Fired for being irresistible....

[County Mike]

I agree with F34R. He only fired her because his wife saw his inappropriate texts and ordered him to fire her. If she never caught him, he'd still be flirting and hoping to get some.

Now, as a private business owner, I do agree he has the right to fire someone if he wants to. Just saying, she didn't deserve it.

[adamt]

Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke

He can fire her I guess ... But she can also sue for wrongful dismissal .... And she'll win ... And I hope she wins big ... Which she probably will ... So when she gets a few years salary and will probably get another job ... She'll be laughing! He'll still be scum

did you read the article at all?

[rearnakedchoke]

Sure I did ... As the employer he shouldn't have started with the inappropriate text messages .... If he wants to run a business, he should abide by employment standards ... U think she got a raw deal ... As a business owner he can hire and fire as he pleases ... But he should have to pay proper severance ... He gave the excuse for firing her that he would cheat on his wife with her ... Not a good excuse and she should get duly compensated .... Especially since she worked there 10 years ... Hope she wins an appeal and gets a fair deal

[NateR]

She probably would have won the case if she had pursued it as a sexual harassment case. Why they chose to go with gender bias instead of sexual harassment is beyond me.

However, if she never complained about his behavior, then it probably didn't qualify as sexual harassment. Especially if she was participating in the flirting.

I'm not saying she would have won a sexual harassment case because she had a valid complaint, however. I just know she would have won because she's a woman charging a man with sexual misconduct, so the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply. If you're a man charged with any sort of harassment, misconduct or abuse by a woman, then you're guilty until proven guilty. That's how backwards our judicial system has become.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by F34R

No, they didn't have sex.. but what he was doing was considered cheating in my book. Making advances to her they way that he reported it going. Why does he have to get her away? Why can't he control himself? I mean, really... if he gets her out of the picture, it's just a matter of time before it's someone else. Also, remember, he ONLY fired her because the wife caught him. So, he has no respect, or integrity. That woman says she never had anything to do with the progress he says that he has going towards an affair.

Basically, the wife of this guy is going to have to keep him in the house to try and keep him from doing what he was already trying to do.
I don't consider flirting as cheating. He was beyond flirting. If hes asking her about sex, her orgasms, talking about his "bulging pants", that's not flirting.

I agree that a married man flirting with another woman counts as adultery.

But at least he's a dirtbag who recognizes the fact that he's a dirtbag and he went to his church for guidance on the matter. The worst thing would be a dirtbag who is somehow under the illusion that he is a decent person and doesn't think that he needs any help.

I'm not going to claim that this guy is a true Christian, but all signs indicate that he might be. Being a Christian doesn't mean that you never sin. Being a Christian means that you understand that you are incapable of NOT sinning. Thus you need to identify areas of temptation in your life and distance yourself from those areas as much as possible.

[rearnakedchoke]

Originally Posted by NateR

She probably would have won the case if she had pursued it as a sexual harassment case. Why they chose to go with gender bias instead of sexual harassment is beyond me.

However, if she never complained about his behavior, then it probably didn't qualify as sexual harassment. Especially if she was participating in the flirting.

I'm not saying she would have won a sexual harassment case because she had a valid complaint, however. I just know she would have won because she's a woman charging a man with sexual misconduct, so the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply. If you're a man charged with any sort of harassment, misconduct or abuse by a woman, then you're guilty until proven guilty. That's how backwards our judicial system has become.

I don't think this was a criminal case, so innocent until proven guilty may not apply .... And really? The judicial system is backwards when it comes to dealing with men being accused of sexual misconduct??? Sure some men have been falsely accused and persecuted ... But many have gotten off because the women have also refused to be questioned and subjected to rape kits etc ..... So I think its pretty even on that level .... Guys like this are scum and he's made to look like the good guy cuz he went to his church ... Lol ... His wife is dumb for staying with him

[F34R]

Originally Posted by NateR

I agree that a married man flirting with another woman counts as adultery.

But at least he's a dirtbag who recognizes the fact that he's a dirtbag and he went to his church for guidance on the matter. The worst thing would be a dirtbag who is somehow under the illusion that he is a decent person and doesn't think that he needs any help.

I'm not going to claim that this guy is a true Christian, but all signs indicate that he might be. Being a Christian doesn't mean that you never sin. Being a Christian means that you understand that you are incapable of NOT sinning. Thus you need to identify areas of temptation in your life and distance yourself from those areas as much as possible.

Yeah, I'm ok with the concept of this, BUT he only did the distance himself from the temptation after he was caught. If his wife wasn't in the equation here, and this lady was initiating the temptation, and he wasn't participating to the point he already admits to, then I wouldn't necessarily have a negative outlook on this guy.

After ten years with this woman and a co-worker, he is "tempted" now? Yeah.. I believe he was caught, and the woman wasn't participating like he was. She said her text messages were completely innocent. While, we already know his weren't; he admitted to it. Also, he's asked her about her sex life, orgasms, sent very "dirty" messages to her. Either said, or text messaged about this bulge should let her know he's into her... ugh. If she was tempting him NOW, why wasn't it for the past 10 years? I dunno, I can't find any rational ideas here that this woman participated, and he is doing the right thing.

[County Mike]

Once again, agree with F34R. From what's in the article, the woman didn't do anything wrong except for not complain about the man's conduct. She was probably afraid of losing her job if she complained. Instead, she loses her job for not complaining, which they twist into "participating".

I also don't think the guy was seeking out his pastor's advice. His wife made him go to the church and he used the pastor to hide behind with his crappy excuse to fire her.

From my interpretation of the article, dude's a scumbag and the chick got a raw deal.

And the wife's not keeping her man happy.

[adamt]

you guys might be right that he's a scum bag, but the fact remains, it is his business he should be able to hire and fire who he wants without reprucussion unless it breaks a contract with them. I HIGHLY doubt she is innocent in the matter but that is the issue here. the issue is should an employer have the right to fire someone?

[F34R]

Originally Posted by adamt

you guys might be right that he's a scum bag, but the fact remains, it is his business he should be able to hire and fire who he wants without reprucussion unless it breaks a contract with them. I HIGHLY doubt she is innocent in the matter but that is the issue here. the issue is should an employer have the right to fire someone?

If she wasn't innocent, then what wasn't innocent would be known to the public by now; like his inappropriate behavior is known already.

I don't have a problem with people being fired for legitimate reasons. However, this is more sexual harassment vs legitimate reasoning. He shouldn't have done what he did do, and his wife wouldn't have caught him, and his wife wouldn't have made him fire the girl, and the girl wouldn't be suffering.