Nothing like getting fired in the middle of a Sexual Harassment class!

[her209]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Since when does sex life = permiscuous and whore?

Since when it hasn't?

Also, how does one talking their sex lives at work add to their productivity?

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
wrongful termination suit!!!

WORD

 

[tyler811]

thats too funny.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan
Calling someone a whore creates a hostile work environment, and thus the person is eligible for termination.

I would argue that the whore should not talk about her promiscuity at work lest she wants to be called a whore.

wow - so quick to pass judgement and call a women a whore, eh? Sexist much?

Like I said, she's the one talking about her promiscuity.

Since when does sex life = permiscuous and whore?

Simply because she is talking about it in a public place....normal decent people don't discuss such matters except maybe with close confidant type friends. People that do are usually looking for attention....so she is at least an attention whore.

Ok - lets try this again - he was in a sexual harassment training class and called someone a whore - do you guys no understand the reasoning behind termination?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Vic

Florida is at-will employment. You wouldn't see a dime.

That I wasnt sure of. In that case...

/end thread

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
wrongful termination suit!!!

WORD

:roll:


To help the clueless: the employee, in the process of training, demonstrated a clearly hostile attitude towards the training, violated the training publicly, plus with the implied intent to continue violating in the future, which in that event would expose the company to liability. Termination with cause. Goodbye, no unemployment for you (much less an idiot lawsuit).

 

[loup garou]

Did he get her phone number?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
wrongful termination suit!!!

WORD

:roll:


To help the clueless: the employee, in the process of training, demonstrated a clearly hostile attitude towards the training, violated the training publicly, plus with the implied intent to continue violating in the future, possibly exposing the company to liability. Termination with cause. Goodbye, no unemployment for you (much less an idiot lawsuit).

Thankyou

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan
Calling someone a whore creates a hostile work environment, and thus the person is eligible for termination.

I would argue that the whore should not talk about her promiscuity at work lest she wants to be called a whore.

wow - so quick to pass judgement and call a women a whore, eh? Sexist much?

Like I said, she's the one talking about her promiscuity.

Since when does sex life = permiscuous and whore?

Simply because she is talking about it in a public place....normal decent people don't discuss such matters except maybe with close confidant type friends. People that do are usually looking for attention....so she is at least an attention whore.

Ok - lets try this again - he was in a sexual harassment training class and called someone a whore - do you guys no understand the reasoning behind termination?

Nope. So now opinions are not allowed? If the situation would have been real how could the STUPID BITCH have a sexual harassment case about someone calling her a whore when she was the one OPENLY talking about her sex life? Thinking someone is a whore for their behavior should not be a reason for firing them. I don't expect you to understand.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I don't expect you to understand.

Why Ronnie?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan
Calling someone a whore creates a hostile work environment, and thus the person is eligible for termination.

I would argue that the whore should not talk about her promiscuity at work lest she wants to be called a whore.

wow - so quick to pass judgement and call a women a whore, eh? Sexist much?

Like I said, she's the one talking about her promiscuity.

Since when does sex life = permiscuous and whore?

Simply because she is talking about it in a public place....normal decent people don't discuss such matters except maybe with close confidant type friends. People that do are usually looking for attention....so she is at least an attention whore.

Ok - lets try this again - he was in a sexual harassment training class and called someone a whore - do you guys no understand the reasoning behind termination?

Nope. So now opinions are not allowed? If the situation would have been real how could the STUPID BITCH have a sexual harassment case about someone calling her a whore when she was the one OPENLY talking about her sex life? Thinking someone is a whore for their behavior should not be a reason for firing them. I don't expect you to understand.

Not if your opinion creates a potential hostile work environment. Read Vics post of above if you need it to be any clearer.

 

[dug777]

whaa whaa whaa he said she was a 'ho, whaa whaaa whaa...am i the only one who worries about the pathetic nature of all this?

Big whoop, get over it people...

Talking about your sex life at work, why the ****** would you do that in the first place? Someone says they think you are a 'ho, in a training class, well he has his opinion, instructor should have explained what was wrong with that, and the possible consequences of saying that 'in the real world'...end of issue.

Or is that too simplistic and sensible for people to understand?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Not if your opinion creates a potential hostile work environment. Read Vics post of above if you need it to be any clearer.

So does this mean the men at work can discuss their sex lives in detail in the open and not expect to be fired while anyone who thinks negatively of them lose their job? Sweeeet!

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan
Not if your opinion creates a potential hostile work environment. Read Vics post of above if you need it to be any clearer.

So does this mean the men at work can discuss their sex lives in detail in the open and not expect to be fired while anyone who thinks negatively of them lose their job? Sweeeet!

Where was that ever implied?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan
Not if your opinion creates a potential hostile work environment. Read Vics post of above if you need it to be any clearer.

So does this mean the men at work can discuss their sex lives in detail in the open and not expect to be fired while anyone who thinks negatively of them lose their job? Sweeeet!

QFT, if that happened just watch the women squeal about it, and the heteros about hearing the homos sex lives, and vice versa.

It's a flamin stupid thing to do in the first place at work, as i said above...OP, your workplace has been bitten by pansy PC-itis

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan
Not if your opinion creates a potential hostile work environment. Read Vics post of above if you need it to be any clearer.

So does this mean the men at work can discuss their sex lives in detail in the open and not expect to be fired while anyone who thinks negatively of them lose their job? Sweeeet!

Where was that ever implied?

So you're saying its okay when women do it but not okay when men do it?

 

[dug777]

i can see it now, gay guy bragging about how he pounded his buddies ass that weekend at work, yeah that'll go down well won't it?
straight guy telling everyone how many ladies he rooted that weekend, and how...mmm i can see the women loving that, but hell, from what the OP's post implies if you are a woman, talking about your sex life at work is a-ok, and commenting negatively on you doing that will get you fired...

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan
Not if your opinion creates a potential hostile work environment. Read Vics post of above if you need it to be any clearer.

So does this mean the men at work can discuss their sex lives in detail in the open and not expect to be fired while anyone who thinks negatively of them lose their job? Sweeeet!

Where was that ever implied?

So you're saying its okay when women do it but not okay when men do it?

Did you fail reading comprehension in school. The point is - it's inappropriate to call someone a whore in the workplace, or any other offensive name, no matter what the situation. Again - it goes back to the hostile work environment.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Did you fail reading comprehension in school. The point is - it's inappropriate to call someone a whore in the workplace, or any other offensive name, no matter what the situation. Again - it goes back to the hostile work environment.

Yes... if the roles were reversed, would it still be considered creating a "hostile" environment?

EDIT: No need for your personal attack Ryan. You're creating a hostile environment.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Did you fail reading comprehension in school. The point is - it's inappropriate to call someone a whore in the workplace, or any other offensive name, no matter what the situation. Again - it goes back to the hostile work environment.

And what type of environment would talking about our sex lives at work create?

If it wasn't a skit, he may have grounds for wrongful termination. However it was, so he was justifiably terminated.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan
Did you fail reading comprehension in school. The point is - it's inappropriate to call someone a whore in the workplace, or any other offensive name, no matter what the situation. Again - it goes back to the hostile work environment.

Yes... if the roles were reversed, would it still be considered creating a "hostile" environment?

EDIT: No need for your personal attack Ryan.

exactly what i said, but he hasn't given me an answer

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: dug777
i can see it now, gay guy bragging about how he pounded his buddies ass that weekend at work, yeah that'll go down well won't it?
straight guy telling everyone how many ladies he rooted that weekend, and how...mmm i can see the women loving that, but hell, from what the OP's post implies if you are a woman, talking about your sex life at work is a-ok, and commenting negatively on you doing that will get you fired...

The video was an example of sexual harassment - it was supposed to showcase that anyone talking about sexual topics at work where your coworkers can hear is a violation of sexual harassment policy - and that would have been an appropriate response.

Calling the woman a whore in front of your HR representative constitutes a violation also - irreguardless of what you think about the woman - two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[sao123]

This entire firing is BS...

Here is one legal experts legal interpretation of the federal sexual harrassment laws.
Text

Sexual Harrassment comes in two forms -- "quid pro quo" and "hostile working environment." The former is pretty straight- forward: "sleep with me or you're fired." Essentially, "quid pro quo" harrassment involves making conditions of employment (hiring, promotion, retention, etc.) contingent on the victim's providing sexual favors. Very few people have a problem with this, and I'm not going to spend any more time on it unless someone has questions.

Hostile working environment
"Hostile working environment" harrassment is the one people are really arguing about. So what is it?

"When the workplace is permeated with 'discriminatory intimi- dation, ridicule, and insult,' that is 'sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment,' Title VII is violated." Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 367 (1993) (quoting Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986)).

"'[M]ere utterance of an ... epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate Title VII. Conduct that is not severe enough to create an OBJECTIVELY hostile or abusive work environment -- an environment that a REASONABLE PERSON would find hostile or abusive -- is beyond Title VII's purview. Like- wise, if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim's employment, and there is no Title VII violation." Harris (again, quoting Meritor; ALL CAPS added for emphasis by this writer).

"[W]hether an environment is 'hostile' or 'abusive' can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include (a) the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; (b) its severity; (c) whether it is physically threatening or a mere offensive utterance; and [d] whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance."

This is the law on sexual harrassment, as handed down by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1993. (Justices Scalia and Ginsburg wrote concurring opinions, essentially arguing that only [d] above -- whether the speech/conduct unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance -- should have been the only guiding criteria necessary.

(a) "speech and/or conduct" -- sexual harrassment can be mere words ("dumb ass woman," Harris), words in conjunction with conduct (asking the employee to dig coins out of one's own pants pocket, Harris) or conduct alone (fondling a woman's breast, Weeks v. Greenstein).
(b) "of a sexually discriminatory nature" -- remember that Title VII IS NOT A SPEECH CODE. This is a discrimination law. The issue is not the content of the speech or the precise nature of the conduct so much as whether that speech/ conduct is directed at the employee on the basis of his/her gender (or has a disparate impact on the basis of gender).
(c) "which was neither welcomed nor encouraged" -- if the defendant (employer) can show that the plaintiff (employee) welcomed and/or encouraged the speech/conduct, there is no discrimination claim available. This ties in to the Harris requirement that the victim must subjectively have been offended by the speech/conduct. That is, the plaintiff can't argue "Well, I wasn't offended at the time, but after I got fired for stealing I talked to some people and found out that a reasonable person would have been offended, I decided to sue anyway ...."
(d) "committed by or permitted by a superior" -- again, Title VII IS NOT A SPEECH CODE. It's a discrimination law. Thus, the plaintiff must show that his/her superior "knew or should have known" about the speech/conduct and did not intervene. (Obviously, if the superior is the one doing the harrassment, the requirement is met.) So what does "knew or should have known" mean? It means that "an ordinary, reasonable prudent person in like or similar circumstances" would have known. It means the employer can't say "Yeah, a reasonable supervisor would have known this was going on, but I'm a lousy supervisor and I didn't know, so don't hold me liable ...."
(e) "would have been so offensive to a reasonable person" -- One of the biggest myths about sexual harrassment law is that "the woman gets to decide what she likes and what she doesn't." Balderdash. The law has always had a "reasonable person" standard (though Harris did away with the previous terminology of "reasonable woman"). It's not enough that a given employee was offended. That employee might, after all, be unreasonably sensitive or thin-skinned. The plaintiff must show that "an ordinary, reasonable, prudent person in like or similar circum- stances" would have been similarly offended. In other words, the plaintiff can't argue "Well, I know a reasonable person would have shrugged this off, but I'm not reasonable and I was offended ...."
(f) "create an abusive working environment and/or" -- this is an area where the law needs to be developed. I would argue that this element should be conjunctively (and) linked with (g), below. However, Harris seems to indicate a disjunctive (or) link, and until we know better, we ought to assume the more general (or) linkage. So what does this mean? It means an environment which manifests hostility or abuse toward one or more employees, on the basis of his/her/their gender. It means an environment where the employee is distinctly (remember, this is an objective standard) made to feel unwelcome, unwanted, scorned, ridiculed, intimidated ... on the basis of his/her gender. It is, in the words of Justice Scalia, an environment where "working conditions have been DISCRIMINATORILY altered" for some employees. (Emphasis added.) The underlying theory seems to be that the harrasser is attempting to get the victim to either quit, or screw up enough to get fired (though the latter falls under [g], below). It's a matter of "I may have to hire you, but I can make you so miserable you won't want to stay" ... on the basis of gender. Once again, Title VII IS NOT A SPEECH CODE. It's a discrimination law.
(g) "impair his/her job performance" -- this may be seen as merely an extension of [f] (above), or it may be that (f) is a way to demonstrate this element. Either way, this element implies that the speech/conduct is so offensive that a reasonable person's job performance would be impaired. At this level, we are talking about trying to make life so miserable that the victim will screw up enough to get fired. An example: let's assume that Defendant MegaCorp fired Plaintiff Vicki, citing as its reasoning that "she didn't get the filing done in a regular and orderly manner." Vicki is able to show that the file room was right next to the men's restroom, and that more often than not, when she went to the file room Mr. Jackson would be in the door of the restroom saying "C'mon in and file this, sweetcakes!" Thus, she was reluctant to go back there. Jackson's harrassment impaired her job performance, and if she can show that a superior knew or should have known about the harrassment and didn't intervene, she can recover.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ryan
Did you fail reading comprehension in school. The point is - it's inappropriate to call someone a whore in the workplace, or any other offensive name, no matter what the situation. Again - it goes back to the hostile work environment.

Yes... if the roles were reversed, would it still be considered creating a "hostile" environment?

EDIT: No need for your personal attack Ryan.

exactly what i said, but he hasn't given me an answer

My replies imply that it would be inappropriate also.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: loup garou

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I don't expect you to understand.

Why Ronnie?