Fired for being irresistible.... - Page 3 - Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums

rearnakedchoke · #21 12-26-2012, 03:28 PM

Quote:

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 someone wants to have their own company .. That is fine ... They still need to abide by employment standards ... So he shouldn't have the right to fire without reprucussion ... He should have to abide by employment laws ...

NateR · #22 12-26-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

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?

I absolutely agree. If she never signed a contract, then he should be allowed to fire her for whatever reason without any consequences. If you penalize small businesses too much when they have to let their employees go, then small businesses will simply stop hiring employees.

If I owned a small business and was considering whether or not I needed an employee to help me with the workload, but the laws of my state were set up in such a way that if I hired somebody I would basically be stuck with that person for the next 20 years, then I would have to seriously consider whether I really needed an employee after all. So that's one potential job lost because the laws are set up to protect the employee over the small-business owner.

Bonnie · #23 12-26-2012, 07:45 PM

James (F34R) and Mike, I agree with both of you about this situation and this scumbag. However, I don't agree with the thinking that flirting is not cheating, and, I really don't like when the wife is used as the reason for why her husband is cheating!

I know a lot of people don't consider flirting as cheating, but I'll argue, why is a married person flirting if they haven't already crossed that cheating line in their head, thinking of taking things further? To my thinking, if you're married and flirting, you're flirting with cheating.

And, Mike, it sounds like you're blaming the wife for her husband's wrongdoing.

They said in the news video that, "even the court said her firing was unfair, but ultimately, decided it wasn't illegal." What's troubling is the precedent set with ruling that "employers can fire employees that they see as an irresistible attraction." I think this is leaving a big opening for abuse by employers, and for good employees, through no fault of their own, to be unfairly fired. I hope that someone can find a way to get this overturned the way it stands now.

Amy, Nate and Adamt, I didn't see anything in the article or video where it said this young woman did or said anything inappropriate in this whole thing. I think the court would have mentioned that if she had. It sounds to me like she was probably trying to handle this situation by just ignoring the inappropriate comments and behavior hoping he would get the message with her nonresponse. I could see where she might try to take that route first, but obviously, he was too blinded by his lust or just too thick in the head to get the silent message.

This guy is a louse.

Quote:

The two never had a sexual relationship or sought one, according to court documents, however in the final year and a half of Nelson’s employment, Knight began to make comments about her clothing being too tight or distracting.

“Dr. Knight acknowledges he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing,” the justices wrote.

Six months before Nelson was fired, she and her boss began exchanging text messages about work and personal matters, such as updates about each of their children’s activities, the justices wrote.

The messages were mostly mundane, but Nelson recalled one text she received from her boss asking “how often she experienced an orgasm.”

Nelson did not respond to the text and never indicated that she was uncomfortable with Knight’s question, according to court documents.

Soon after, Knight’s wife, Jeanne, who also works at the practice, found out about the text messaging and ordered her husband to fire Nelson.

NateR · #24 12-26-2012, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonnie

Amy, Nate and Adamt, I didn't see anything in the article or video where it said this young woman did or said anything inappropriate in this whole thing. I think the court would have mentioned that if she had. It sounds to me like she was probably trying to handle this situation by just ignoring the inappropriate comments and behavior hoping he would get the message with her nonresponse. I could see where she might try to take that route first, but obviously, he was too blinded by his lust or just too thick in the head to get the silent message.

Yeah, but that could just be because the writer of the article is trying to skew public opinion in a certain direction. Even the way the title is worded seems to indicate that the writer wants us to choose the woman's side over the man's. Just because a statement from the court is not included in the article doesn't mean it's not there, that would imply that reporters are always impartial and never impose their own worldview onto how they present their stories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonnie

This guy is a louse.

But at least he's a louse who recognizes that he's a louse. That's the first positive step for any guy towards delousing.

adamt · #25 12-27-2012, 01:10 AM

if she was as innocent as she is claiming to be she would be happy she is out of that situation, who in their right mind would be wanting a job like that???

Bonnie · #26 12-27-2012, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NateR

Yeah, but that could just be because the writer of the article is trying to skew public opinion in a certain direction. Even the way the title is worded seems to indicate that the writer wants us to choose the woman's side over the man's. Just because a statement from the court is not included in the article doesn't mean it's not there, that would imply that reporters are always impartial and never impose their own worldview onto how they present their stories.

I can't argue that reporters aren't biased and will skew their reporting. As for the title...she is on the video saying she's "devastated", and "being irresistible" is what she was fired for, or so the dentist claims. I think he did his wife's bidding and fired her because he knew his wife had seen the inappropriate things he had texted, and he was doing emergency damage control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NateR

But at least he's a louse who recognizes that he's a louse. That's the first positive step for any guy towards delousing.

I have a feeling it was probably his wife's idea for them to go to their church pastor too so I'm not giving him any credit or brownie points. It's not like he grew a conscious and stopped and confessed on his own, and I think he'd still be doing it if he hadn't been caught.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamt

if she was as innocent as she is claiming to be she would be happy she is out of that situation, who in their right mind would be wanting a job like that???

Some of this is puzzling to me, for instance, why would her husband plead for her job back after finding out how inappropriate the guy was with his wife?

As to her being as innocent as she is claiming, guys can do these things completely on their own with no provocation or encouragement from a woman, stalking is a perfect example.

adamt · #27 12-27-2012, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonnie

I can't argue that reporters aren't biased and will skew their reporting. As for the title...she is on the video saying she's "devastated", and "being irresistible" is what she was fired for, or so the dentist claims. I think he did his wife's bidding and fired her because he knew his wife had seen the inappropriate things he had texted, and he was doing emergency damage control.

I have a feeling it was probably his wife's idea for them to go to their church pastor too so I'm not giving him any credit or brownie points. It's not like he grew a conscious and stopped and confessed on his own, and I think he'd still be doing it if he hadn't been caught.

Some of this is puzzling to me, for instance, why would her husband plead for her job back after finding out how inappropriate the guy was with his wife?

As to her being as innocent as she is claiming, guys can do these things completely on their own with no provocation or encouragement from a woman, stalking is a perfect example.

yes tis puzzling

i understand men can do it without any provocation, but i find it hard to believe that she would let it go on and on and on, i mean she has enough huspaa to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, i am sure she could have managed to stop the flirting or if need be file a sexual harassment lawsuit

she did text him back in most cases, and she says she viewed him as a father figure.... it's just weird

Bonnie · #28 12-27-2012, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamt

yes tis puzzling

i understand men can do it without any provocation, but i find it hard to believe that she would let it go on and on and on, i mean she has enough huspaa to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, i am sure she could have managed to stop the flirting or if need be file a sexual harassment lawsuit

she did text him back in most cases, and she says she viewed him as a father figure.... it's just weird

They showed a picture of him on tv earlier, he looks like he's quite a bit older than her. She's 32 now so she would have been 22 when she started working for him so that might explain why she viewed him in a father figure light.

A lot doesn't make sense to me. I need more answers!