Woman Fired For Being Too Irresistible

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
In her boss's defense, she shouldn't have been dressing like a slut, etc. Women need to take a good look at themselves before they leave the house and question whether or not they look like they're asking for it.

So many men in this country have lost their wives to such harlots. Or worse, went to prison for some sort of harassment. :sad:

Is this a joke?
 
In her boss's defense, she shouldn't have been dressing like a slut, etc. Women need to take a good look at themselves before they leave the house and question whether or not they look like they're asking for it.

So many men in this country have lost their wives to such harlots. Or worse, went to prison for some sort of harassment. :sad:

I really hope you're joking.

Yikes.
 
Read this article on MSN.com this morning & had to double check that I hadn't mistakenly woken up in 1957. :doh: A lot of the MSN comments were along the lines that Knight was perfectly within his rights as an employer to fire Nelson for whatever reason he wanted to, so long as it wasn't for "discriminatory reasons". Seriously - that's supposed to hold some water after he'd had her employed for 10 YEARS? And the fact that apparently the court felt Mrs. Knight wanting Nelson fired was adequate reason to let her go disturbs me beyond words. This is all kinds of fucked up. :confused:

Infotainment headline aside, the core of the case is "at-will" employment. We lose sight of the fact that, in an at-will state, we can be terminated from our job for any reason, except for discriminatory reasons (protected classes) or in violation of a contract.

Frankly, I was surprised that Ms. Nelson did not file a sexual harassment claim based on the employer’s comments. The “pants bulging” comment would be evidence in support of a hostile work environment claim.
 
Frankly, I was surprised that Ms. Nelson did not file a sexual harassment claim based on the employer’s comments. The “pants bulging” comment would be evidence in support of a hostile work environment claim.

Sometimes it is not easy filing such claims. Some people would rather deal with a hostile work place in order to pay the bills and put food on the table than through the stress of filing a harassment claim, and go without a paycheck.

I am also hoping BicMacPhisto is kidding. If not - dude, you got some severe issues to sort out.
 
Word, Pearl. Women often put up with serious harassment to keep a job that they need, and also because the "reputation" that they get from initiating even a very well deserved suit could keep them from getting a job elsewhere. Just talk with women who work in male dominated industries like auto sales, construction, and so on. The shit they put up with is incredible. In reference to nbcrusader's comment, my experience is that this is true even in a well protected union job. Unions are an improvement but really a need for cultural change is the root of the problem.
 
One problem is that an employee could be lying about being harassed. Let's say she filed a claim, saying the dentist made that "pants bulging" comment. What proof does she have? Does she have an email, did she voice record him? If it's only her word, that doesn't help. Especially since there are cases of employees wrongfully suing their bosses for sexual harassment. Those people screw it up for anyone who is legitimately being harassed.

In regards to difficulty finding work while suing, a friend of mine left her job last year after the sexual harassment her boss gave her was too much (he was sending her explicit text messages). She was able to find work again, though I don't know how she explained the lawsuit to recruiters.
 
Back
Top Bottom