is my job to fire them. The dentist in this case is a prick because he's evidently so spineless he can't just get over it, but the fact remains, he evidently can't, so he's within his rights.

In short, the girl in question isn't being fired for being too sexy. She's being fired because the dentists wife said, "Get rid of her," and he considers the end of his marriage to be slightly more disruptive than replacing a single employee.

By that logic, she still shouldn't be fired. After all, she's not the problem in the situation. Her presence isn't what is causing the disruption to the efficient running of the business, after all, the douchebag in question states outright that she's good at her job.

He is the one who has the problem, not the assistant. He's the one is is impairing the business' ability to run efficiently, due to his own unprofessional behavior (and frankly, I'm surprised she didn't get him nailed for sexual harassment) and he's the one that is being disruptive to his marriage. All the problems on this situation are entirely localized on him and the fact that he's a dirtbag manchild that wanted to screw his employees.

Hence, it's wrong to fire her, even by the logic given. Tell me, Mr. Small Business Owner, is it morally right or a good practice for a manager to blame and punish an employee for something that is the manager's own fault alone? Does it help the business run well when there is misplaced blame for the fault in its operation? Last I checked, one of the point of good management was a realistic understanding of who is at fault in an unfortunate situation, not "Well, it's always the subordinate's fault, cause I'm the boss".

Hence your assertion that the boss was even "morally right" is baffling to me and reflects poorly on your character personally, because you keep saying that she's the disruption and that she's causing problems in the workplace, when she's doing nothing of the sort. Hell, the only reason it is "legally right" is that the US' labor laws are so heavily skewed against workers in favor of managers, and that's a pretty damn big problem we have.

[Scrib]

Utilitarianism.

I own and run a small business in the United States, and to be perfectly frank, it's not for my employees benefit. If one of them is interfering in the efficient operation of the business for any reason not specifically protected by law (such as race), that is justification to fire them. You can argue that the dentist here is being an insecure, weak-willed jackass, and I won't say you're wrong, but just because his actions are personally offensive does not mean they're legally or morally improper.

Utilitarianism means maximizing happiness for all concerned, not just oneself. And the employee losing her livelihood generates way more negative utils than him being distracted and having his wife be angry at him.

Except he's convinced that he wouldn't be able to resist, so it's possible sexual harassment suit and divorce and ruin vs. the rights of one employee.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I'm pretty sure firing an employee because you worry they're going to file a harassment suit in response to you is illegal, and if it's not it very obviously should be.

[Connor MacLeod]

In short, the girl in question isn't being fired for being too sexy. She's being fired because the dentists wife said, "Get rid of her," and he considers the end of his marriage to be slightly more disruptive than replacing a single employee.

The wife only demanded she be let go after she found a bunch of texts, some of them rather suggestive, on his phone. Lets not forget that this 'too sexy' woman had worked for the guy for over TEN fucking years, and it only became a problem towards the end. Given the shit I outlined already about what he said and what she had to put up with, the fault is still on him because he's the one who said the fucking stupid shit that got his wife upset.

In other words, had he not been such a fucking weird creeper this would not have been a problem nor would the woman have had to be fired. But it still comes to him being at fault.

I'm pretty sure firing an employee because you worry they're going to file a harassment suit in response to you is illegal, and if it's not it very obviously should be.

What kind of amuses me about this even now is that if the woman he'd fired hadn't been so patient with him and thought of him so well, she might have had grounds to file just such a suit. I mean as I noted already, the guy said some shit that quite frankly crossed personal boundaries into the sexual, at least by the way I'm reading it.

Its kinda funny that the lesson you draw from this is: "even if youre respectful and tolerant of someone abusing your personal space, you can still suffer his consequences and be made to take the blame if he bullshits enough."