If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Dental hygienist not as attractive as once thought   ( gma.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Iowa Supreme Court, Iowa, sex discriminations, supreme court ruled  
•       •       •

13452 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2013 at 5:51 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-06-28 06:04:53 PM  
2 votes:
Sorry, but the only two people concerned in protecting a marriage is the husband and wife. If the dental hygienist is neither, then she has absolutely nothing to do with protecting that marriage.

If the wife has an issue with her husband's behavior with his employee, that's an issue between her and her husband. That said, if she's pissing off his wife she should probably be the bigger woman and voluntarily quit. Workplace romance (or even workplace flirtation) rarely ends well.

She should have moved on, but the reasons for her termination is absolute bullshiat. If the two of them can't grow the fark up, then she needs to move on. He's the one employing her.
2013-06-28 06:42:23 PM  
1 vote:
How is this not straightforward? Boss texts cute employee about random stuff, then how often she has orgasms, that's obviously sexual harassment. Employee doesn't respond to inappropriate question, probably because there is no win on that, and she doesn't want to quit or be fired. The guys wife later finds his txt messages and is rightfully pissed at her husband, but rather than leave him over it, demands he fire his employee because of his inability to behave appropriately around her. Guy then fires employee, fallout from his earlier sexual harassment being discovered. Employee should obviously be compensated for how she was treated.
2013-06-28 06:25:11 PM  
1 vote:

dognose4: Why on earth did he give her a reason like that?   Either give a legitimate reason, or none at all.

Then again, isn't it at will employment?
"[A]n employer may terminate its employees at will, for any or no reason ... the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment ... The mere existence of an employment relationship affords no expectation, protectable by law, that employment will continue, or will end only on certain conditions, unless the parties have actually adopted such terms. "

That's cute, but it slams headfirst into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  The state may insist you can terminate someone for any reason, but the Feds would disagree.  That said, "pretty" / "body built for sin" is not a protected class -- in fact there are jobs where appearance deficits will get you fired.
Displayed 3 of 3 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.