A lesson for all of you OW.

[jwi71]

Absolutely, exercise your American rights and get drunk and kill something.

 

What law protects an employee from being fired for having an affair?

Answer: None.

 

Therefore it is perfectly legal to fire anyone for doing so.

 

As long as a protected trait is not used in the decision to fire, it's perfectly legal.

[anne1707]

What law protects an employee from being fired for having an affair?

Answer: None.

 

Therefore it is perfectly legal to fire anyone for doing so.

 

As long as a protected trait is not used in the decision to fire, it's perfectly legal.

 

Under UK law, I highly doubt the OP could be fired for having an affair. If she did and he did not then she would probably have a claim for sex discrimination.

[Got it]

What law protects an employee from being fired for having an affair?

Answer: None.

 

Therefore it is perfectly legal to fire anyone for doing so.

 

As long as a protected trait is not used in the decision to fire, it's perfectly legal.

 

 

Again, it isn't about the affair per say. Yes the employer can terminate both of them and would be fine. There have been lawsuits about invasion of privacy, or discrimination of marital status but those are limited, expensive and obviously not easy to win.

 

The teeth of this case, in the US or the UK, is that it is a supervisor/subordinate relationship and whether or not she is terminated and not him. That is the crux of the problem.

 

The UK is much more employee friendly so the protection for both employees is substantial. They factor in many other things than the US is required to and so severance, notification of termination and time continued to work, etc would play a factor.

 

So with US laws, she is a protected class as she is female. The EEOC would look at why the desparate treatment between she and her supervisor who is male. He is in a higher position, he holds more power, he is more culpable than she is based on their status.

 

From my experience, you can terminate then see what happens. She would need to bring a claim and each EEOC works differently as some are more aggressive than others. Most of the time they will investigate and recommend mediation if they feel it has any teeth at all. And mediation is just a term for "how much money will we settle on".

[Got it]

And the thing is, even if there are guidelines, labor and employment laws that would support the OW in this situation, the reality of what actually happens doesn't always follow the law.

 

QS the fact that you are the OW is irrelevant. That is what this is about, it is the fact that he is your manager that plays a major factor. And yes, you are right, you can still be terminated. BUT that does not mean you do not have recourses available to you to protect your rights. If you are afraid something is going to happen, go to ACAS or Citizen Advice Bureau for more assistance.

[jwi71]

Again, it isn't about the affair per say. Yes the employer can terminate both of them and would be fine. There have been lawsuits about invasion of privacy, or discrimination of marital status but those are limited, expensive and obviously not easy to win.

 

The teeth of this case, in the US or the UK, is that it is a supervisor/subordinate relationship and whether or not she is terminated and not him. That is the crux of the problem.

 

The UK is much more employee friendly so the protection for both employees is substantial. They factor in many other things than the US is required to and so severance, notification of termination and time continued to work, etc would play a factor.

 

So with US laws, she is a protected class as she is female. The EEOC would look at why the desparate treatment between she and her supervisor who is male. He is in a higher position, he holds more power, he is more culpable than she is based on their status.

 

From my experience, you can terminate then see what happens. She would need to bring a claim and each EEOC works differently as some are more aggressive than others. Most of the time they will investigate and recommend mediation if they feel it has any teeth at all. And mediation is just a term for "how much money will we settle on".

 

I see what you are saying.

 

We both agree that firing both is ok.

 

Where we diverge is if one gets fired. You are making the claim it's because she is female. But that's a huge assumption. We have no idea as to why she was hypothetically fired and not her manager.

 

IMO, as long as the company can demonstrate that a protected trait is not part of the calculation (gender) then it will stand.

 

Simply being female is not sufficient cause in my view to claim discrimination. And that's what I am hearing. She is fired, they both have affair, therefore her gender was the deciding factor. Too spurious for me.

[Got it]

I see what you are saying.

 

We both agree that firing both is ok.

 

Where we diverge is if one gets fired. You are making the claim it's because she is female. But that's a huge assumption. We have no idea as to why she was hypothetically fired and not her manager.

 

IMO, as long as the company can demonstrate that a protected trait is not part of the calculation (gender) then it will stand.

 

Simply being female is not sufficient cause in my view to claim discrimination. And that's what I am hearing. She is fired, they both have affair, therefore her gender was the deciding factor. Too spurious for me.

 

Yes but they have to argue why ELSE she would have been fired. If she tells them it is tied to the affair and the employer doesn't have significant evidence indicating why she was termed and not him, they are in a very weak spot. He put the company in a vulnerable spot by dating a subordinate. The fact that he is married has nothing to do with it. We would still be having this argument if they were both single. You do not single out the subordinate and discpline them more harshly than the supervisor without leaving yourself open for issues.

 

You are also looking at the perception of it. The EEOC does not have to prove, being any doubt that her firing was not desperate treatment. They will find grounds if the perception is there that was why she was treated more harshly. And it really isn't in a company best interest to try and drag it out. It is much easier and less expensive to settle it then then take their chances in the courtroom. You have to factor in too any other issues with either employee. If this manager has shown a pattern of this, or other employees come forward (and the EEOC will go in and interview them) then that just adds to her case.

 

So anyway, most will settle at mediation and be done with it. Oh and giving her a severance at termination to try and get her to sign away her right to later sue? Nope not legal and isn't upheld in court. The EEOC allows 180 days for a claimant to make their claim so she can file at any point in there as well. The treatment of both employees, the discpline of them, has to be parable based on position and power. In other words, he should be held to a higher standard as he was in the seat of power. Why he gets paid the big bucks.

 

Again this is US law so UK is very different. Much less courtroom cases but much bigger on arbitration and the UK all around is much more expensive for the employer. Why it is such a major jump for US companies to go across the pond.

 

It isn't about your views, or my views, but what the EEOC states. Please go to www.eeoc.gov to learn more.

[spice4life]

I would like to add that just because an employer is in a "fire at will" state, does not mean the employee can't sue and win. Happens all the time and gotit is right, it usually ends up being settled out of court.

[spice4life]

And the thing is, even if there are guidelines, labor and employment laws that would support the OW in this situation, the reality of what actually happens doesn't always follow the law.

 

No offense, but you make a lot of generalities based on your own gender views.

 

The truth is, just because a law says someone can get fired does not mean the employer is safe from being sued. I think the threat of a law suit ways more heavily than gender. I've seen situations where the "male manager" gets the boot for over stepping boundaries with their employees.

[Quiet Storm]

No offense, but you make a lot of generalities based on your own gender views.

 

The truth is, just because a law says someone can get fired does not mean the employer is safe from being sued. I think the threat of a law suit ways more heavily than gender. I've seen situations where the "male manager" gets the boot for over stepping boundaries with their employees.

 

 

I'm not saying the employer can't be sued (people can sue for anything), but just that in an "at will" state, it is unlikely. Most attorneys would not take the case.

 

However, this poster is not even in USA, so my thoughts are irrevelant.

 

One thing I will say is that no one should ever assume that the law will protect you. What SHOULD happen is often very different from what DOES happen. I would never tell the OW that she has the upper hand in this situation, because I don't think she does. JMO.

[sp2007]

I am sorry for your situation. How can we best support you? I think the point that other posters were trying to make but that got lost in the long discussion over legal matters -- and moralizing over right and wrong -- is that you should consult an attorney to determine if you are protected under the law. Free legal advice/consultation is available in many areas. Please do what you need to do to protect yourself -- and your 5 year old -- from further harm. That is the most important thing.

[CocoaBrown]

A few weeks ago I made a post telling you all that I had found myself pregnant by the MM. It did not end well, most of all - for me.

 

His gf found out about the affair, he told her because rumours were getting back her, so he text me telling her to tell the truth. I asked him to prove it was him, which he did, and then he proceeded to text me dating 'just tell her it was only three times'. It was not only three times and by this point I'd already told his gf that it was around 15-20 times. Although I don't know why she wanted to know how many times? Why would that matter?

 

Anyway. The lesson is... I got pregnant. They found out. I got called every name under the sun and two days ago, I had a miscarriage.

 

I believe I lost that baby due to stress. I text mm to let him know id lost the baby, he said he didn't want to know a told me not to text again, which I haven't.

 

It will take something really dreadful and serious, which will most likely cause the OW a lot of pain, before you realise just what this man is.

 

He was my manager, I now fear for my job.

He was my sex life because I decided not to go on dates whilst I was 'seeing'him. Now I'm not getting a thing - but his gf has forgiven him so I bet he's fine on that score.

He got me pregnant and now I'm miscarrying but he can say, 'i don't want to know' and that's him, happy as Larry.

His gf found out and blamed me ENTIRELY. He told me to tell her the truth, and I did, but he didn't - he claimed we only had sex three times which meant our stories clashed. She believed him and threatened to kill the baby I was carrying and my five year old son.

 

Police have been involved because of her threats. People at work know and when he comes back to work next week, I am prepared for the sack. What I'm trying to say is - HE did all the chasing, HE did the cheating (I was single) and he was the one who abused his position in work... But I am 110% the one suffering. And everyone was right, he didn't leave her and he wasn't worth it.

 

I'm so sorry for your loss and all the pain you are going through.

I don't think he can legally fire you though and if he tries to pull anything report him! ((hug))

[jwi71]

Yes but they have to argue why ELSE she would have been fired.

 

Lost me. She was fired because she had an affair. No other reason required.

What do you mean "why else"? That reason alone is sufficient and legal. That's my point.

 

You do not single out the subordinate and discpline them more harshly than the supervisor without leaving yourself open for issues.

 

What issues? Why can't a subordinate be "more harshly punished" than the manager? What law does that break? Its ONLY an issue if a protected trait is the basis for "unjust" treatment.

 

You are also looking at the perception of it. The EEOC does not have to prove, being any doubt that her firing was not desperate treatment. They will find grounds if the perception is there that was why she was treated more harshly.

 

You keep wanting to make this about EEOC but i think you are confused.

 

We have two separate issues.

 

1) Anyone can be fired (in the US) for any reason that does not violate the law. Having an affair is not a legally protected activity so you can be fired for having one.

 

2) This is where I think you get confused. You are then saying that an EEOC violation is present if one or the other is fired. Simply because a woman is fired and a man is not does NOT make it an EEOC case. You cannot speak to the why's and how's of the decision because this is hypothetical. Given more facts, which anyone can create, we can make a better informed decision. Failing that, it is not appropriate to say she was fired because she was female - which is what you are saying. The facts, as given (its hypothetical anyway), don't support that. This is my point. Its also the law. She can be selected to be fired because she had an affair. Simple and perfectly legal as stated. We cannot go any further as we have nothing else to go on.

 

Again this is US law so UK is very different. Much less courtroom cases but much bigger on arbitration and the UK all around is much more expensive for the employer. Why it is such a major jump for US companies to go across the pond.

 

I know nothing of UK law.

But I do KNOW its perfectly legal to fire someone for having an A in the US.

I also disagree with that firing one over the other automatically makes it an EEOC case as the basis of the decision (of which one) is unknown. I guess I just don't automatically assume she's fired because she is female.

 

It isn't about your views, or my views, but what the EEOC states. Please go to www.eeoc.gov to learn more.

 

I am familiar with it.

Please show where the EEOC forbids firing based on an affair.

 

The biggest problem I have is your assumption that she is fired because she is female. Which begs the question, would she have been absent the A? If one removes the A, I bet the company doesn't fire her. Ergo, the decision to fire is her behavior and not her sex - no EEOC violation.

[seren]

OP, so sorry you have lost your baby, sorry too that the father is such a arse and is not being supportive. I hope you have some support IRl and that you are taking time off to rest and get yourself together, make sure to get a sick note from your GP after 7 days self certification. I would hope that you can put everything else to one side and concentrate on you, while the physical pain of a miscarriage can be over fairly quickly, the emotional pain takes longer, allow yourself to grieve , It doesn't matter who the father was or the circumstances the loss will hit you hard, that he is such a waste of space may make it harder too. I would imagine he that no matter what you have told his GF about the A, he will have put a totally different slant on it.

 

As to losing your job, if you have a union you will be protected. Even if you do not, you cannot be sacked for having an A, to sack someone in the UK requires a lot more than someone deciding to sack you at will, unless it is for theft or something serious, an A would not be considered a sackable reason. The US or other countries may be different, but here we have to have disciplinary meetings, warnings, written notice and a whole raft of meetings before a sacking can take place, unless it is something very serious. ACAS, Employment Rights, Unions all are there for support and information, if you feel that you may be sacked contact them ASAP, make sure you have your doctor's certificate for sick leave and do everything by the book.

 

Lastly, concentrate on you, on healing and grieving your loss. I am so very sorry you are going through this. try not to think of what might have been, but on what you want for your future. I hope you have support and that you find peace. Take very good care. seren x

[Got it]

Lost me. She was fired because she had an affair. No other reason required.

What do you mean "why else"? That reason alone is sufficient and legal. That's my point.

 

 

 

What issues? Why can't a subordinate be "more harshly punished" than the manager? What law does that break? Its ONLY an issue if a protected trait is the basis for "unjust" treatment.

 

 

 

You keep wanting to make this about EEOC but i think you are confused.

 

We have two separate issues.

 

1) Anyone can be fired (in the US) for any reason that does not violate the law. Having an affair is not a legally protected activity so you can be fired for having one.

 

2) This is where I think you get confused. You are then saying that an EEOC violation is present if one or the other is fired. Simply because a woman is fired and a man is not does NOT make it an EEOC case. You cannot speak to the why's and how's of the decision because this is hypothetical. Given more facts, which anyone can create, we can make a better informed decision. Failing that, it is not appropriate to say she was fired because she was female - which is what you are saying. The facts, as given (its hypothetical anyway), don't support that. This is my point. Its also the law. She can be selected to be fired because she had an affair. Simple and perfectly legal as stated. We cannot go any further as we have nothing else to go on.

 

 

 

I know nothing of UK law.

But I do KNOW its perfectly legal to fire someone for having an A in the US.

I also disagree with that firing one over the other automatically makes it an EEOC case as the basis of the decision (of which one) is unknown. I guess I just don't automatically assume she's fired because she is female.

 

It isn't about your views, or my views, but what the EEOC states. Please go to www.eeoc.gov to learn more.

 

I am familiar with it.

Please show where the EEOC forbids firing based on an affair.

 

The biggest problem I have is your assumption that she is fired because she is female. Which begs the question, would she have been absent the A? If one removes the A, I bet the company doesn't fire her. Ergo, the decision to fire is her behavior and not her sex - no EEOC violation.

 

Let me make it easier for you. She is female. She is the subordinate. He is male. He is the supervisor. They BOTH engage in an affair. She is fired. He is not.

 

How is that not grounds for wrongful termination? Why is she punished more harshly?

 

I deal with this all the times. If we have an issue where the above happens you better believe that we are either trying to find other issues on why she was terminated and he wasn't, she had previous writes so the last strike on her record. Something on why we didn't hold the manager to a higher level than the subordinate.

 

It is NOT about just firing her. It is about firing her and not firing him. If they term both then any claims for wrongful termination are pretty null and void.

[jwi71]

Let me make it easier for you. She is female. She is the subordinate. He is male. He is the supervisor. They BOTH engage in an affair. She is fired. He is not.

 

How is that not grounds for wrongful termination? Why is she punished more harshly? \

 

Because you don't know WHY one was selected and not the other.

You ASSUME its because she is female and subordinate.

 

One or both parties can be fired for having an A. Perfectly legal. Thats' my point.

 

You are saying the selection to fire one but not both parties is an EEOC issue. Do you see how we have TWO steps here and you are confusing them? That being fired for having an A is LEGAL - all I have been saying. You are erroneously stating that it becomes magically illegal if ONE is fired. But you aren't talking about being fired for an A, you are talking about the SELECTION PROCESS - or the PUNISHMENT PROCESS resulting from an A. Two separate issues. And even then, the simple act of choosing one over another is NOT automatically based on gender or title. This is YOUR assumption.

 

Simple saying the female subordinate can legally be fired for having an A is NOT an EEOC violation. She can be. And its legal. Stop trying to say "you selected her for being female and/or suborinate". You DON'T know that.

 

Given the facts, a female employee was fired for having an A does NOT make it an EEOC case. IF we have more facts then we can better determine if it is.

 

Lets create some facts to show it both ways.

 

1) female employee is distraught and crying and generally making an emotional scene at work bothering coworkers and affecting the office. Her AP, her male boss, does not. She is fired. EEOC? NO.

 

2) female employee is fired for having an A with her male boss. He fires her because she ends the A and wont blow him anymore in the janitors closet. EEOC? yes.

 

All those other extraneous facts make all the difference. The facts that help decide. The facts you keep assuming. Absent that information is not illegal to fire a female subordinate for having an A because having an A is not protected under law.

 

If you wish to say the SELECTION PROCESS is an EEOC violation - maybe. Maybe not. Need more facts. But don't assume or create them. Only go by what we have...namely, an employee, male or female - boss or subordinate, can be fired for having an A. Period.

 

In any case, lets just agree to disagree and let this die.

[Got it]

Because you don't know WHY one was selected and not the other.

You ASSUME its because she is female and subordinate.

 

And an employer needs to communicate WHY they are terminating if not to the employee then if/when the file with the EEOC. And if an employee indicates the above and cannot give another known reason for termination then the EEOC will investigate. Plus, no company should terminate and it be as surprise to the employee. There should have been a long line of discussions, write ups, action plans, etc before terminate unless one instance was so severe that immediate termination is required. But again documentation should be done.

 

One or both parties can be fired for having an A. Perfectly legal. Thats' my point.

 

Again no it is not legal to terminate a subordinate for an affair without terminating the supervisor. It is not legal. And the only way terminating for an affair is legitimate is if it violates no-franterization policy. Some states are more liberal with this than others and you this would get you in hot water in CA, WV, and IL.

 

You are saying the selection to fire one but not both parties is an EEOC issue. Do you see how we have TWO steps here and you are confusing them? That being fired for having an A is LEGAL - all I have been saying. You are erroneously stating that it becomes magically illegal if ONE is fired. But you aren't talking about being fired for an A, you are talking about the SELECTION PROCESS - or the PUNISHMENT PROCESS resulting from an A. Two separate issues. And even then, the simple act of choosing one over another is NOT automatically based on gender or title. This is YOUR assumption.

 

Simple saying the female subordinate can legally be fired for having an A is NOT an EEOC violation. She can be. And its legal. Stop trying to say "you selected her for being female and/or suborinate". You DON'T know that.

 

Given the facts, a female employee was fired for having an A does NOT make it an EEOC case. IF we have more facts then we can better determine if it is.

 

Lets create some facts to show it both ways.

 

1) female employee is distraught and crying and generally making an emotional scene at work bothering coworkers and affecting the office. Her AP, her male boss, does not. She is fired. EEOC? NO.

 

She is not being terminated for the affair. You are indicating that her behavior in the workplace is a distraction and obstacle for others. Again management would be looked at and discplined.

 

2) female employee is fired for having an A with her male boss. He fires her because she ends the A and wont blow him anymore in the janitors closet. EEOC? yes.

 

NO more than the other cases but absolutely.

 

All those other extraneous facts make all the difference. The facts that help decide. The facts you keep assuming. Absent that information is not illegal to fire a female subordinate for having an A because having an A is not protected under law.

 

If you wish to say the SELECTION PROCESS is an EEOC violation - maybe. Maybe not. Need more facts. But don't assume or create them. Only go by what we have...namely, an employee, male or female - boss or subordinate, can be fired for having an A. Period.

 

What selection process?

 

In any case, lets just agree to disagree and let this die.

 

Again, you are punishing a subordinate and female more harshly than you are punishing the supervisor and male. Even reversing the sexes, female boss, you still have a wrongful termination and definite grounds for a lawsuit. You cannot hold a subordinate more accountable than a supervisor without consequences.

 

I am sorry you can't see how this works out, not sure how much dealing you have in this area but it is absolutely a concern for companies and the gender does play a factor even if that isn't the only reason.

[jwi71]

Again, you are punishing a subordinate and female more harshly than you are punishing the supervisor and male. Even reversing the sexes, female boss, you still have a wrongful termination and definite grounds for a lawsuit. You cannot hold a subordinate more accountable than a supervisor without consequences.

 

I am sorry you can't see how this works out, not sure how much dealing you have in this area but it is absolutely a concern for companies and the gender does play a factor even if that isn't the only reason.

 

I pulled this from the EEOC website.

 

An employer may not take into account a person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information when making decisions about discipline or discharge. For example, if two employees commit a similar offense, an employer many not discipline them differently because of their race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

 

I guess we interpret what the EEOC says differently. I understand the above to say that companies can treat employees differently as long as it doesn't violate the protected traits.

 

No expert on EEOC. It's why I hired lawyers for my businesses. And They tell me it's ok to fire as long as I didn't use a protected trait as the reason. I stand by their words. I also find that my belief and the advice of my lawyers does NOT conflict with the copy n paste quote from the EEOC.

 

You don't agree with me. And that's fine. Since you have yet to provide any information from the EEOC let's just agree to disagree and move on.

[phillyfan]

A few weeks ago I made a post telling you all that I had found myself pregnant by the MM. It did not end well, most of all - for me.

 

His gf found out about the affair, he told her because rumours were getting back her, so he text me telling her to tell the truth. I asked him to prove it was him, which he did, and then he proceeded to text me dating 'just tell her it was only three times'. It was not only three times and by this point I'd already told his gf that it was around 15-20 times. Although I don't know why she wanted to know how many times? Why would that matter?

 

Anyway. The lesson is... I got pregnant. They found out. I got called every name under the sun and two days ago, I had a miscarriage.

 

I believe I lost that baby due to stress. I text mm to let him know id lost the baby, he said he didn't want to know a told me not to text again, which I haven't.

 

It will take something really dreadful and serious, which will most likely cause the OW a lot of pain, before you realise just what this man is.

 

He was my manager, I now fear for my job.

He was my sex life because I decided not to go on dates whilst I was 'seeing'him. Now I'm not getting a thing - but his gf has forgiven him so I bet he's fine on that score.

He got me pregnant and now I'm miscarrying but he can say, 'i don't want to know' and that's him, happy as Larry.

His gf found out and blamed me ENTIRELY. He told me to tell her the truth, and I did, but he didn't - he claimed we only had sex three times which meant our stories clashed. She believed him and threatened to kill the baby I was carrying and my five year old son.

 

Police have been involved because of her threats. People at work know and when he comes back to work next week, I am prepared for the sack. What I'm trying to say is - HE did all the chasing, HE did the cheating (I was single) and he was the one who abused his position in work... But I am 110% the one suffering. And everyone was right, he didn't leave her and he wasn't worth it.

 

Dude he is a POS. Take care of ur sweet self, losin a baby - man it must be so awful for u, u need 2 take care of u.

 

Go 2 the big boss, n tell him everythin, u aint done nothin 2 deserve even seein that nasty POS again. Sine off sick, his ass is in crazy trouble 4 all the crap he has put u thru. U shudnt be the one 2 be gettin the sack u need 2 be protectd.

 

So sorry girl u dont deserv this.

[Paroxysm]

I am so so sorry........... wow............

[Got it]

I pulled this from the EEOC website.

 

An employer may not take into account a person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information when making decisions about discipline or discharge. For example, if two employees commit a similar offense, an employer many not discipline them differently because of their race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

 

I guess we interpret what the EEOC says differently. I understand the above to say that companies can treat employees differently as long as it doesn't violate the protected traits.

 

No expert on EEOC. It's why I hired lawyers for my businesses. And They tell me it's ok to fire as long as I didn't use a protected trait as the reason. I stand by their words. I also find that my belief and the advice of my lawyers does NOT conflict with the copy n paste quote from the EEOC.

 

You don't agree with me. And that's fine. Since you have yet to provide any information from the EEOC let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

Um, you just provided what I have been saying. I am not sure how much simplier I can say it.

 

Regardless, glad to hear that you consult with outside counsel.

[Got it]

I am enjoying the debate but by all means if you'd like to move on, please move on.