decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Too Hot to Handle - terminated because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction | 483 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Too Hot to Handle - terminated because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 22 2012 @ 04:14 PM EST
I agree with you in principal, that is, an employer has to have the right
to let go an employee who's presence has a disruptive impact on the
functioning of the company.

However, ending that employer/employee relationship and assigning
blame are unrelated. If no blame can be assigned to the employee, the
employee better receive normal notice and severance pay.

We don't know who is to blame in the situation described, or indeed if
even considering blame is appropriate. It is simply a situation
that.developed and cannot be permitted to continue.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Preemptive doctrine
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 23 2012 @ 02:27 AM EST
When people act on what *may* happen, we are crossing a boundry with alomst
unimaginabe consequences.

Why should the assistant pay for the husbands roaming eye and the wife's fear of
keeping him honest?
This couple should take their nuptual issues to a councilor or take the
consequence and get a divorce.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Too Hot to Handle - terminated because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 25 2012 @ 09:14 PM EST
Bit rough on everyone involved. But there was probably no alternative solution
other than going through the sham of closing the business then re-opening
without the assistant. I'm in my 60s and have had 7 dentists. One did 'run off'
with with his assistant. So it happens (and I was going out with his daughter at
the time). There is, and will always be, potential 'difficulties' in small
businesses where nobody has room to move.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )