4 ms·

Hitting on a fellow employee after work hours with a tinder-esque technique is grounds for termination. The female employee has little recourse to stop the adv

Hitting on a fellow employee after work hours with a tinder-esque technique is grounds for termination. The female employee has little recourse to stop the advance, and has not approved it. Workplace courtship protocol requires slow, deliberate advancement with explicit ACKs from the receiver.

UK-Al05 10y ago
You have no absolutely idea, who started the tinder-esque technique. For all you know, she could have been calling him a dirty stud, a day earlier. If this true? Would you then fire her? This is why, you need both sides of the story before you can do a "with cause" firing.
- nerd-fight 10y ago
  OP post suggests he does not question the facts and asks for advice. You're welcome to suggest to OP that he question his facts. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what bar he has to cross, but if his facts are true as presented, then he should proceed to termination. As to your question regarding the female employee. Sure if is she is in fact harassing the male employee, she should be terminated. She could also have fabricated the whole thing. She could be being blackmailed. She might be playing a prank. Someone could have been impersonating the male employee. She might have mental health crisis. There are many scenarios. We weren't asked to consider them.
kelukelugames 10y ago
This can be company policy but it is not required. Companies are only legally required to prevent harassment at company sponsored events and commutes to the events.
wernercd 10y ago
Again, it depends. You can't just immediately go all scorched earth "You said she's cute? You're fired!". Because that's the brunt of the story so far (I haven't read many of the recent comments to see if there was anything deeper revealed from the initial story) We have one side of the story (with a part of the trail of messages recorded). Harassment: n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment Systematic. Continued. That's the basic definition I think when I hear the word Harassment. Which is why context is king. One string of conversations (including the texting)? That's not systematic or continued IF he stops when she says "I'm not interested". If she said no, no, no, no... then that's continued. If he's pushing the issue that's continued. Some men don't know the meaning of "no". Some consider it a challenge. Some people think that non-verbal responses (like going out to a bar) mean that there IS a chance if you can get past the initial no. At THAT point, we would have something that can be construed as harassment. The problem with this entire conversation is we don't have the entire story. What was his response to her no? Has this continued or did it end? This is one side of the story. I'm sorry, but I agree that a lawyer should be involved and proper procedures should be laid out going forward... and I agree IF he hasn't stopped after "no", then "bad things" should happen... but right now? We have one side of the story - and we don't have the whole story. Slow, deliberate advancement with explicit ACKs? What is this? Some touchy feely dorm room with safe places and yes-means-yes over-PCd levels of red tape to show your interest? "May I have your permission to compliment you or can we discuss it with your lawyer?"? What nonsense...

UK-Al05 10y ago

You have no absolutely idea, who started the tinder-esque technique. For all you know, she could have been calling him a dirty stud, a day earlier. If this true? Would you then fire her? This is why, you need both sides of the story before you can do a "with cause" firing.

nerd-fight 10y ago
OP post suggests he does not question the facts and asks for advice. You're welcome to suggest to OP that he question his facts. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what bar he has to cross, but if his facts are true as presented, then he should proceed to termination. As to your question regarding the female employee. Sure if is she is in fact harassing the male employee, she should be terminated. She could also have fabricated the whole thing. She could be being blackmailed. She might be playing a prank. Someone could have been impersonating the male employee. She might have mental health crisis. There are many scenarios. We weren't asked to consider them.

kelukelugames 10y ago

This can be company policy but it is not required. Companies are only legally required to prevent harassment at company sponsored events and commutes to the events.

wernercd 10y ago

Again, it depends. You can't just immediately go all scorched earth "You said she's cute? You're fired!". Because that's the brunt of the story so far (I haven't read many of the recent comments to see if there was anything deeper revealed from the initial story) We have one side of the story (with a part of the trail of messages recorded). Harassment: n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment Systematic. Continued. That's the basic definition I think when I hear the word Harassment. Which is why context is king. One string of conversations (including the texting)? That's not systematic or continued IF he stops when she says "I'm not interested". If she said no, no, no, no... then that's continued. If he's pushing the issue that's continued. Some men don't know the meaning of "no". Some consider it a challenge. Some people think that non-verbal responses (like going out to a bar) mean that there IS a chance if you can get past the initial no. At THAT point, we would have something that can be construed as harassment. The problem with this entire conversation is we don't have the entire story. What was his response to her no? Has this continued or did it end? This is one side of the story. I'm sorry, but I agree that a lawyer should be involved and proper procedures should be laid out going forward... and I agree IF he hasn't stopped after "no", then "bad things" should happen... but right now? We have one side of the story - and we don't have the whole story. Slow, deliberate advancement with explicit ACKs? What is this? Some touchy feely dorm room with safe places and yes-means-yes over-PCd levels of red tape to show your interest? "May I have your permission to compliment you or can we discuss it with your lawyer?"? What nonsense...