# How Did I Get Stuck in This Mess?!



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

This is more a of vent than anything else. 

2016 is starting out at work with a bang......and not a good bang either. I'm going to have to fire one of my best (and favorite) employees this month and it's killing me inside. 

Backstory: 

I gave up the road warrior/work travel lifestyle years ago, however many of my projects are long-term jobs in far away locations. I make up for my non-travel status by hiring entry level engineers who wish to learn the ropes hands-on. The pros is that most everyone who ends up working for me gets fast tracked to project management level. The cons is that they spend a large portion of those first couple of years on the road (upwards of 70%). 

"Jane" is one of my entry-level direct reports. She's young(<30), smart, professionally motivated, and married. She's been working on one of my high priority military sites for about the last 15 months or so. I hired her to be my eyes and ears on the ground. She's very well compensated considering she has less than 5 years experience. 

Last summer Jane was caught by her husband having an affair with a contractor she met on site. Jane's husband "John" blew a gasket when he found out. He exposed the affair far and wide including to me, my boss, HR....pretty much anyone remotely associated with Jane's professional life. My boss asked me to fire Jane after hearing that John had tried to file a complaint with the DoD (site's on a military base) when he was told by us that this was a personal issue not something with which we (collectively) wanted to involve ourselves. Instead of firing her, I warned Jane to keep John and her personal drama out of the workplace, and I transferred her out of that project site, and got her working from the office on the design/work plans, contracting, etc... for a new project scheduled to start next month. 

Jane hasn't traveled one day since being pulled from the DoD project. I let her know in October 2015 that the project was scheduled to start February 2016. Travel would be required. John upon hearing the 'good news' blew another gasket. He forbid Jane from traveling for work again. When she explained the circumstances of her reconciliation to me, I sympathized with her but let her know that travel was a job requirement. 

I like Jane. I think she's an incredibly capable young lady who will probably make a great project manager someday. Regardless I warned her that if she couldn't travel then I was going to have to let her go. In the interim, I advised her look for employment elsewhere. I even offered to give her a letter of recommendation.

She's been looking for the last 2.5 months and hasn't found anything that doesn't require some travel and will pay a salary close to what she's making here. I've already hired her replacement. Come February she will either be asked to resign or be fired. 

This, in and of itself, is bad enough but what has me riled is that John is pressuring her to go see a lawyer about a law suit. He seems to think there are no grounds for termination and that the company should 'lay her off', i.e. severance package or eligibility for unemployment. It's ridiculous and has no merit but being as I was the one who didn't fire Jane when John was causing so much trouble last summer, I'll be the one that has to deal with any subsequent fall-out.

Damned if no good deed goes unpunished!


----------



## JustTired (Jan 22, 2012)

Damn that is tough! But that Jane chick brought on all of that drama to herself. Do they live in a "no fault" state?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Obviously you should get some real advice about the fire vs. layoff. You need to follow the law, whether or not it happens to make any sense. (I don't know what the law says, but this isn't a discrimination issue, so I think you are free to fire her).

In some sense this is simple. You tell Jane that the job she agreed to do requires travel (assuming that it was in the original job description). You let her know that she is a valued employee, that you hate to lose her, but that she cannot stay with the company if she can't travel. Give her a few days to make a decision. She can bring that to John if she wishes. If asked make it completely clear that the company is not in any way concerned with, or involved with her personal issues - this is simply a question of whether she is able to do what the job requires.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

JustTired said:


> Damn that is tough! But that Jane chick brought on all of that drama to herself. *Do they live in a "no fault" state*?


Did you mean an 'At Will' state? If so, yes we do but people in this state still file lawsuits for wrongful termination all.the.time. Most never make it far but it's still a pain in the arse. HR has to get involved and do their investigation. Then it gets moved up to upper management who sends it to some outside consulting firm to identify 'lessons learned'. Then there's some new policy that gets issued for which we have to attend training to understand properly. 

And yes, I agree that Jane brought this on herself but her personal problems have bled into her workplace and are indirectly affecting me...and as you can see above, potentially everyone else in the company. :surprise:


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> *Did you mean an 'At Will' state?* If so, yes we do but people in this state still file lawsuits for wrongful termination all.the.time. Most never make it far but it's still a pain in the arse. HR has to get involved and do their investigation. Then it gets moved up to upper management who sends it to some outside consulting firm to identify 'lessons learned'. Then there's some new policy that gets issued for which we have to attend training to understand properly.
> 
> And yes, I agree that Jane brought this on herself but her personal problems have bled into her workplace and are indirectly affecting me...and as you can see above, potentially everyone else in the company. :surprise:


No Fault as in No Fault Divorce possibly?

I bet Jane never thought of any of this when she dropped her panties. Reckless decisions rarely stay contained and often have much broader consequences that were ever considered.


----------



## kristin2349 (Sep 12, 2013)

Ugh, what a nightmare for you. Both she and her H are shameless if they even attempt to bring suit against your company for her trampy behavior. She can't perform her job without travel it is that simple, she is getting fired for refusing to do her job. Some people, SMH.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

What does your HR and legal department say you need to do? Follow whatever they say. And keep a record of all emails, memos, etc in which they tell you want to do.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

you should have let her go as soon as you found out about her poor morals. risking the account and causing a headache for everybody.

she probably don't have a leg to stand on legally. But be prepared to have to pay unemployment. the way todays society is .......boohoo everybody a victim. Its not my fault I'm a cheating scum bag.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Please don't make this more complicated that it is. 

This has nothing whatsoever with whether or not Jane "dropped her panties" as someone said, or behaved in an immoral fashion. 

Jane's job requires travel. She is unwilling to travel for reasons that are not associated with a legally protected status. So she can't keep the job. No harm, no foul, no morality issues. 

Depending on company policy you an "fire" or lay-off as appropriate. Many companies will formally lay off employees rather than fire them as a matter of policy. The is up to company management policy - which may be the OP.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

kristin2349 said:


> Ugh, what a nightmare for you. Both she and her H are shameless if they even attempt to bring suit against your company for her trampy behavior. She can't perform her job without travel it is that simple, she is getting fired for refusing to do her job. Some people, SMH.


I get the feeling she's trying to leave quietly. Grab her reference letter and get a new fresh start somewhere else.

I'm not sure why the husband is pursuing litigation. I mean why would someone expose to a workplace that had nothing to do with the affair? Affair partner was not an employee of the company nor was he a contractor on the project she was on. He was a contractor on another site at the same military base. 

What's the difference whether we fired her the day he filed the complaint at the DoD or if we fire her now? She was going to get fired one way or the other. That's what I just don't understand.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> What does your HR and legal department say you need to do? Follow whatever they say. And keep a record of all emails, memos, etc in which they tell you want to do.


Absolutely. 

I'm just irritated about the way everything played out.


----------



## JustTired (Jan 22, 2012)

Lila said:


> Did you mean an 'At Will' state? If so, yes we do but people in this state still file lawsuits for wrongful termination all.the.time. Most never make it far but it's still a pain in the arse. HR has to get involved and do their investigation. Then it gets moved up to upper management who sends it to some outside consulting firm to identify 'lessons learned'. Then there's some new policy that gets issued for which we have to attend training to understand properly.
> 
> And yes, I agree that Jane brought this on herself but her personal problems have bled into her workplace and are indirectly affecting me...and as you can see above, potentially everyone else in the company. :surprise:


Oops, I meant "at will"...LOL!! But yeah, that is definitely a tough place to be in. You tried to help her as much as you could so she wouldn't lose her job.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> My boss asked me to fire Jane after hearing that John had tried to file a complaint with the DoD (site's on a military base) when he was told by us that this was a personal issue not something with which we (collectively) wanted to involve ourselves. Instead of firing her, I warned Jane to keep John and her personal drama out of the workplace, and I transferred her out of that project site, and got her working from the office on the design/work plans, contracting, etc... for a new project scheduled to start next month.


...



> Damned if no good deed goes unpunished!


It wasn't a good deed.

You should have fired her when you had cause, and now you're over a barrel because you didn't.

Take this as a learning lesson, and think long and hard about having a 'favorite' that acts this way when you're the one in charge.

This is karma, pure and simple.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

richardsharpe said:


> Please don't make this more complicated that it is.
> 
> *This has nothing whatsoever with whether or not Jane "dropped her panties" as someone said, or behaved in an immoral fashion.*
> 
> ...


You are correct, the morality of the behavior is immaterial, but this situation has everything to do with behavior that has led to the employee now being unable to do the job. If she had not behaved in a certain way, she would still be able to do the job. Unintended and unanticipated consequences...

I think it is likely the husband is pushing legal action thinking there will be some sort of payout either from a court decision, or from the company to make this go away. That would go a long way towards funding his new bachelorhood once it's paid out and he dumps her.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

this is a great example of why being a boss is never as easy as some would have you believe...

TBH - I think you should have canned her right away.

I wonder if her H thinks the company is complicit in the affair and is being hounded by his attorney to sue for 'alienation of affection' or mental damages or something else. It probably also forces her into a different job, which may be critical to his healing?

To maintain a lawsuit against your W's employer really puts her in an ethical bind, imo.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Please don't make this more complicated that it is.
> 
> *This has nothing whatsoever with whether or not Jane "dropped her panties" as someone said, or behaved in an immoral fashion.
> 
> ...


Agreed!

Our company has policies in place to prevent activities that would cause legal action against them in the future. Some of the those policies include forbidding relationships between direct reports and bosses. Nothing in those policies mentions policing what goes on behind closed doors in one's own personal life....and I want to try to keep it that way.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

marduk said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have to disagree with you. I think had we fired her at the time, she _would_ have had grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit. Personal beliefs, religion, sexual orientation, morals, etc.. can't be taken into account when determining termination. 

I could have fired her on job performance had I attempted to force her to stay at the site AND had she refused. Unfortunately, I thought she could use some time at home. THAT was my mistake. I should have treated it like just any other day at the workplace. She stays on site and continues to work the job as always.

Frankly, I'm happy that our annual reviews do not include a box where we check off "did this person meet your moral or religious expectations in their personal life to your satisfaction?" My boss is a born again Christian and thinks imbibing alcohol is sinful. I'd be fired on the spot.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> I have to disagree with you. I think had we fired her at the time, she _would_ have had grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit. Personal beliefs, religion, sexual orientation, morals, etc.. can't be taken into account when determining termination.


Nope.

#1 your boss told you to, so you were home free.
#2 it already interfered with the deal and an investigation was underway.

So you had grounds and top cover to do it, but you didn't want to because you like her. Your emotion clouded your decision making.

I've fired friends because they deserved it. It's tough, but heavy lies the crown.


> I could have fired her on job performance had I attempted to force her to stay at the site AND had she refused. Unfortunately, I thought she could use some time at home. THAT was my mistake. I should have treated it like just any other day at the workplace. She stays on site and continues to work the job as always.
> 
> Frankly, I'm happy that our annual reviews do not include a box where we check off "did this person meet your moral or religious expectations in their personal life to your satisfaction?" My boss is a born again Christian and thinks imbibing alcohol is sinful. I'd be fired on the spot.


You're overthinking this.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

naiveonedave said:


> this is a great example of why being a boss is never as easy as some would have you believe...
> 
> TBH - I think you should have canned her right away.
> 
> ...


Dave, how would the company be complicit in the affair? The AP didn't work for the company, he wasn't our subcontractor, heck he wasn't even working on the same job site. They met on base. He was working his site, she was working hers. It would be like trying to sue Starbucks as being complicit in an affair of two totally people who buy their coffee there.

I do think she's better off finding a job elsewhere. Too much water under the bridge for anything good to come out of her staying.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

A few noteworthy points:


John is a fool to have taken her back! He should be treated as such.

This is completely a morality issue and I cannot believe that there are those who say it is not. Jane cannot do her job because of low morality i.e. she tends to fvck other people when working. Travel just makes it easier for her to do so.

OP, you need to familiarise yourself with alienation of affection in employment. Basically if the nature of her job encourages or even necessitates a married woman to work in close proximity with other men, while staying away from home for long periods, then a silly but plausible argument would be that her employers should make it easy for her spouse to join her or offer regular conjugal visits for her to go home. Absurd ? I agree. But very possible as a claim.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Lila said:


> Dave, how would the company be complicit in the affair? The AP didn't work for the company, he wasn't our subcontractor, heck he wasn't even working on the same job site. They met on base. He was working his site, she was working hers. It would be like trying to sue Starbucks as being complicit in an affair of two totally people who buy their coffee there.
> 
> I do think she's better off finding a job elsewhere. Too much water under the bridge for anything good to come out of her staying.


somehow he/his lawyer are connecting dots that may or may not be real or the fact that 'you' sent her on a trip, during which she cheated is probably enough for some lawyer to smell blood. Perhaps she didn't tell her H the whole story and part of her lies implicated the company in some way?

Sadly, I learned long ago to not expect law and logic to be on the same level....


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Strictly speaking about marriage, I think it is stupid for any married person to voluntarily spend over 50% of their total time away from home. You mentioned that Jane was gone as much as 70% of the time? IMHO, it doesn't matter how lucrative the career may ultimately be - you never get that time back. Also, it's a significant contributor to divorce rates.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

The reason she is supporting her husband in the lawsuit Is because now she gets it.

NOW she is the wife of her husband. Of course, it's a bit late, but better late than never?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I have to disagree with your points:

I do not think we want (nor is it legal) for business to police the morality of their employees behavior. Morality is frequently derived from religious beliefs, and can vary a lot. LAW is what we create to describe the morality that we insist everyone follow.

I do not want to be fired for eating pork, uncovering my head, or failing to go to church on Sunday, or for talking to an unmarried woman without a chaperon, or for "living in sin" with my girlfriend.


I believe that in the US it would be a clear violation of anti-discrimination laws to avoid sending women to job sites where they will be interacting with men, because the same restriction would not apply to your male employees. [And I strongly support this - it is inherently discriminatory to think that men and women can't work together professionally]







manfromlamancha said:


> A few noteworthy points:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening Lila
I think you have done all the right things. 

My only additional suggestion would be to think about the layoff vs firing decision. If she is a good employee, she might come back after her marriage ends. It depends on what the layoff costs.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Maybe things are different in Canada, where I'm from:



> Termination with cause' or 'Termination with just cause'
> 
> At law, termination with cause or termination with just cause means that an action or omission by the employee has irreparably damaged the employment relationship between the employer and the employee. Usually, termination with cause occurs when an employee is dismissed for a serious reason related to the employee's conduct.
> 
> Not all employment/labour standards define 'termination with cause.' Those that do refer to: willful misconduct, disobedience and deliberate neglect of duties as justifiable reasons for termination with cause.


Termination of the employment of an employee | Keeping the Right People | HR Toolkit | hrcouncil.ca

Her actions fit pretty neatly into 'misconduct,' and because it triggered an investigation, clearly had impact to the reputation of your company.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

marduk said:


> Nope.
> 
> #1 your boss told you to, so you were home free.
> #2 it already interfered with the deal and an investigation was underway.
> ...


My emotions didn't cloud my decision making. I used too much _logic_ in my decision making. 

Had I been emotionally vested in Jane, I probably would have known what she was up to and could have helped her see the wrongness of it all. However, our relationship was a professional one. Not knowing her on a personal (friendly) level, I made the decision to not fire her based solely on logic. She's a smart engineer who produces quality work. That's it.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> My emotions didn't cloud my decision making. I used too much _logic_ in my decision making.
> 
> Had I been emotionally vested in Jane, I probably would have known what she was up to and could have helped her see the wrongness of it all. However, our relationship was a professional one. Not knowing her on a personal (friendly) level, I made the decision to not fire her based solely on logic. She's a smart engineer who produces quality work. That's it.


I'll leave it at this. From one boss to another. 

You said she was your favourite. 

Her actions not only impacted her own performance (she can't have been a fantastic worker while her marriage was disrupted), they showed a lack of restraint and caused both a reputational and perhaps financial impact to your company. 

You also put your neck out to cover for her when your own boss instructed you to fire her. 

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Not only can she not perform her own duties because of her own consequences, you've shown that she doesn't have to -- which now makes just cause harder. 

What I'd do is chalk it up to a leadership lesson for myself, and do a reorg in her area to make her position redundant, and pay her the minimum severance allowable.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Strictly speaking about marriage, I think it is stupid for any married person to voluntarily spend over 50% of their total time away from home. You mentioned that Jane was gone as much as 70% of the time? IMHO, it doesn't matter how lucrative the career may ultimately be - you never get that time back. Also, it's a significant contributor to divorce rates.


No doubt jobs requiring high volume of travel contribute to broken marriages. It's one of the reasons why I don't travel as much any longer. Maybe 4 weeks a year, if that. It's also the reason why the majority of our 'road warrior positions are dedicated to entry-level personnel. The odds of them being married are less than those who are mid- or high-level professionals.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

marduk said:


> I'll leave it at this. From one boss to another.
> 
> You said she was your favourite.
> 
> ...


Again, she's a favorite because she does a helluva job at work. I'm not sure why you think "her actions impact her performance (she can't have been a fantastic worker while her marriage was disrupted)". If she was falling apart inside, I have no clue but she _has_, in an engineering and design capacity, delivered everything to client expectations, much better than any of my other direct reports.

And to the point about causing reputations or financial impact to the company, well I think it showed a lack of restraint on her husband's part to bring this to her workplace. There was nothing to be gained by doing this. We couldn't provide him any support. It's her place of employment not the scene of the crime. If the travel was an issue, then why not just ask her to quit? It makes no sense.

But you are right on one thing...it is a leadership lesson on my part. I should have stayed the hell out of the mess and continued business as usual. The decision to fire her or not would have been made logically, based strictly on whether or not she would have continued to meet the travel requirements of her job.

Unfortunately, reorganization is not an option at my company. We are relatively 'flat' and that's by design.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

manfromlamancha said:


> A few noteworthy points:
> 
> [*]John is a fool to have taken her back! He should be treated as such.


Honestly, I don't know if John has take her back or not. I have tried my very best to keep discussions to a professional level.



manfromlamancha said:


> This is completely a morality issue and I cannot believe that there are those who say it is not. Jane cannot do her job because of low morality i.e. she tends to fvck other people when working. Travel just makes it easier for her to do so.


 @richardsharpe put together a great post in response to this point. Morality is very personal and subjective. I want my employer to judge me based on my knowledge, skills, and capabilities.....not on my religious (or non-religious in my case), political, or general lifestyle beliefs.



manfromlamancha said:


> OP, you need to familiarise yourself with alienation of affection in employment. Basically if the nature of her job encourages or even necessitates a married woman to work in close proximity with other men, while staying away from home for long periods, then a silly but plausible argument would be that her employers should make it easy for her spouse to join her or offer regular conjugal visits for her to go home. Absurd ? I agree. But very possible as a claim.


Interesting. Federal courts do not recognize Alienation of Affection and it has been abolished in most states with only a few even allowing employers to be sued.

Only seven states allow spouses to file such a lawsuit as of 2013: Utah, Hawaii, South Dakota, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi and New Mexico.

Of those, only Utah, Hawaii, South Dakota, Illinois, Mississippi and New Mexico allow third party such as an employer to be named co-defendants. 

Of those, only Utah, Hawaii, South Dakota, Mississippi, and New Mexico will allow judgments for any anguish experienced. In Illinois one can only sue for monetary losses suffered because a marriage ended. 

I don't live in any of these states. Regardless, alienation of affection is expected to be abolished in the next couple of years. Most states will get rid of the law rather than put the time and effort to rewrite it to incorporate same-sex relationships.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

marduk said:


> Maybe things are different in Canada, where I'm from:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I must have missed this post earlier. This falls under the category of 'morality clauses' which can only be enforced for employees under contract. An at-will employee's off-duty conduct can only be controlled by state or local law. "_While these statutes vary in scope, generally they restrict an employer’s ability to discipline an at-will employee for engaging in legal activities while not at work_." So as long as adultery isn't a crime in your state, your employer cannot fire you for engaging in it.....unless you've signed an employment contract with such a morality clause.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> I must have missed this post earlier. This falls under the category of 'morality clauses' which can only be enforced for employees under contract. An at-will employee's off-duty conduct can only be controlled by state or local law. "_While these statutes vary in scope, generally they restrict an employer’s ability to discipline an at-will employee for engaging in legal activities while not at work_." So as long as adultery isn't a crime in your state, your employer cannot fire you for engaging in it.....unless you've signed an employment contract with such a morality clause.


Morality wasn't coming into it for me. 

What I was getting at was that she allowed your company to be embarrassed by this, exposed to an investigation, perhaps financial consequences if this account walked away from your company, and in short demonstrated poor judgement. 

Business is business. Personal life is personal life. 

When your personal life interferes with business in an unacceptable fashion - such as this kind of disruptive behaviour, there is only one answer. 

You already shifted her duties to non-travel as a result of her behaviour once. You already allowed her to not have to deal with this client as a result of her behaviour once. 

What the guy did isn't your problem. What she did is. 

She could be totally a kick ass engineer. There's a million of those, and schools are putting more out every day. 

Everyone's replaceable. Don't hang your neck out for her poor judgement and lack of perspective. She just doesn't deserve it, and it shows by her repaying your compassion with the threat of a lawsuit if she doesn't get coddled more.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Sounds like the husband is looking for money, and she feels pressured into supporting him.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

Lila said:


> Honestly, I don't know if John has take her back or not. I have tried my very best to keep discussions to a professional level.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have not said that you should or shouldn't be judged on the basis of your religious morals. 

However, are you trying to tell me that companies, corporations, organisations, the government, etc do not have moral codes of conduct and that employees cannot be fired for breaching these codes of conduct ? This is especially true in the DoD, MoD, etc. All I am saying is that Jane has acted immorally whether you fire her for this behaviour or not.

In the UK, I (in the past) have seen my boss fired for sleeping with the manager of one of our customer companies - it cast aspersions (brought up by our competition and others) as to why we received such large orders from this customer (despite the fact that the rest of us worked very hard to secure these orders). I have seen another manager fired for constant use of inflammatory racial remarks (not outright abuse, just risqué in terms of modern political correctness). All these represent moral codes of conduct that employers expect employees to abide by. They may be worded in different ways but the net result is the same.

And finally, I, for one, would expect to be judged by my moral behaviour for after all is said and done, this is what it all boils down to.

On the subject of alienation of affection, I have seen many professions condone fvcking around. It is a shame to see this law going the way of "at fault" divorce legislation. I guess it is easier to abolish than to enforce and make sure employers encourage moralistic behaviour. Anything that impedes easy (commercial) progress I guess will be removed ….. until that one case arrives where people really get hurt as a result …. and then it will be revisited!


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

Oh, and by the way, whether you meant to or not, you are very much involved in this personally and have opened up yourself and your manager to competency questions.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Moral and Ethical concerns are different. A supervisor sleeping with one of their direct reports is an ethical issue, it raises questions of unfair treatment etc.

An employee having an affair with someone not in their reporting structure is a moral issue. It may show bad character but doesn't imply any behavior that might directly harm the company. 

Most companies want ethical behavior, but do not try to regulate moral behavior. Where I work the only requirement on relationships withing the company is that if one develops involving a supervisor and direct report, that one or the other moves in the organization. 

I've been here a long time and become aware of several office affairs. Not my business unless the above conditions were met - and in the 2 cases I know of, the people involved voluntarily (and quietly) changed their position in the organization. One couple ended up married.







manfromlamancha said:


> I have not said that you should or shouldn't be judged on the basis of your religious morals.
> 
> However, are you trying to tell me that companies, corporations, organisations, the government, etc do not have moral codes of conduct and that employees cannot be fired for breaching these codes of conduct ? This is especially true in the DoD, MoD, etc. All I am saying is that Jane has acted immorally whether you fire her for this behaviour or not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

marduk said:


> Morality wasn't coming into it for me.
> 
> What I was getting at was that she allowed your company to be embarrassed by this, exposed to an investigation, perhaps financial consequences if this account walked away from your company, and in short demonstrated poor judgement.



I just want to clarify one thing that you keep mentioning....there has been no investigation at our company and there won't be one unless she files a lawsuit. And even then, the investigation will revolve around wrongful termination.

I think she's more embarrassed by her husband's behavior than the company is embarrassed by hers. Her husband's actions have negatively impacted how people see him. No one knows why he felt it necessary to expose the relationship to us, much less try to file a complaint at the DoD. We're contractors for crying out loud. They could care less about us.



marduk said:


> Business is business. Personal life is personal life.
> 
> When your personal life interferes with business in an unacceptable fashion - such as this kind of disruptive behaviour, there is only one answer.
> 
> You already shifted her duties to non-travel as a result of her behaviour once. You already allowed her to not have to deal with this client as a result of her behaviour once.


I agree and that's why i said that I should have stayed out of this from the get go. Let it play out based on her ability to perform her job. 



marduk said:


> What the guy did isn't your problem. What she did is.


Actually, neither of their actions is my problem when it occurs outside of business hours. That's why I am pi$$ed that we were wrangled into this mess. And we still have no idea why we were pulled into it to begin with.



marduk said:


> She could be totally a kick ass engineer. There's a million of those, and schools are putting more out every day.


I have to disagree with you on this one Marduk. I'm not going to lump all millenials into one bucket but we go through a lot of them. The work isn't easy and we follow a sink or swim approach to the job training. Very few engineers are self-motivated enough to do it much less do it right. Add to it the extreme travel requirements and we're lucky to have the few quality engineers we have.  



marduk said:


> Everyone's replaceable. Don't hang your neck out for her poor judgement and lack of perspective. She just doesn't deserve it, and it shows by her repaying your compassion with the threat of a lawsuit if she doesn't get coddled more.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm not but I sure wish it would just go away.


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

Lila said:


> I have to disagree with you. I think had we fired her at the time, she _would_ have had grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit. Personal beliefs, religion, sexual orientation, morals, etc.. can't be taken into account when determining termination.
> 
> I could have fired her on job performance had I attempted to force her to stay at the site AND had she refused. Unfortunately, I thought she could use some time at home. THAT was my mistake. I should have treated it like just any other day at the workplace. She stays on site and continues to work the job as always.
> 
> Frankly, I'm happy that our annual reviews do not include a box where we check off "did this person meet your moral or religious expectations in their personal life to your satisfaction?" My boss is a born again Christian and thinks imbibing alcohol is sinful. I'd be fired on the spot.


Her moral character, at manager level, is completely fair game.
Her moral decisions were impacting goodwill and harmony within the organization. The is directly tied to a performance issue. She should have been canned if you wanted to clean it up. 

Her H did the right thing to blow up the affair for his marriage. Now the wife has to live with the consequences.


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

Lila said:


> I think she's more embarrassed by her husband's behavior than the company is embarrassed by hers. Her husband's actions have negatively impacted how people see him. No one knows why he felt it necessary to expose the relationship to us, much less try to file a complaint at the DoD. We're contractors for crying out loud. They could care less about us.


Of course she's embarrassed, she got caught cheating. Fact that she is embarrassed about her H over reacting tells me she is not remorseful so H should can her too.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

manfromlamancha said:


> I have not said that you should or shouldn't be judged on the basis of your religious morals.
> 
> However, are you trying to tell me that companies, corporations, organisations, the government, etc do not have moral codes of conduct and that employees cannot be fired for breaching these codes of conduct ? This is especially true in the DoD, MoD, etc. All I am saying is that Jane has acted immorally whether you fire her for this behaviour or not.


I responded to this on an earlier post but here goes again..... 'morality clauses' can only be enforced for employees under contract. An at-will employee's (I live in an 'At-Will' state) off-duty conduct can only be controlled by state or local law. "_While these statutes vary in scope, generally they restrict an employer’s ability to discipline an at-will employee for engaging in legal activities while not at work_." So as long as adultery isn't a crime in our state, then an employer cannot fire his/her employee for engaging in it.....unless they've signed an employment contract with such a morality clause.




manfromlamancha said:


> In the UK, I (in the past) have seen my boss fired for sleeping with the manager of one of our customer companies - it cast aspersions (brought up by our competition and others) as to why we received such large orders from this customer (despite the fact that the rest of us worked very hard to secure these orders). I have seen another manager fired for constant use of inflammatory racial remarks (not outright abuse, just risqué in terms of modern political correctness). All these represent moral codes of conduct that employers expect employees to abide by. They may be worded in different ways but the net result is the same.


See @richardsharpe post above. 



manfromlamancha said:


> And finally, I, for one, would expect to be judged by my moral behaviour for after all is said and done, this is what it all boils down to.


Then we'll have to agree to disagree. 



manfromlamancha said:


> On the subject of alienation of affection, I have seen many professions condone fvcking around. It is a shame to see this law going the way of "at fault" divorce legislation. I guess it is easier to abolish than to enforce and make sure employers encourage moralistic behaviour. Anything that impedes easy (commercial) progress I guess will be removed ….. until that one case arrives where people really get hurt as a result …. and then it will be revisited!


The U.S. government is recognizing that policing morality is in most cases a complete waste of time and assets. Occasionally it has been found to go against the basis of our constitution (most recently Same-Sex Marriage). Our society is open to all people regardless of their belief system, background, sexuality, etc.. I prefer it to living in a society like Saudi Arabia's where the morality police runs around beating and arresting those who fail to follow the Sharia Law.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

jdawg2015 said:


> Her moral character, at manager level, is completely fair game.
> *Her moral decisions were impacting goodwill and harmony within the organization. * The is directly tied to a performance issue. She should have been canned if you wanted to clean it up.
> 
> Her H did the right thing to blow up the affair for his marriage. Now the wife has to live with the consequences.


How were her moral decisions impacting goodwill and harmony within the organization? 

And I agree that her husband should have blown up her affair.....I just think he should have blown it up to *people who can actually help and support them.* There's absolutely nothing we could have done for him or his wife.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

intheory said:


> ^^^ Does this mean "John was told by Lila and her boss that this was a personal . . . ."
> 
> So, you and your boss accommodated John's request? Or just you?


I meant that when 'John' exposed the affair to me, my boss, and HR, we all basically did the same thing (not to be dismissive but ....) shrugged our shoulders, patted him on the back, and tried to offer some words of sympathy but at the end of the conversation we all said the same thing...."This is a personal issue between you and your wife. Keep it out of the work place". 



intheory said:


> I think it's rotten that you might get a blemish on your work history for this.
> 
> Like Elegirl said upthread; any memos, letters etc., written or electronic - make sure you have copies to defend yourself. Example, when you warned Jane to keep her personal stuff out of her worklife - is there any written record; even it's just a carbon copy in a phone memo book, lol.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the words of encouragement IT. I also hope this all clears up soon.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Lila said:


> I meant that when 'John' exposed the affair to me, my boss, and HR, we all basically did the same thing (not to be dismissive but ....) shrugged our shoulders, patted him on the back, and tried to offer some words of sympathy but at the end of the conversation we all said the same thing...."This is a personal issue between you and your wife. Keep it out of the work place".


Totally agree.


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

Lila said:


> The U.S. government is recognizing that policing morality is in most cases a complete waste of time and assets. Occasionally it has been found to go against the basis of our constitution (most recently Same-Sex Marriage). Our society is open to all people regardless of their belief system, background, sexuality, etc.. I prefer it to living in a society like Saudi Arabia's where the morality police runs around beating and arresting those who fail to follow the Sharia Law.


You're pontificating about morality.

Fact is, when you get to manager level it's on the table.

I'm a Director. I have a morality clause in my employment contract. 

The fact is that when employees make decisions that impact workplace harmony (like a work-place affair) it does create a disruption and shows poor decision making. 

Very easy to write up the justification for termination. Unless it's a union position, and not a protected class, in the US if you want someone gone, it can easily be done. That's reality.

There is no discrimination here at.all. She crossed a line and it impacted the business and work environment. Her H got burned so not shocking it went scorched earth. So I don't blame him at all either, in fact he was smart to blow it out of the water.

If she travels, you also have to be cognizant that her personal life will be impacted because her H would not approve. That's your job to recognize and consider that as her boss even if she's in denial. 

She's damaged goods now. Face the facts and move on.

And get a more iron clad employment clause so employees know if they want to F like rabbits, that it's considered a no no for the very reasons you are dealing with right now. Your HR does in fact need to learn a lesson here.....


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

jdawg2015 said:


> You're pontificating about morality.
> 
> Fact is, when you get to manager level it's on the table.
> 
> I'm a Director. I have a morality clause in my employment contract.


That's well and good for someone with an employment contract but she's an 'at will' employee. No morality clause if there's no contract. 



jdawg2015 said:


> The fact is that when employees make decisions that impact workplace harmony (like a work-place affair) it does create a disruption and shows poor decision making.
> 
> Very easy to write up the justification for termination. Unless it's a union position, and not a protected class, in the US if you want someone gone, it can easily be done. That's reality.
> 
> There is no discrimination here at.all. She crossed a line and it impacted the business and work environment. Her H got burned so not shocking it went scorched earth. So I don't blame him at all either, in fact he was smart to blow it out of the water.


This WAS NOT a workplace affair. It was with some random guy she met while away on a project. 

I'm not worried about any possible lawsuit. I'm just pi $$ed that I'm even involved in something i had no desire to get involved with. 

See the reason for Jane to be fired below.



jdawg2015 said:


> If she travels, you also have to be cognizant that her personal life will be impacted because her H would not approve. That's your job to recognize and consider that as her boss even if she's in denial.


Her job included an up to 70% travel requirement. She took the job knowing this. Her husband was fine with the travel until he caught her cheating. THAT'S when he put his foot down and said no more traveling. THAT'S why I'm going to have to let her go....she's not meeting the requirements of her job. 

The issue is severance pay or unemployment benefits. If she's fired or she resigns, she doesn't get either. That's where the John and his c0ckamammy idea of a lawsuit comes in. 




jdawg2015 said:


> She's damaged goods now. Face the facts and move on.
> 
> And get a more iron clad employment clause so employees know if they want to F like rabbits, that it's considered a no no for the very reasons you are dealing with right now. Your HR does in fact need to learn a lesson here.....


This is completely outside my control. The company has policies of work ethics but will most likely never adopt morality clauses. That would require them to get involved in people's personal lives which is something they try to avoid at all costs.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

This particular employee never agreed to a morality clause, so they can't be fired for one. Having sex with someone from a different company who happens to work at the same site is not against the rules. 

It sucks that you're involved in this. From a management perspective, I say let the H sue. 

Travel is required for this job. If you document your requests for her travel, document her refusal, and have all the necessary meetings and such to warn her of what will happen... any case he files will peter out quickly.

Have you offered her the option of severance if she bows out gracefully, as opposed to the nothing she'll most likely get if she fights? Can you give an option of laying her off quietly instead of having to fire her for failure to perform?


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
we must work in very different environments. 

Where I work, someone can be fired for an ethics violation, but "morality" has never been mentioned. Some work places have limits on relationships between employees - that is not a "morality" issue. Where I work the only limit is supervisor / employee.


One of my direct reports had an affair, has separated from his wife and is going on a work trip with me with is new girlfriend. He asked in case I cared. I don't. He does excellent work, and whatever personal turmoil there may be in his life, it hasn't affected his work so its none of my business. If, as is likely, I meet his girlfriend, I will be my usual polite charming self :smile2:. I'm not his priest, I'm not a close friend, though we get along well at the office. His personal life is simply not my business as long as it doesn't impact his work - and it hasn't. 


BTW - If I referred to a female coworker as "damaged goods" because of an affair, I would expect to be fired, and I would not tolerate a comment like that from any of my employees. 








jdawg2015 said:


> You're pontificating about morality.
> 
> Fact is, when you get to manager level it's on the table.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Lila,
Have you coordinated with HR and documented the reason she is being fired? And provided her with written notice? 

The good news is, she was hired to do a job that requires a high level of travel and since she is now flat out refusing to travel, this is a clear cut situation. 

Have you explained to her that option (1) is a clean departure with positive reference and option (2) is going to create some bad feelings.

Separately have you asked her if she 'blames' the company for what is happening? And if so, why. 

In a way you have given her a type of severance by keeping her on from the date in October when you discovered she was refusing to travel. You've gone more than the extra mile for her. 

She will have great difficulty finding a lawyer to take her case. Especially since her actions directly resulted in her husband trying to file a complaint with your customer. 

Still - sad situation and draining to have to deal with. 






Lila said:


> This is more a of vent than anything else.
> 
> 2016 is starting out at work with a bang......and not a good bang either. I'm going to have to fire one of my best (and favorite) employees this month and it's killing me inside.
> 
> ...


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

It's a personal issue. As a young married woman, she took a job that required her to be away from home for up to 70% of the time. Her husband had no issues with this until she cheated. Now it's a big deal. Bottom line though is this was not - in any way - an affair that should involve the company in any way. If John was so damned concerned about his marriage, he would have NEVER condoned his wife taking a job that required such obscene amounts of travel. But he wasn't really concerned about his marriage. For all we know, John may have been happy with the compensation from the high volume of travel and may have just as likely encouraged it. The fact that he's trying to sue the company says more about John than it says about the company.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I guess she might do more satisfactory work for an escort service.

She really wasn't that damned good if she couldn't figure out which penis belonged to her husband.

I guess she should have figured it out before getting married or getting a job at your company.

Because she has been a moron, she can't have her marriage and her career.

Her stupid choice.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

Perhaps you should learn about Moral Turpitude:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude

I have that term specificially in my employment contract. It covers criminal and cival issues including adultery.

Having an affair with the customer or other contractors disrupts the work environment. Perhaps you don't care but other do. It's a distraction from the business at hand.

It also shows that the employee was engaging in more than work to even get into the affair.

It's precisely why companies put clauses into their employee code of conduct because they know that affairs and shenanigans like this cause problems in the ranks.

And if she's shagging a client or other subcontractor and it's not disclosed there are conflict of interest issues that could be litigated.

Yes, she's damaged goods to the company. She's a liability. Just look at the case already. Boss now has to deal with lawsuit threat and employee who has issues with traveling. And she has bad moral character. 

Would you want her to be a school teacher to your children? I would not.



richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> we must work in very different environments.
> 
> Where I work, someone can be fired for an ethics violation, but "morality" has never been mentioned. Some work places have limits on relationships between employees - that is not a "morality" issue. Where I work the only limit is supervisor / employee.
> ...


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> Again, she's a favorite because she does a helluva job at work. I'm not sure why you think "her actions impact her performance (she can't have been a fantastic worker while her marriage was disrupted)". If she was falling apart inside, I have no clue but she _has_, in an engineering and design capacity, delivered everything to client expectations, much better than any of my other direct reports.
> 
> And to the point about causing reputations or financial impact to the company, well *I think it showed a lack of restraint on her husband's part to bring this to her workplace. * There was nothing to be gained by doing this. We couldn't provide him any support. It's her place of employment not the scene of the crime. If the travel was an issue, then why not just ask her to quit? It makes no sense.
> 
> ...


She brought this to the workplace, not him. If she had not had an affair, this would not be happening.

This is a textbook example of unintended consequences, and how terrible decisions and behaviors have far reaching ramifications far beyond what ever could be imagined, and how people that never in a million years one would have thought would be affected end up being affected.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> She brought this to the workplace, not him. If she had not had an affair, this would not be happening.
> 
> This is a textbook example of unintended consequences, and how terrible decisions and behaviors have far reaching ramifications far beyond what ever could be imagined, and how people that never in a million years one would have thought would be affected end up being affected.


Why did he need to involve her workplace?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> If she is a good employee, she might come back after her marriage ends.


I hope she divorces that guy, too. She could focus on her career, and meet someone more suitable.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*It's easy, @Lila ! Fire her a$$ ASAP! 

A company has a reasonable expectation that an employee is going to preeminently represent the companies bests interests in a public relations endeavor! That should always be an integral part of an pre-employment contract that they should be made to sign before ever going onto the clock!

And that means that it is definitely not in the companies best interest for her to drop her drawers for Johnny Contractor's prurient interests!

That is, unless of course, that they are in the porn business! *
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*It's easy, @Lila ! Fire her a$$ ASAP! 

A company has a reasonable expectation that an employee is going to preeminently represent the companies bests interests in a public relations endeavor! That should always be an integral part of an pre-employment contract that they should be made to sign before ever going onto the clock!

And that means that it is definitely not in the companies best interest for her to be dropping her drawers for Johnny Contractor's prurient interests!

That is, unless of course, that the company and the contractor are in the "porn business!"*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

samyeagar said:


> She brought this to the workplace, not him. If she had not had an affair, this would not be happening.
> 
> This is a textbook example of unintended consequences, and how terrible decisions and behaviors have far reaching ramifications far beyond what ever could be imagined, and how people that never in a million years one would have thought would be affected end up being affected.


Of course she started it by cheating. But if she had met the other man at Starbucks, should he complain to their corporate office?

She wasn't having sex at work, that's just where she met the guy. Blowing it up to the whole company achieves nothing but complicating the issue by involving innocent bystanders.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

OpenWindows said:


> Of course she started it by cheating. But if she had met the other man at Starbucks, should he complain to their corporate office?
> 
> She wasn't having sex at work, that's just where she met the guy. Blowing it up to the whole company achieves nothing but complicating the issue by involving innocent bystanders.


The husband must not have felt he could put the marriage back together on his own. He was appealing to outside authority. Risky.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

jld said:


> The husband must not have felt he could put the marriage back together on his own. He was appealing to outside authority. Risky.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


He involved the company, and is now threatening to sue them over their involvement. My sympathy for him is limited.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

OpenWindows said:


> He involved the company, and is now threatening to sue them over their involvement. My sympathy for him is limited.


I would totally dump him if I were her.

Pity that she has already lost her job because of him. She is going to learn the hard way. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Roselyn (Sep 19, 2010)

OP, this case is simple. The job requires 70% travel which your employee can no longer comply. I would replace her. Consider your experience a learning one. You cannot exempt her from the travel requirements. Other engineers will resent you for changing her work requirements and will cause dis-harmony in the workplace. You will get the fall-out in the long run.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

jld said:


> Why did he need to involve her workplace?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Doesn't matter. If she doesn't have the affair, she is able to continue to travel and keep her job, and he doesn't sue. The fact that his wife made a poor decision precipitated all of this.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

OpenWindows said:


> Of course she started it by cheating. *But if she had met the other man at Starbucks*, should he complain to their corporate office?
> 
> She wasn't having sex at work, that's just where she met the guy. Blowing it up to the whole company achieves nothing but complicating the issue by involving innocent bystanders.


Again, so what if she met the other guy at Starbucks.

The possible suit is for wrongful termination. The fact is, his wife's behavior led directly to her being unable to perform her required job duties. He is now blaming her employer instead of his wife, the one whose poor decision caused this. People in this thread are questioning the husband, getting mad that he's threatening a lawsuit. Get mad at her for creating this situation in the first place. Again, it was the wife's decision that started all of this. The husband has done and is doing nothing wrong. 

This kind of fallout is one of the possibilities when people cheat, and it is fully the responsibility of the cheater. Bad decisions sometimes have bad consequences the go far beyond the ones immediately involved.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

OpenWindows said:


> He involved the company, and is now threatening to sue them over their involvement. My sympathy for him is limited.


She involved the company. Her actions outside of work led directly to her not being able to perform her job. No affair, she can keep travelling, does not get fired, no wrongful termination lawsuit.

I agree that bringing a suit is foolish on his part because it is open and shut against him. No way he's going to win. I do feel bad that his wife put him in the position where he would even have to consider this.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

samyeagar said:


> The possible suit is for wrongful termination. The fact is, his wife's behavior led directly to her being unable to perform her required job duties. He is now blaming her employer instead of his wife, the one whose poor decision caused this. People in this thread are questioning the husband, getting mad that he's threatening a lawsuit. Get mad at her for creating this situation in the first place. Again, it was the wife's decision that started all of this. The husband has done and is doing nothing wrong.
> 
> This kind of fallout is one of the possibilities when people cheat, and it is fully the responsibility of the cheater. Bad decisions sometimes have bad consequences the go far beyond the ones immediately involved.


The fact that she did something stupid and involved the workplace doesn't exempt the fact that he did something stupid and involved them further (blowing it up), and then did something else stupid for even more involvement (lawsuit).

I'll be mad at them both. "She started it" doesn't fly after grade school.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> Doesn't matter. If she doesn't have the affair, she is able to continue to travel and keep her job, and he doesn't sue. The fact that his wife made a poor decision precipitated all of this.


How far back do you go? My guess is her mistake was marrying him in the first place.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

OpenWindows said:


> This particular employee never agreed to a morality clause, so they can't be fired for one. Having sex with someone from a different company who happens to work at the same site is not against the rules.
> 
> It sucks that you're involved in this. From a management perspective, I say let the H sue.
> 
> ...


As far as I know there's been no talk of severance. 

Told her that if she wasn't going to be able to travel to the job site in February, I was going to have to let her go I did offer her a recommendation letter following my discussion with her in October. 

I don't think a wrongful termination suit has legs but I am going to do a better job of documenting.....just in case.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

I really hope she wakes up and ditches that guy. She sounds like a smart gal with a bright future. Her husband is standing in the way of that, though.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

If hubby hadn't blown it up and threatened to sue, it would have looked more like this...

She cheated. He found out. He demanded the travel stop. She was not able to meet her job requirements and had to quit/be fired.

His actions are the cause of the sticky legal situation. Her action precipitated that... but he still made a choice that caused a much bigger mess. That was his choice, and he is still responsible for that, just as wife is responsible for hers.

I don't buy this philosophy that cheating justifies any action that comes after. His choice caused extra, unnecessary fallout.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> As far as I know there's been no talk of severance.
> 
> Told her that if she wasn't going to be able to travel to the job site in February, I was going to have to let her go I did offer her a recommendation letter following my discussion with her in October.
> 
> I don't think a wrongful termination suit has legs but I am going to do a better job of documenting.....just in case.


The only real issue I can see is that you did set precedent back in October by lowering the travel expectation for her, especially if you did not lower that expectation for anyone else.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

jld said:


> I really hope she wakes up and ditches that guy. She sounds like a smart gal with a bright future. Her husband is standing in the way of that, though.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


blaming the BH, how nice of you....

By default, since she cheated, she is neither very smart or moral.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> blaming the BH, how nice of you....
> 
> By default, since she cheated, she is neither very smart or moral.


I think she is naive. Definitely in regard to her choice of mate. 

But she will learn.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Lila,
> Have you coordinated with HR and documented the reason she is being fired? And provided her with written notice?


HR is aware of the situation but because we haven't hit the deadline for travel yet, there really isn't anything to document. However, it has become abundantly clear that I do need to start tracking our discussions and correspondence. 



MEM11363 said:


> The good news is, she was hired to do a job that requires a high level of travel and since she is now flat out refusing to travel, this is a clear cut situation.
> 
> Have you explained to her that option (1) is a clean departure with positive reference and option (2) is going to create some bad feelings.


I have done the above. Back in October I told her about the upcoming project and expected travel. That's when I told her I was going to have to let her go if she couldn't meet her job responsibilities. But I also gave her some time to look for another job. I even offered a recommendation letter. I think I've done about all I can do to help her out.



MEM11363 said:


> Separately have you asked her if she 'blames' the company for what is happening? And if so, why.


Based on our conversations, and again I do not bring up the personal stuff, she's not blaming the company. I think she, like I, wishes things had turned out differently. She's at the crossroads - does she do what her husband asks to keep him happy or does she not and risk losing him. I can't blame her for trying to salvage her marriage but then again business is business.



MEM11363 said:


> In a way you have given her a type of severance by keeping her on from the date in October when you discovered she was refusing to travel. You've gone more than the extra mile for her.
> 
> She will have great difficulty finding a lawyer to take her case. Especially since her actions directly resulted in her husband trying to file a complaint with your customer.
> 
> Still - sad situation and draining to have to deal with.


Thanks for the encouraging words Mem. This whole thing has been going on a while but it's coming to an end. Hopefully it'll be nothing more than a bad memory soon.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

You can fire her without cause. When you fire her you don't have to explain to her why. Anyone who gets fired by a company can pursue legal action. Many company's would rather pay a small amount of severance than deal with a nuisance lawsuit. You can see yourself the benefits of doing this. 

This is just the nature of being in management. You get people who want to sue. Dealing with this is part of what you are being paid for. You didn't do or not do anything to create the opportunity for a disgruntled employee to sue. 

However, it is surprising you went to bat for her when your boss rightly wanted to fire her. You have a nightmare employee who's husband is lodging complaints with your client.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

jld, you should know better.

Rabble rabble, burn the cheater, rabble rabble.

This is TAM. Most mistakes are forgivable, except for that one. She should pay for it until the day she dies.

OK, I'm being overly dramatic, but that's the way it feels around here sometimes.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

jld said:


> I think she is naive. Definitely in regard to her choice of mate.
> 
> But she will learn.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


based on what? We know little about him, other than he blew the affair out of the water. She most likely lied to cover her butt, which lead him to think this was facilitated by the OP's company.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

OpenWindows said:


> If hubby hadn't blown it up and threatened to sue, it would have looked more like this...
> 
> She cheated. He found out. He demanded the travel stop. She was not able to meet her job requirements and had to quit/be fired.
> 
> ...


Myself personally, I would not sue, nor hold anyone but my wife responsible. In fact, I would have ended the marriage right then and there.

That said, I am not going to fault him for trying to look out for himself in a situation not of his own making. Of course, it is his choice to stay married and deal with the consequences. One of those consequences is being married to a woman who lost their job.

I suspect that if she was not given special treatment when this first blew up, that if she was held to the travel standard in the first place, this would not be an issue now.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

OpenWindows said:


> jld, you should know better.
> 
> Rabble rabble, burn the cheater, rabble rabble.
> 
> ...


I should know better, OW. But every day I come here fresh and full of optimism that there will be compassion and understanding of why women cheat, and how to prevent it. I guess I am naive, too. 

What I really should do is just encourage every WW to leave, herself. 

My friend @lifeistooshort says every woman should be financially independent. She is right. That way a woman is always free to leave a man who does not meet her needs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

OpenWindows said:


> jld, you should know better.
> 
> Rabble rabble, burn the cheater, rabble rabble.
> 
> ...


some can forgive infidelity and some can not. Not only did this person cheat on her husband she has also lost her (high paying job) and put her family in a precarious situation.

and even if she is forgiven she will pay for it until the day she dies because you can't stuff the genie back in the bottle. she should feel remorse for fouling up everybody's life. and maybe never again to be trusted by her husband. 

all because of her decision to cheat.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

OpenWindows said:


> jld, you should know better.
> 
> Rabble rabble, burn the cheater, rabble rabble.
> 
> ...


I don't think there is anything excessive in her consequences here. She is essentially being faced with a choice of her own making...her job or her marriage. Sometimes making adult decisions have adult consequences, and contrary to popular belief, you can't always have it all.

Again, if I were the husband in this situation, it would be a win for everyone. I would no longer have a cheating wife, my ex wife could keep her job, and the company could keep a good employee.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> I don't think there is anything excessive in her consequences here. She is essentially being faced with a choice of her own making...her job or her marriage. Sometimes making adult decisions have adult consequences, and contrary to popular belief, you can't always have it all.
> 
> Again, if I were the husband in this situation, it would be a win for everyone. I would no longer have a cheating wife, my ex wife could keep her job, and the company could keep a good employee.


Divorcing John would definitely be a Win for Jane. I hope she sees that soon.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Lila, if she came in tomorrow and told you she was divorcing and wanted to stay with the company, what would you say?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

Her losing her job and possibly her marriage is the consequence of her actions. 

Any financial struggles due to hubby pursuing a doomed lawsuit are the consequence of his actions. 

A future prospective employer wouldn't have to think twice about hiring her if hubby hadn't blown it up... she had a job, could no longer meet the requirements, and left. But if she SUES over it... Well let's just say if they stay together, he may have to resign himself to being the main breadwinner. You can assign blame for that however you see fit. 

They created this clusterf*** together.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

jld said:


> Lila, if she came in tomorrow and told you she was divorcing and wanted to stay with the company, what would you say?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


From what I gather, everything would be a non issue then. The line in the sand is this February. She travels, she keeps her job, she refuses to travel, she loses it. Pretty clear cut.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

samyeagar said:


> She brought this to the workplace, not him. If she had not had an affair, this would not be happening.
> 
> This is a textbook example of unintended consequences, and how terrible decisions and behaviors have far reaching ramifications far beyond what ever could be imagined, and how people that never in a million years one would have thought would be affected end up being affected.


Who gets to decides what's an acceptable or terrible personal moral decision or behavior? IMO it definitely shouldn't be up to one's place of employment. 

Personal matters should not be brought up into the workplace unless it is the venue in which the behavior occurred. It is not fair to co-workers to involve them in personal problems, especially if they had _nothing to do_ with those personal problems and they _don't want_ anything to do with those problems.

Here's an example......A colleague was involved in an ugly divorce. His ex was requesting alimony to which he refused. She decided to be incredibly vindictive and brought his personal life into the workplace. She made his work life unbearable. To boot, she demanded he have 50/50 custody knowing full well that this was near impossible with his travel schedule. 

Our boss is a Christian Conservative who lives his life in accordance with the Bible. He believes divorce is morally wrong. In his eyes, it's a sin. Could he have fired my colleague because of the divorce and ensuing drama? Yes. Did he? No. He wisely chose to warn my colleague to keep his personal drama out of the work place. He also gave my colleague a pay cut in exchange for no travel requirements (much like me).

As a secular place of employment, we cannot pick and choose which personal life decisions, and subsequent consequences, are acceptable and those that should be punished. Keep it out of the work place.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

OpenWindows said:


> *Her losing her job* and possibly her marriage is the consequence of her actions.
> 
> Any financial struggles due to hubby pursuing a doomed lawsuit are the consequence of his actions.
> 
> ...


She hasn't lost her job yet, and my understanding is, she won't unless she refuses to travel.

I think the best and smartest thing in all of this would be for Jane to travel. She keeps her job, there is no lawsuit, and there isn't any guarantee anyway that even if she does lose her job, that she will keep her marriage anyway.

I'm sure nobody saw this coming...Jane, her husband, her employer, and nobody knew what the fallout would actually be. This is the risk...too many unknowns, too many possibilities to be taken into account, and none of them good.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

samyeagar said:


> The only real issue I can see is that you did set precedent back in October by lowering the travel expectation for her, especially if you did not lower that expectation for anyone else.


See my post about the divorced colleague. The precedent has been set in the past....just for other reasons.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

OpenWindows said:


> Her losing her job and possibly her marriage is the consequence of her actions.
> 
> Any financial struggles due to hubby pursuing a doomed lawsuit are the consequence of his actions.
> 
> ...


I really hope she gets out from under him. He is bad news for her career. 

But I don't think she has the courage yet. And she will pay for that. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Hicks said:


> You can fire her without cause. When you fire her you don't have to explain to her why. Anyone who gets fired by a company can pursue legal action. Many company's would rather pay a small amount of severance than deal with a nuisance lawsuit. You can see yourself the benefits of doing this.
> 
> This is just the nature of being in management. You get people who want to sue. Dealing with this is part of what you are being paid for. You didn't do or not do anything to create the opportunity for a disgruntled employee to sue.
> 
> However, *it is surprising you went to bat for her when your boss rightly wanted to fire her. You have a nightmare employee who's husband is lodging complaints with your client*.


As I stated earlier, she's a good engineer who does excellent work In my industry, those are hard to find. Even harder to find the ones that want to be road warriors.

And we've gone to bat for other employees in the past for other reasons. Had I not had someone go up for bat for me a few years ago, then I would either still be traveling 50% of the time or I would have been fired. Paying it forward.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> *Who gets to decides what's an acceptable or terrible personal moral decision or behavior?* IMO it definitely shouldn't be up to one's place of employment.
> 
> Personal matters should not be brought up into the workplace unless it is the venue in which the behavior occurred. It is not fair to co-workers to involve them in personal problems, especially if they had _nothing to do_ with those personal problems and they _don't want_ anything to do with those problems.
> 
> ...


I'm not really concerned about the morality of cheating, but it is a personal decision, and virtually always has negative consequences, many unforeseen and farther reaching then ever considered. It's only a matter of degree just how negative they are ranging from a few dirty looks socially all the way to lives being lost, and nobody knows whats going to happen until after the fact. From a purely risk analysis point of view, cheating is a terrible decision.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
If you look at wikipedia link, it shows that "adultery" as a case of "moral turpitude" for govermnent work was repealed by public law 97-116. I also know that airline pilots are trying to get the "good moral character" clause removed.


Yes, if she has a personal relationship with a client that could impact negotiations, that is a serious ETHICAL problem, but one more likely to benefit her company. 

I would hope that a school teacher's sex life has no impact in any way at all on her students. So, I have no problem with an adulterer, stripper, porn star etc as a teacher. 








jdawg2015 said:


> Perhaps you should learn about Moral Turpitude:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude
> 
> I have that term specificially in my employment contract. It covers criminal and cival issues including adultery.
> ...


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

intheory said:


> Marduk was pretty harsh with you. But I think it's true that you can never, ever, give people a break on stuff like this. Not at work. Your sanity and career standing are too important.
> 
> I hope this gets cleared up with little to no impact on you, Lila. Now you know.


Sorry if I was harsh, Lila. I'm pretty cut and dried with stuff like this at work.

There's too much work to be done to fuss around with stuff like this, and too many good people who deserve a chance if people that work for you are bound and determined to make foolish choices.

I respect you Lila, and spoke to you like I would a peer at work, and if that came off harsh or unwarranted, I apologize.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

samyeagar said:


> I don't think there is anything excessive in her consequences here. She is essentially being faced with a choice of her own making...her job or her marriage. Sometimes making adult decisions have adult consequences, and contrary to popular belief, you can't always have it all.
> 
> *Again, if I were the husband in this situation, it would be a win for everyone. I would no longer have a cheating wife, my ex wife could keep her job, and the company could keep a good employee.*





jld said:


> Divorcing John would definitely be a Win for Jane. I hope she sees that soon.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I definitely would have been a win for ME had they just separated and gone their own ways early on. Life would have gone on as usual. Can't speak to their situation because I'm not involved in their personal life. But they have managed to **** it up for everyone else.



jld said:


> Lila, if she came in tomorrow and told you she was divorcing and wanted to stay with the company, what would you say?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



It's a selfish move on my part but I would keep her. Under 'normal' circumstances she makes my job easier. If we could return to normal then it would be business as usual. But she can't do her job unless she travels and her husband doesn't want her to travel....understandable. She's chosen her marriage so I made the decision to move forward without her.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

samyeagar said:


> I'm not really concerned about the morality of cheating, but it is a personal decision, and virtually always has negative consequences, many unforeseen and farther reaching then ever considered. It's only a matter of degree just how negative they are ranging from a few dirty looks socially all the way to lives being lost, and nobody knows whats going to happen until after the fact. From a purely risk analysis point of view, cheating is a terrible decision.


Personally, I completely agree that cheating is a terrible decision. 

Professionally, I don't care as long as it doesn't affect the workplace.

Call it compartmentalizing but it's how I have to function if I want to continue to do my job well.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> I definitely would have been a win for ME had they just separated and gone their own ways early on. Life would have gone on as usual. Can't speak to their situation because I'm not involved in their personal life. But they have managed to **** it up for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nothing selfish about that at all. You describe her as a good employee. Of course you should want to keep her. There are no moral or ethical dilemmas here. The only thing at issue is purely pragmatic...can she do the job, yes or no, can she travel, yes or no, reasons why or why not are completely immaterial.

Unfortunately for you, this has turned into a situation full of mutually exclusive decisions that you have zero control over.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> I really hope she wakes up and ditches that guy. She sounds like a smart gal with a bright future. Her husband is standing in the way of that, though.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She won't, unless she learns not to have sex with client companies.

Listen, JLD. You have no idea what you are talking about. Hell, we just fired a guy who did this, from the other end.

Not because he was cheating on his wife. But because he was in a sexual relationship with a woman who represented a company that we pay money to -- and he has influence on the decision to pay that company money.

In other words, he was in a pure conflict of interest situation of his own doing, and didn't disclose the fact himself. He had poor judgement and compromised integrity. So into the unemployment line he went.

Same goes for the woman he was having an affair with -- not because she was cheating, but because she compromised her company's reputation with ours -- how do we know she wasn't sleeping with him to get more business?

Again, conflict of interest that was undisclosed, undue influence, and a lack of integrity and judgement. The only way our company and hers effectively can move forward and do business is if these two are no longer involved.

It's how business works. Business doesn't care if you have an affair, they care if your decision making, integrity, or business ethics are compromised.

In short kids, don't **** a client.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> Personally, I completely agree that cheating is a terrible decision.
> 
> Professionally, I don't care as long as it doesn't affect the workplace.
> 
> *Call it compartmentalizing but it's how I have to function if I want to continue to do my job well*.


And compartmentalization works a treat...until it doesn't.

As soon as you found out about the affair, you should have been on high alert for anything, and should have been counting on things happening that you were not considering right then, and assuming things were going to happen that you never dreamed of.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda, about how things like this in a persons personal life should be kept separate from work, but it rarely works out that way, and all the talking about how it coulda, shoulda, woulda, does not change the fact that it didn't.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

I thought Lila said there was no conflict of interest?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

jld said:


> I thought Lila said there was no conflict of interest?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She does not think there is, and almost certainly there was not...but what if there are facts that have not come out yet, what if the guy Jane slept with decides to climb out of the woodwork with accusations of his own, what if there was some level of corporate espionage at play here...

The fact is, nobody knows for certain, and to assume that they do is arrogant in the extreme. Part of why things like this have to be dealt with swiftly and harshly is because it is just too risky to take a chance on facts unknown when acting on what is known is enough to render the unknown moot.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Not everyone is _terrified_ of an affair. If Lila says there was no conflict of interest, I am willing to leave it there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

jld said:


> Not everyone is _terrified_ of an affair. If Lila says there was no conflict of interest, I am willing to leave it there.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The whole point of this thread is because of fallout from an affair that Lila NEVER SAW COMING! It is a case in point that to assume one can see how things will play out with any kind of certainty is foolish, especially when so many of the variables at play are completely beyond ones control. When it comes to business, it is always best to operate under worst case scenarios, and to assume that the worst case is worse than what one is imagining.

Is it fair? No. Is it childish and disingenuous to threaten a lawsuit? Yes. Are there better ways of handling things? Absolutely. That does not change the fact that this is how this is playing out, and this whole mess has to be dealt with, and no amount of soapbox standing, wailing and gnashing of teeth will change that fact.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> She involved the company. Her actions outside of work led directly to her not being able to perform her job. *No affair, she can keep travelling,* does not get fired, no wrongful termination lawsuit.
> 
> I agree that bringing a suit is foolish on his part because it is open and shut against him. No way he's going to win. I do feel bad that his wife put him in the position where he would even have to consider this.


This is why I think both the H and the W in this example are equally culpable in this mess and both are dumbasses. In reality, the root cause is the fact that the woman took the job in the first place. She wanted the job and her H was supportive of his wife being gone from the home 70% of the time. The fact that people are siding with the one over the other is little more than rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic. 

If you are married, DO NOT take a job that requires you to be away from home for over 50% of the time. If you are married, you would have to be a fvcking idiot to sign up for that OR be a spouse who supports your SO taking a job like that. I have little sympathy for either John or Jane. Both wiped their asses with their marriage license in my book.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> This is why I think both the H and the W in this example are equally culpable in this mess and both are dumbasses. In reality, the root cause is the fact that the woman took the job in the first place. She wanted the job and her H was supportive of his wife being gone from the home 70% of the time. The fact that people are siding with the one over the other is little more than rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic.
> 
> If you are married, DO NOT take a job that requires you to be away from home for over 50% of the time. If you are married, you would have to be a fvcking idiot to sign up for that OR be a spouse who supports your SO taking a job like that. I have little sympathy for either John or Jane. Both wiped their asses with their marriage license in my book.


I agree that a marriage is much harder with this amount of travel, and I would not be in a marriage like this, I am not so willing to impose my beliefs on others. Yes, in most cases, it is a recipe for disaster. Once the decision is made, presumably mutually in this case as we have no reason to believe otherwise, it is up to the respective parties to hold up their end of the agreement, or negotiate a change in terms of the agreement. She did not.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

My husband is away for work most of the time, and neither of us is cheating. 

Plenty of people sleeping in the same bed every night find out their partner is cheating.

I think you have to look at the internals of the relationship to understand, and prevent, cheating.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Lila,

That's a good idea. It will reduce the chance of ending up in a 'she said, she said' type situation. 



UOTE=Lila;14567657]As far as I know there's been no talk of severance. 

Told her that if she wasn't going to be able to travel to the job site in February, I was going to have to let her go I did offer her a recommendation letter following my discussion with her in October. 

I don't think a wrongful termination suit has legs but I am going to do a better job of documenting.....just in case.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> My husband is away for work most of the time, and neither of us is cheating.
> 
> Plenty of people sleeping in the same bed every night find out their partner is cheating.
> 
> ...


Having the opportunity to cheat is often cited as the #1 predictor of infidelity.

Traveling a lot provides a hell of a lot of opportunity.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> Having the opportunity to cheat is often cited as the #1 predictor of infidelity.
> 
> Traveling a lot provides a hell of a lot of opportunity.


I have total confidence in Dug.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

This is a slight threadjack but somewhat related @Lila perhaps @marduk and anyone else who has this type of management decision or authority:

If an employee who was promoted from within to an entirely different level, has been in the position for 3 years and has done so well as to receive an award for the last two years, is temporarily reassigned to help put a new office in place. Then there is a family event that occurred for which he requests release from the assignment would you grant it? If so would his request tarnish his record in your eyes? Would his advancement be stalled based on his requesting special consideration for family needs? And if you say no it would not, does most management feel that way? As they say in professional sports, is the best ability availability? 

Thanks for any insight.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> I thought Lila said there was no conflict of interest?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Here's what is supposed to happen.

If company A is giving money to company B for services, and a person from company A and a person from company B have a personal relationship, those two people must disclose the relationship to both companies.

Once you disclose, it's up to the decision makers in company A and B to decide if these two people have influence on the decision making, and either decide to remove these people from the situation by reassigning them, or mitigating their influence from the decision making process.

It's right in our standards of conduct, and right in the standards of conduct with every company I've been with. Hell, I helped write the damn thing for our company.

The non-disclosure is usually grounds for termination by itself. Or at least disciplinary action.

And if Lila's company is a small/flat structure, the influence part of it is pretty hard to mitigate, especially if you didn't know it was happening until it's too late.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

marduk said:


> Having the opportunity to cheat is often cited as the #1 predictor of infidelity.
> 
> Traveling a lot provides a hell of a lot of opportunity.



_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

thefam said:


> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Do not worry, tfam. I am sure you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

thefam said:


> This is a slight threadjack but somewhat related @Lila perhaps @marduk and anyone else who has this type of management decision or authority:
> 
> If an employee who was promoted from within to an entirely different level, has been in the position for 3 years and has done so well as to receive an award for the last two years, is temporarily reassigned to help put a new office in place. Then there is a family event that occurred for which he requests release from the assignment would you grant it? If so would his request tarnish his record in your eyes? Would his advancement be stalled based on his requesting special consideration for family needs? And if you say no it would not, does most management feel that way? As they say in professional sports, is the best ability availability?
> 
> ...


Yes, I'd probably allow it if the employee was as good as you say. It wouldn't tarnish the employee's record in my eyes, as long as they went about it in a professional fashion -- limiting the impact, trying to help out whenever they could, and accepting other duties that maybe are of lower impact in the meantime.

His advancement wouldn't be stalled based on requesting special consideration -- **** happens -- as long as it's a one time deal. 

However, advancement would likely be stalled just based on natural consequences. You're giving up one way to shine and hanging tight for a bit based on personal reasons. While someone else can come in and shine in your place, right?

So he might get passed over for what's next just based on someone else coming in and rocking it out.

It happens. It's a risk. What you decide to do is up to your risk/reward balance.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> Here's what is supposed to happen.
> 
> If company A is giving money to company B for services, and a person from company A and a person from company B have a personal relationship, those two people must disclose the relationship to both companies.
> 
> ...


I thought she said the companies were unrelated, and the two just happened to meet at a DoD site?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

thefam said:


> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sorry. Didn't mean to upset you!

What I'm reflecting on was some recent polls where men and women were asked if they would cheat if they knew they would never get caught. Something like three quarters of both men and women said yes.

I've travelled for work, and been across the world and known I could never get caught. 

So I know the situation.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> I thought she said the companies were unrelated, and the two just happened to meet at a DoD site?


Yup, I was making the situation cleaner just to make the point.



> Dave, how would the company be complicit in the affair? The AP didn't work for the company, he wasn't our subcontractor, heck he wasn't even working on the same job site. They met on base. He was working his site, she was working hers. It would be like trying to sue Starbucks as being complicit in an affair of two totally people who buy their coffee there.


In cases like this, it actually becomes _worse._

Because things get complicated fast. What dealings to the two contractors have? What financial dealings have been made together in the past? What other relationships do the two contractors have? What information about the DoD could they have passed back and forth to give each other, or the two companies, undue influence?

You could easily come up with a situation, at least in Canada, where the two contractors have to open the books up for years in the past to the contracting company -- and it gets worse because it's the military, so things can immediately become public record to boot.

And then you well and truly have a ****storm on your hands, all while both companies get deprioritized by the military for contracts in the future.

Bad, bad, bad, and worse.

I don't think that's going to happen necessarily as a result of this. But it's what these two exposed your two companies to. And that kind of risk probably isn't worth keeping these two horn dogs around. 

Just poor judgement.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

jld said:


> I thought she said the companies were unrelated, and the two just happened to meet at a DoD site?


I think that is correct, but as I have said, when something like this blows up, it is wise to assume that there will be unknown facts that will come into play. It is quite likely things will work themselves out without any real further fallout or ramifications, but to assume that they will, to assume that one has all the facts, is unwise. It's not over until it's all over, and even then, things have a way of popping up again in the future.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> Yup, I was making the situation cleaner just to make the point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This sounds like . . ._ paranoia._

Two *friends* could talk about these things. Should everyone be forbidden from any interaction at all if they are not from the same company?


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

marduk said:


> Yup, I was making the situation cleaner just to make the point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In the end, I think it will be a non issue, and the company will be held harmless, but damn...getting to that point can be a HUGE night mare with huge costs. Why do people think companies pay out large sums approaching a million dollars or more for out of court settlements in cases the company would likely win in the end? Purely cost benefit, and it is cheaper in dollars and hours just to pay out rather than fight.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

jld said:


> This sounds like . . ._ paranoia._
> 
> Two *friends* could talk about these things. Should everyone be forbidden from any interaction at all if they are not from the same company?


It's not paranoia. It's reality.

Most people ARE prohibited from talking about business with other people. They frequently do it without thinking of the repercussions if something goes bad. In the case of having an affair that even tertiarily touches the business, when emotions get involved, all bets are off.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> It's not paranoia. It's reality.
> 
> Most people ARE prohibited from talking about business with other people. They frequently do it without thinking of the repercussions if something goes bad. In the case of having an affair that even tertiarily touches the business, when emotions get involved, all bets are off.


I don't think *business* is what they were talking about.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jld said:


> This sounds like . . ._ paranoia._
> 
> Two *friends* could talk about these things. Should everyone be forbidden from any interaction at all if they are not from the same company?


Welcome to big business.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

jld said:


> I don't think *business* is what they were talking about.


Just because you think that it wasn't doesn't mean that they won't have to PROVE that they weren't if questions arise in court. See, that's the thing about this...yes, marduk and I are presenting pretty bad, and admittedly unlikely scenarios, but the unlikely can and does happen, and short sighted people never see it coming until it's too late, and rather than stopping it before it all happens, a lot of people are left cleaning up a mess not of their own doing, and the cleanup is almost always way more expensive than prevention.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

marduk said:


> Welcome to big business.


I don't think she is a threat to her company.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

There are two reasons I do not check my work email on my personal cell phone...the first being, I do try and keep a solid divide between my work life and my private life. The second is that in the unlikely event something, anything happens, my phone would then be subject to legal discovery and could be confiscated by subpoena with no recourse on my end. Extremely slim chance of that happening, but not worth the risk for me.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> Just because you think that it wasn't doesn't mean that they won't have to PROVE that they weren't if questions arise in court. See, that's the thing about this...yes, marduk and I are presenting pretty bad, and admittedly unlikely scenarios, but the unlikely can and does happen, and short sighted people never see it coming until it's too late, and rather than stopping it before it all happens, a lot of people are left cleaning up a mess not of their own doing, and the cleanup is almost always way more expensive than prevention.


I think you and Marduk can relax now, Sam.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

jld said:


> I don't think she is a threat to her company.


Doesn't matter what you think jld. As this whole situation has played out, she IS a liability, and there could end up being many difficult questions where it has to be PROVEN that she is not.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> Doesn't matter what you think jld. As this whole situation has played out, she IS a liability, and there could end up being many difficult questions where it has to be PROVEN that she is not.


I think Lila has made her case.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

jld said:


> I think Lila has made her case.


And if this actually goes forward, it'll be out of her hands and up to her companies lawyers to make the case...at likely more than $1000 per hour to do so. If that happens, I hope Lila does not get any blow back from her company...


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

samyeagar said:


> And if this actually goes forward, it'll be out of her hands and up to her companies lawyers to make the case...at likely more than $1000 per hour to do so. If that happens, I hope Lila does not get any blow back from her company...


Lila, are you concerned about that?


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

The most positive part of this is that the husband will have no standing with the court. Unfortunately, he can still file, and the company will still have to send a lawyer to answer and demonstrate the husbands lack of standing. If Jane goes along with her husband, then things will get messy in a hurry. Lila and her company are now in position to be reactionary. There is not much that they can do proactively. In short, it's out of their hands.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

thefam said:


> This is a slight threadjack but somewhat related @Lila perhaps @marduk and anyone else who has this type of management decision or authority:
> 
> If an employee who was promoted from within to an entirely different level, has been in the position for 3 years and has done so well as to receive an award for the last two years, is temporarily reassigned to help put a new office in place. Then there is a family event that occurred for which he requests release from the assignment would you grant it? If so would his request tarnish his record in your eyes? Would his advancement be stalled based on his requesting special consideration for family needs? And if you say no it would not, does most management feel that way? As they say in professional sports, is the best ability availability?
> 
> ...


If you're a good and easily adaptable employee, AND I can fit you into a different role quickly, then I'd have absolutely no problem releasing someone from an assignment for personal reasons. However, as you can see, this sort of thinking has bitten me the a$$. The key is being able to backfill the position you're leaving and having something for you to do afterwards.

And no, I would not see it as a tarnish on an employee's record. Keeping good employees is hard enough. I wouldn't want to lose a great one over something that could easily be resolved with some brainstorming.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

jld said:


> Lila, are you concerned about that?


No, I'm actually not concerned. I'm have niche skills in a niche industry. A couple of phone calls and I could have a job in a totally different industry waiting for me Monday morning. Not bragging but it's who you know, not what you know that matters.

But.....I really don't think anything severe will happen. We've dealt with critical mass in the past. This is a nuisance.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> I agree that a marriage is much harder with this amount of travel, and I would not be in a marriage like this, I am not so willing to impose my beliefs on others. Yes, in most cases, it is a recipe for disaster. *Once the decision is made, presumably mutually in this case as we have no reason to believe otherwise, it is up to the respective parties to hold up their end of the agreement, or negotiate a change in terms of the agreement.* She did not.


That sounds great in theory and technically you are correct. However, no human is a purely rational actor 100% of the time. This is going to put a few people's noses out of joint, but every single person at any given time is susceptible to cheating if the circumstances are right. While I too embrace the idea of trying to keep an open mind in things, there also comes a point where a circuit breaker has to kick in. Obviously there are certain things that you cannot keep an open mind about - like trying to see someone's POV that bathing in babies blood is good for the skin and should be encouraged... Extreme example, no doubt, but the point is that people traveling north of 50% of the time for their job, do this for a long time and are married are most likely to fail sooner or later. Maybe neither spouse cheats; however, there are other aspects of the marriage that can turn to sh!t. 

It's like married couples who swing. Sure, some can have rewarding experiences that make their bonds stronger. Those are the exception to the rule, however. Same goes with a career like this with such obscene amounts of travel.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

A couple gentle observations about human behavior. Cheating is sadly very common. Industrial espionage - the real deal - incredibly rare. 

The odds are kind of low that Lila's employee knew stuff that was:
- high value
AND 
- it was of high value from a competitive standpoint to her affair partner
AND
- she shared it knowingly risking her job
AND
- he used it to his benefit and her detriment 
AND
- it actually resulted in some bad event occurring

Not saying it's impossible, just saying that certain folks on TAM have a lot of revenge fantasies. 








jld said:


> I have total confidence in Dug.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> A couple gentle observations about human behavior. Cheating is sadly very common. *Industrial espionage - the real deal - incredibly rare.*
> 
> The odds are kind of low that Lila's employee knew stuff that was:
> - high value
> ...


You are absolutely correct. Incredibly rare, along with affirmative answers to all of you inclusions. However, just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean that a long, expensive process to determine that it didn't happen doesn't kick in.

As I said way earlier, I don't think anything will ultimately come of any of this, and that it will go away quietly and uneventfully, but there is potential for it to get to the same non issue place over a very bumpy and muddy road.

Case in point...when my oldest turned 18 and graduated from high school, I had to formally petition the court for a child support reduction. In virtually every case, this is just a rubber stamp formality. My ex wife made it very difficult with her perfectly legitimate legal wrangling. Ultimately, things went my way, and how they go in almost every other case, but in my situation, it cost me thousands of dollars and several court dates to accomplish what should have been a mere one day formality.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I try to keep an overall picture of what an employee has done in my mind. Doing a good job is a positive. Requiring special considerations for personal issues is negative - though I don't count any sort of medical issue as negative.

So in this case I would view the request as negative - but to be balanced against all the positives. I have no expectation of having employees who never have any negative issues.






thefam said:


> This is a slight threadjack but somewhat related @Lila perhaps @marduk and anyone else who has this type of management decision or authority:
> 
> If an employee who was promoted from within to an entirely different level, has been in the position for 3 years and has done so well as to receive an award for the last two years, is temporarily reassigned to help put a new office in place. Then there is a family event that occurred for which he requests release from the assignment would you grant it? If so would his request tarnish his record in your eyes? Would his advancement be stalled based on his requesting special consideration for family needs? And if you say no it would not, does most management feel that way? As they say in professional sports, is the best ability availability?
> 
> ...


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

jld said:


> I really hope she wakes up and ditches that guy. She sounds like a smart gal with a bright future. Her husband is standing in the way of that, though.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I really don't get where this is coming from ? Jane fvcks another guy while away from home and you think her husband is the bad guy?!?!

She should dump him?!?! At the moment she is clutching on to her marriage by her fingernails. If not, she would never agree with her husband to stop travelling.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

jld said:


> I think she is naive. Definitely in regard to her choice of mate.
> 
> But she will learn.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Her choice of mate? What should she have done ? Gone for an AP that was better endowed? Or with more kinky tastes? Incredible!


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> Not saying it's impossible, just saying that *certain folks on TAM have a lot of revenge fantasies.*


No kidding.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> That sounds great in theory and technically you are correct. However, no human is a purely rational actor 100% of the time. This is going to put a few people's noses out of joint, but every single person at any given time is susceptible to cheating if the circumstances are right. While I too embrace the idea of trying to keep an open mind in things, there also comes a point where a circuit breaker has to kick in. Obviously there are certain things that you cannot keep an open mind about - like trying to see someone's POV that bathing in babies blood is good for the skin and should be encouraged... Extreme example, no doubt, but the point is that people traveling north of 50% of the time for their job, do this for a long time and are married are most likely to fail sooner or later. Maybe neither spouse cheats; however, there are other aspects of the marriage that can turn to sh!t.
> 
> It's like married couples who swing. Sure, some can have rewarding experiences that make their bonds stronger. Those are the exception to the rule, however. Same goes with a career like this with such obscene amounts of travel.


Dug has been mostly living away from us since Jan. 2008. We just make it work.

I think people are making more of this than is necessary. It may not work for everyone, but it is not nearly as bad as some think.

There are even some advantages. When Dug is here, I am naturally drawn to him. When he is away, the kids get his share of my attention.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

MFLM,
That is a huge assumption. 

Let me net this out for you. At least right now, her husband is behaving like a child. And I mean that in a very literal sense. A child will eat candy til they are sick. Unable to balance short term desire with longer term consequence. 

It is one thing for her H to demand she stop traveling. I wouldn't do it, but I at least understand his logic. 

But instead of recognizing that Lila has already gone the extra mile for her, he is pressing his wife to file a wrongful dismissal suit. Pushing that is:
- A blatant and abusive reassignment of blame 
- A cake eating exercise that I find disgraceful 

What I mean by that last bit is simple. He's known since October that his wayward spouse would lose her job if she refused to travel. And yet he/she/they have continued to receive the high salary premium for traveling - without traveling. Now that they are at the end of the road, they are talking wrongful dismissal. Bad bad bad.

This guy is maybe trying to kneecap his wife professionally. 




manfromlamancha said:


> I really don't get where this is coming from ? Jane fvcks another guy while away from home and you think her husband is the bad guy?!?!
> 
> She should dump him?!?! At the moment she is clutching on to her marriage by her fingernails. If not, she would never agree with her husband to stop travelling.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

manfromlamancha said:


> I really don't get where this is coming from ? Jane fvcks another guy while away from home and you think her husband is the bad guy?!?!
> 
> She should dump him?!?! At the moment she is clutching on to her marriage by her fingernails. If not, she would never agree with her husband to stop travelling.


Man, we do not have to agree on this. We may have different priorities for her.

I think she needs a different type of husband. This one seems irrational. 

She is a bright young woman who does not yet have children. As she was already, only a few years into marriage, drawn to cheating, I don't think her current husband is the right one for her. 

Now, before children, is the time to get out, imo. It allows them both to move on and find more suitable partners.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

jld said:


> Man, we do not have to agree on this. We may have different priorities for her.
> 
> I think she needs a different type of husband. This one seems irrational.
> 
> ...


If I had to bet JLD, the cheating W told her H that the OM worked for her company or some other convenient lie to TT him and now he is lashing out. 

Your lack of empathy for any male is just appalling.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Bright, young, married woman who drops her panties for military contractors and endangers her company's position?

Oh yeah! I'd hire her! 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> If I had to bet JLD, the cheating W told her H that the OM worked for her company or some other convenient lie to TT him and now he is lashing out.
> 
> Your lack of empathy for any male is just appalling.


How does it help him to lash out? 

He is not helping himself, and he is certainly not helping her.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

jld said:


> I should know better, OW. But every day I come here fresh and full of optimism that there will be compassion and understanding of why women cheat, and how to prevent it. I guess I am naive, too.
> 
> What I really should do is just encourage every WW to leave, herself.
> 
> ...


Yes, I absolutely think this, and as gender roles change and more men stay home I'd tell them the same thing. I've seen too many women stuck in bad marriages and frankly it sticks her hb too because he's in it to support her.

If you want to have a spouse home by all means do it but all capable, healthy adults should be self sufficient.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Hey @Lila, quick question...

Suppose Jane tells you that she's divorcing or, at the very least, is willing to hit the road again.

Do you have a plan in place for this? If so, does it involve (hopefully, gently) firing the replacement that you've already hired?

Apologies if this has already been discussed.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

lifeistooshort said:


> If you want to have a spouse home by all means do it but all capable, healthy adults should be self sufficient.


Amen!!!


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> Yes, I absolutely think this, and as gender roles change and more men stay home I'd tell them the same thing. I've seen too many women stuck in bad marriages and frankly it sticks her hb too because he's in it to support her.
> 
> If you want to have a spouse home by all means do it but all capable, healthy adults should be self sufficient.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Life, I am going to start a thread on this in Ladies. I hope you will share your thoughts there.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

jld said:


> Life, I am going to start a thread on this in Ladies. I hope you will share your thoughts there.


Of course, I can always be counted on for an opinion 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

lifeistooshort said:


> Of course, I can always be counted on for an opinion
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

jld said:


> Man, we do not have to agree on this. We may have different priorities for her.
> 
> I think she needs a different type of husband. This one seems irrational.
> 
> ...


Me having priorities for her ????? She fvcks somebody else while away at work - and you conclude that she must have the wrong husband ? And also then should go and find another one more suited ? So what next ? Keep trying out husbands until she finds one that doesn't make her want to fvck other men when she thinks she can get away with it ? Really ?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

manfromlamancha said:


> Me having priorities for her ????? She fvcks somebody else while away at work - and you conclude that she must have the wrong husband ? And also then should go and find another one more suited ? So what next ? Keep trying out husbands until she finds one that doesn't make her want to fvck other men when she thinks she can get away with it ? Really ?


She is obviously not satisfied. Without kids, I think it is better to part ways. My opinion.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> MFLM,
> That is a huge assumption.
> 
> Let me net this out for you. At least right now, her husband is behaving like a child. And I mean that in a very literal sense. A child will eat candy til they are sick. Unable to balance short term desire with longer term consequence.
> ...


I am not sure what part of what I said is a huge assumption. There are three different things being discussed here.

The first is Jane fvcking another man, getting caught and then trying to keep her marriage together by agreeing with her husband not to travel. On this topic, jld concludes that it must be his fault and she should find a more suitable husband, whatever that is.

The second is what the husband is doing about it. He is lashing out and people think that is childish. However it is to be expected that some spouses react in this way when they find their other halves cheating. Granted it is difficult to lay blame on her employers. Some environments make it easy for this to happen although this may not be the case here. Some say it is immoral for him to expect compensation for this - again if he has decided to reconcile but doesn't want his wife to lose compensation because he is trying to avoid putting her in a situation where she spreads her legs again, then that is understandable although not smart, I agree.

Finally there is the subject of how OP has conducted herself through out this. Not a good manager I am afraid. Also pretty smug in saying she could find another job because of who she knows. She wanted to selfishly keep a good engineer even if she was fvcking around and tried to help her. Now it may come back to bite her and she has put on a face of bravado instead of trying to understand what she did wrong and work out the best way to sort this out, which may be a pay off of some kind to Jane.

Earlier in this thread she said that she had already found Jane's replacement and that Jane had been terminated - later she said that if Jane agrees to travel she could keep her job. Not sure what the situation really is.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

jld said:


> Dug has been mostly living away from us since Jan. 2008. We just make it work.
> 
> I think people are making more of this than is necessary. It may not work for everyone, but it is not nearly as bad as some think.
> 
> There are even some advantages. When Dug is here, I am naturally drawn to him. When he is away, the kids get his share of my attention.


Good for you two if that type of arrangement works for you. But your marriage is the exception to extended absences by a spouse and not the rule. I couldn't live with such an arrangement.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Good for you two if that type of arrangement works for you. But your marriage is the exception to extended absences by a spouse and not the rule. I couldn't live with such an arrangement.


I'm not saying it's ideal. But it's not impossible. And the advantages need to be acknowledged.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

manfromlamancha said:


> Finally there is the subject of how OP has conducted herself through out this. Not a good manager I am afraid.* Also pretty smug in saying she could find another job because of who she knows.* She wanted to selfishly keep a good engineer even if she was fvcking around and tried to help her. Now it may come back to bite her and *she has put on a face of bravado instead of trying to understand what she did wrong and work out the best way to sort this out, which may be a pay off of some kind to Jane.*


Lol, being able to find anther job quickly may sound smug to you but it's my reality. 

I know exactly what I did wrong. 

I should have stayed the course with a business as usual attitude after the exposure. 

I should have made the decision based strictly on her ability to do her job responsibilities. ....choose to continue travel as usual = stay. Choose to give up travel and reconcile = fired. 

My mistake was giving Jane the opportunity to fix her marriage by removing her from the project she was on. I admit that was a poor decision on my part because she is a good engineer, but the alternative is just as unacceptable to me. In my example about the divorcing colleague, using the logic I just described above, he would have been fired because his wife was bsc. In imfam's example, the spouse with an excellent work history would be fired as well because of his family obligations.

You seem to want me to make employment decisions based on morals and that's more likely to win an employee a wrongful termination lawsuit than my current situation ever will. Could I have fired her for breaking the law? Yes, but adultery is not illegal in the company's state. 



manfromlamancha said:


> Earlier in this thread she said that she had already found Jane's replacement and that Jane had been terminated - later she said that if Jane agrees to travel she could keep her job. Not sure what the situation really is.


Jane has not been terminated and will not until next month when she'll be required to travel to the new job site. That is.....if she chooses to give up the travel. If she doesn't, then it'll be business as usual. 

The replacement is an entry level hire (much like most of our other new hires). We can move him into other projects and put him through the paces (like every other new hire). 

Like I said earlier, we go through entry level personnel like water. Our retention rate is about 50% after 10 months. It's less than 20% after 2 years, but we seem to keep those that make it through the gauntlet.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

GusPolinski said:


> Hey @Lila, quick question...
> 
> Suppose Jane tells you that she's divorcing or, at the very least, is willing to hit the road again.
> 
> ...


I don't have concrete plans but it wouldn't be the end of the world. Like I told mflm, we go through lots of entry level personnel. It's a sink or swim environment and many, many sink. 

However, my gut is telling me she's not going to pick it back up. She's had interest from other companies but no one wants to pay what we're paying her with no travel. But at the end of the day, I think she'll accept a lower paying job and stay home. That is unless her husband convinces her to follow through on the lawsuit. We'll have to see.


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

jld said:


> How does it help him to lash out?
> 
> He is not helping himself, and he is certainly not helping her.


seriously? What is the H's state of mind after finding out his W cheated. You crack me up thinking he is going to be in a right state of mind. Laughable in fact. His W totally messed up the marriage and she should be feeling the consequences of that and should be doing whatever it takes to win him back. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

OpenWindows said:


> This particular employee never agreed to a morality clause, so they can't be fired for one. Having sex with someone from a different company who happens to work at the same site is not against the rules.
> 
> It sucks that you're involved in this. From a management perspective, I say let the H sue.
> 
> ...


Sorry but you're dead wrong and you clearly don't understand the law. Commit a crime and it also falls under moral character grounds. Think you can't be fired just because you did not sign a clause? If an affair is impacting her job, the affair may be the disease but the fallout symptoms are what will get her fired. The firing can be written entirely without even uttering the word affair.

In the military officers can not fraternize with enlisted, etc.

Separate out they way you "think" it should be vs the way it is in the legal sense.

If you are an "at will" you can be fired for any reason outside of protected classes.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

I wish someone would talk to Jane and show her what she is giving up that she is going to regret. I know it cannot be you, Lila. But she is giving up on herself for a husband who, imo, is not worth it.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> seriously? What is the H's state of mind after finding out his W cheated. You crack me up thinking he is going to be in a right state of mind. Laughable in fact. His W totally messed up the marriage and she should be feeling the consequences of that and should be doing whatever it takes to win him back. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.


If Jane were my daughter, I would urge her to leave him. I think he's a nut.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

I understand the law quite well. Adultery is not illegal there. What crime was committed?


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

OpenWindows said:


> I understand the law quite well. Adultery is not illegal there. What crime was committed?


LOL At will employee, wasting time if I have to explain to you how easy it is to get rid of her. 

It's not the adultery, it's the fallout from the adultery. This is so simple it's not even funny.

OP and her HR are fumbling this badly.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

jdawg2015 said:


> LOL At will employee, wasting time if I have to explain to you how easy it is to get rid of her.
> 
> It's not the adultery, it's the fallout from the adultery. This is so simple it's not even funny.
> 
> OP and her HR are fumbling this badly.


OP knows how easy it is. They declined to fire her over the affair itself, as it wasn't breaking company rules or the law. The fallout is that she can't travel... She will be fired if she can't meet her job requirements. And I'm not aware of many companies that will fire a person for threatening to sue if they're fired.

OPs company chooses not to police the morals of their employees, and I commend them for that.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

There are still rules for at will employment. You cannot fire for religious reasons (like having an affair). You also cannot fire for being involved in a wrongful termination suit.

OP needs to make sure not to break those rules, or the suit will hold up. So she fires for not traveling.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

OpenWindows said:


> OPs company chooses not to police the morals of their employees, and I commend them for that.


No kidding. I wish more people would get out of the morality police business.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

Lila said:


> Lol, being able to find anther job quickly may sound smug to you but it's my reality.
> 
> I know exactly what I did wrong.
> 
> ...


I agree with your assessment of what you did wrong and how you should have handled it, but we are all human and occasionally try and help other humans to our detriment.

I am not suggesting that you make employment decisions on some vague set of morals - just the ones that your company abides by - normally referred to as the values of the company which often represents the values of the directorate.

Going through entry level personnel like water and a 50% retention rate is not a good thing to be advertising - this doesn't suggest you end up with some elite workforce - more like very incompetent in your hiring and/or development of personnel. It reflects very badly on you and the rest of management.

There is far too much of "being able to find another job because of who you know rather than what you know" in industry in general. This is currently being rooted out in several industries by very good management consultant firms (albeit too slowly for my liking). It would have been a far better thing to say "I am not worried about finding another job because I am extremely good at what I do".

As for the rest of the posters who think her husband is a nut for lashing out and then trying to protect his wife's income, I would ask "have you ever been cheated on by your spouse with someone they met at work." It is one of the hardest affairs to uncover and being cheated on can be soul destroying! And no, the first piece of advice should never be find out what you did to cause your spouse to cheat - this comes right at the end during reconciliation.

To decide someone is a "nut" based purely on what is written here, is incredible! "The way of the superior man" my a$$!


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

jld said:


> If Jane were my daughter, I would urge her to leave him. I think he's a nut.


based on what? That he is suing his W's employer that, in his mind, abetted her adultery? Gawd, you are such a man hater, it defies logic. The woman should not be getting any sympathy in this story, none. The OP and the woman's H should be....


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> based on what? That he is suing his W's employer that, in his mind, abetted her adultery? Gawd, you are such a man hater, it defies logic. The woman should not be getting any sympathy in this story, none. The OP and the woman's H should be....


I gave Lost Lady much the same advice as I usually give men. I see her as the leader in her relationship.

John needs to take responsibility for his feelings. Blowing up his wife's career is not going to help him. 

He is a loose cannon and cannot be trusted. She needs to get out soon, if she knows what's good for her.

My opinion.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

manfromlamancha said:


> I agree with your assessment of what you did wrong and how you should have handled it, but we are all human and occasionally try and help other humans to our detriment.
> 
> I am not suggesting that you make employment decisions on some vague set of morals - just the ones that your company abides by - normally referred to as the values of the company which often represents the values of the directorate.


The values of my company don't include infidelity so I'm in the clear there.



manfromlamancha said:


> Going through entry level personnel like water and a 50% retention rate is not a good thing to be advertising - this doesn't suggest you end up with some elite workforce - more like very incompetent in your hiring and/or development of personnel. It reflects very badly on you and the rest of management.


Nah, it's like going through Navy Seals or Ranger training. Many try out, only the best make it.....And for those that do make it, there's great reward.



manfromlamancha said:


> There's is far too much of "being able to find another job because of who you know rather than what you know" in industry in general. This is currently being rooted out in several industries by very good management consultant firms (albeit too slowly for my liking). It would have been a far better thing to say "I am not worried about finding another job because I am extremely good at what I do".


In the USA, you can be the best at your job, but at this point in my career, that's not enough. You need to know people, and they need to know you. That's what I meant by "it's who you know, not necessarily what you know". 



manfromlamancha said:


> As for the rest of the posters who think her husband is a nut for lashing out and then trying to protect his wife's income, I would ask "have you ever been cheated on by your spouse with *someone they met at work*." It is one of the hardest affairs to uncover and being cheated on can be soul destroying! And no, the first piece of advice should never be find out what you did to cause your spouse to cheat - this comes right at the end during reconciliation.
> 
> To decide someone is a "nut" based purely on what is written here, is incredible! "The way of the superior man" my a$$!


Again, this was not someone she met "at work". Her AP DOES NOT work for us. He DOES NOT have any interaction with our company in any capacity. He could be part of the janitorial crew for all I know. 

Her husband, like Jane, is young. He acted first, then thought about the consequences later. I hate the fact that he felt the need to file a complaint with the base when he didn't get the response he wanted from us but I do not hold it against him. He couldn't take his anger out on her AP so he went for the nearest target. ...her workplace. 

However, he's lashing out as us AGAIN because we're not responding to his request that Jane stop travel the way he expected. That's the reason I'm upset with him. He needs to stop attacking people for not meeting his expectations for a correct response to his personal issues. It's immature.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

Lila said:


> The values of my company don't include infidelity so I'm in the clear there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No doubt it's immature, but that doesn't change the fact that Jane's actions precipitated all of this headache, and very real time and money costs. The vast majority of these things go away quietly without ever dragging the workplace into them, but when one does...unfortunately, this is one of those unknown consequences that is not really foreseeable until it happens.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I think the OP acted in a reasonable way. She can't be expected to predict all possible outcomes. A valued employee had personal issues that affected her job. The OP decided to try to find a way to keep the valued employee. That makes perfect sense for the company - good employees are not easy to find.

It may turn out that the OP has to fire the employee anyway. That would be unfortunate, but that doesn't mean that she acted incorrectly based on the information she had at the time.

It may even turn out that the employee will stay at work and travel again (either by agreement with her spouse, or divorce), in which case the OP will have acted in very effective fashion.








manfromlamancha said:


> snip
> Finally there is the subject of how OP has conducted herself through out this. Not a good manager I am afraid. Also pretty smug in saying she could find another job because of who she knows. She wanted to selfishly keep a good engineer even if she was fvcking around and tried to help her. Now it may come back to bite her and she has put on a face of bravado instead of trying to understand what she did wrong and work out the best way to sort this out, which may be a pay off of some kind to Jane.
> 
> Earlier in this thread she said that she had already found Jane's replacement and that Jane had been terminated - later she said that if Jane agrees to travel she could keep her job. Not sure what the situation really is.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Lila said:


> Lol, being able to find anther job quickly may sound smug to you but it's my reality.
> 
> I know exactly what I did wrong.
> 
> ...


This suggests to me the skill set needed is not large, or efficiency is not important. If I had 20% retention after 2 years HR would be hounding me. 

If the skill set is not critical why not hire short term locally? telecommute? Etc?


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

Lila said:


> The values of my company don't include infidelity so I'm in the clear there.
> 
> *You should know that it wouldn't be worded as such but more like fair, honest, respectful etc - but on the other hand, it is possible that your company doesn't have any values.*
> 
> ...


In general, I think you did a nice thing for her but maybe not the wisest. Perhaps you should advise her to get MC and give her some time to sort things out with her husband one way or another.


----------



## OpenWindows (Dec 25, 2015)

manfromlamancha said:


> In general, I think you did a nice thing for her but maybe not the wisest. Perhaps you should advise her to get MC and give her some time to sort things out with her husband one way or another.


Considering her hubby is threatening to sue regarding the company's involvement... I'd caution against giving her any sort of personal advice whatsoever.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> Lol, being able to find anther job quickly may sound smug to you but it's my reality.
> 
> I know exactly what I did wrong.
> 
> ...


Agreed.

The only thing I would have added is the reputational exposure risk to the DoD -- future business, etc. 

Don't beat yourself up about it.

What's the plan right now? Are you moving ahead with the termination?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

john117 said:


> This suggests to me the skill set needed is not large, or efficiency is not important. If I had 20% retention after 2 years HR would be hounding me.
> 
> If the skill set is not critical why not hire short term locally? telecommute? Etc?


Telecommuting is not possible on these projects otherwise i wouldn't need to hire someone. 

We try to hire locals when the projects are long term "field" jobs and the skill set is not critical. Long term for us is greater than a year, boots on the ground. Of course anyone we hire temporarily for local work gets fired as soon as the "field" work is complete. Not something our company likes doing. 

Hiring temps from an agency is usually risky and in many cases cost prohibitive, so that's a no go. 

I'm left with hiring young people right out of college. 

The longest I'll send folks out is 19 days straight. This particular project is a two person rotation where they work 19 days on and 21 days "office", however "office" just means they are working on another project. They could be gone again 2 days later on several short trips before they have to be back on their rotation. 

Our retention rate sucks because we burn our kids out. It's consulting. The pay is great but they earn every dollar. 

The good news is they get a large amount of experience in a relatively short time. The projects are also all very different. Many are in fun or interesting places. One day they could be on a base in the middle of nowhere and the next they're doing litigation support for a hoity toity New York law firm. If they can stick it out a few years here, they can pretty much go anywhere else and succeed.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I'd talk to HR but I'm thinking my opening position with the employee regarding any posturing over wrongful termination would look like this:

1. The case is fairly clear cut, and therefore unlikely to resolve in your favor.
2. The suit itself will be a matter of public record which means that prospective employers who do background checks will become aware that you sued us for wrongful termination. And will have access to the facts of the case. 

She will be professionally knee capped by this process. Permanently. 





Lila said:


> Telecommuting is not possible on these projects otherwise i wouldn't need to hire someone.
> 
> We try to hire locals when the projects are long term "field" jobs and the skill set is not critical. Long term for us is greater than a year, boots on the ground. Of course anyone we hire temporarily for local work gets fired as soon as the "field" work is complete. Not something our company likes doing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

manfromlamancha said:


> You should know that it wouldn't be worded as such but more like fair, honest, respectful etc - but on the other hand, it is possible that your company doesn't have any values.


Words like "fair", "honest", and "respectful" in a company's handbook are meant to describe their expectations of an employee *in the workplace*. It does not extend to one's personal life. If an employer wants to police an employee's' personal life they make sure to incorporate specific, legally binding language into their employment contract. These are called Morality Clauses. My company chooses not to police their employees' personal lives and for that I am forever grateful. 



manfromlamancha said:


> Except that its not the Navy Seals or anything like it or as glorious, is it? Its project engineers in a DoD contracting environment, something I am extremely familiar with on both sides of the pond. Still stand by what I said - your firm reeks of incompetence in hiring - but don't worry about it - Accenture et al have the same problem.


I never said the reward was glory. I said that there was _great reward_. Big difference. 

The entry-level people we hire understand that if they don't burn out, and can manage a heavy workload in a very demanding and fast-paced environment, they'll be rewarded with much higher than average salaries and generally successful careers. 

This system doesn't bother me much because the University from which I earned my undergraduate degree was exactly like this. It's a top ranked school but when I was there, they had less than a 50% freshman retention rate. It was an extremely stressful, demanding, and competitive environment......brutal......but that's exactly how the administration wanted it. Their attitude was "you want the opportunities a degree from this school will get you, then you're going to have to earn it". 

Was it incompetence on their part for accepting so many students knowing that only half were going to make it to their sophomore year? No, because you never know what someone is capable of until you put them in that type of environment. On paper, I would have never been accepted to the school but I was one of the few who made it to graduation. Who knew? Same with my company. They would rather go through lots of entry level personnel in order to find a perfect match than settle.



manfromlamancha said:


> In general, I think you did a nice thing for her but maybe not the wisest. Perhaps you should advise her to get MC and give her some time to sort things out with her husband one way or another.


I agree 100% with @OpenWindows. "Considering her hubby is threatening to sue regarding the company's involvement... I'd [rather not give] her any sort of personal advice whatsoever."


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

marduk said:


> Agreed.
> 
> The only thing I would have added is the reputational exposure risk to the DoD -- future business, etc.
> 
> ...


I'm sitting and waiting. HR is aware of the issue and are keeping tabs on the situation. I'll let them earn their paycheck this month. 

In the meantime, I'm insanely busy with work for which i am incredibly thankful.:smile2:


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> I'd talk to HR but I'm thinking my opening position with the employee regarding any posturing over wrongful termination would look like this:
> 
> 1. The case is fairly clear cut, and therefore unlikely to resolve in your favor.
> 2. *The suit itself will be a matter of public record which means that prospective employers who do background checks will become aware that you sued us for wrongful termination. And will have access to the facts of the case. *
> ...


Pure GOLD! I haven't asked HR but do you know if the company can disclose something like this when a potential employer calls as part of a background/reference check?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> I'm sitting and waiting. HR is aware of the issue and are keeping tabs on the situation. I'll let them earn their paycheck this month.
> 
> In the meantime, I'm insanely busy with work for which i am incredibly thankful.:smile2:


For five years I've had in my desk the building pass for the worst experience I had firing someone ever -- to remind me that I got through that, and will get through anything.

Man, I still remember that one. That guy was crazy!


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

marduk said:


> For five years I've had in my desk the building pass for the worst experience I had firing someone ever -- to remind me that I got through that, and will get through anything.
> 
> Man, I still remember that one. That guy was crazy!


I think I've been very lucky. I've been in management for the last 10 years and I've never had to fire anyone. :surprise:


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

To my knowledge - you are limited in what you can say to a prospective employer. 

The beauty of this situation is that anyone who does a background check will find this - and it will be fatal for her. This isn't a case of threatening to give her a bad reference. This is a case of telling her that a thorough employer will find this case and it will be hard for her to explain why:
- having an affair
- refusing to continue travelling - which was a written condition of employment 
- and turning around and suing your employer - will make her toxic 

The case will make her look - irrational and your lawyers will be able to get the bit about her husband calling dod into the record. And that will be like toxic waste. 





Lila said:


> Pure GOLD! I haven't asked HR but do you know if the company can disclose something like this when a potential employer calls as part of a background/reference check?


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

Lila said:


> Telecommuting is not possible on these projects otherwise i wouldn't need to hire someone.
> 
> We try to hire locals when the projects are long term "field" jobs and the skill set is not critical. Long term for us is greater than a year, boots on the ground. Of course anyone we hire temporarily for local work gets fired as soon as the "field" work is complete. Not something our company likes doing.
> 
> ...


I also suspect the pay is not as great as you make out - which is why you hire new graduates. The Accentures of this world have the same body shopping approach which is coming back to bite them in their behinds. Whatever happened to selecting the right people for the job, developing people, mentoring ? The "fun" they get is to be able to freely fvck other workers on site unchallenged. What a way to develop careers, huh?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> To my knowledge - you are limited in what you can say to a prospective employer.
> 
> The beauty of this situation is that anyone who does a background check will find this - and it will be fatal for her. This isn't a case of threatening to give her a bad reference. This is a case of telling her that a thorough employer will find this case and it will be hard for her to explain why:
> - having an affair
> ...


And she will probably end up divorced anyway.

Some of the things that husband has done sound like he got advice from CWI.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

Lila said:


> Pure GOLD! I haven't asked HR but do you know if the company can disclose something like this when a potential employer calls as part of a background/reference check?


I know that many companies stop giving references for fear of lawsuits.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

manfromlamancha said:


> Astonishing admission! Only possible on an anonymous forum. Do you think your company could make that statement publicly?


Honestly, I'm surprised you're astonished by my statement. I've been in the consulting industry my entire career and in my experience, it's like this everywhere. Larger firms are worse than smaller ones, ime, but they are all chasing the same goals. Do what needs to be done to be the most efficient at delivering the best quality product at a competitive price.....all while making a profit. I'm pretty sure this is a universal tenet for all kinds of businesses. 



manfromlamancha said:


> I also suspect the pay is not as great as you make out - which is why you hire new graduates. The Accentures of this world have the same body shopping approach which is coming back to bite them in their behinds. Whatever happened to selecting the right people for the job, developing people, mentoring ? The "fun" they get is to be able to freely fvck other workers on site unchallenged. What a way to develop careers, huh?


You can believe whatever you like but I've done some comparison.....and our company for all is faults pays very well. 

We hire new graduates because they're typically more flexible when it comes to travel, workload, and the types of jobs they do. They have an enthusiasm for learning that established personnel just don't have. It also avoids the prima donna attitudes. 

And as I've said before, for the ones that manage to "swim", their careers are developed faster and further than others with similar number of years in the industry. I'll admit there's very little hand holding involved but that's because we're only interested in finding self motivated people who can problem solve on their own. 

Based on your last few jabs at me, I get the feeling you're angry about something I have said about my job but I assure you, I take it very seriously. I do not encourage my employees to "fvck other workers on site", nor do I make that a part of their career development. I DO encourage them to do the job for which they are getting paid for, and do it well.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Duguesclin said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > Pure GOLD! I haven't asked HR but do you know if the company can disclose something like this when a potential employer calls as part of a background/reference check?
> ...


Yes, that's been the experience with ours as well. They've told us they will only divulge number years worked and the status of the employee's departure (i.e. resignation, fired, laid off). That's it. And they've gone so far as to discourage any employee from giving personal references.

It's a dog eat dog world. Can't blame them for trying to protect themselves.


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

jld said:


> No kidding. I wish more people would get out of the morality police business.


It's because after decades of issues, companies have been forced to deal with personal issues such as these. 

Think about your statement. Why do you think nepotism clauses and policies exist? Because even the most saintly employee can easily be questioned about biases if the hire, promote, or in any way have a positive influence on their relatives employment. But you don't want companies to police morality right?

You are just saying you don't want companies to condemn affairs. It's the whole plethora of morals, so yes companies have a vested interest to not look the other way. In fact, looking the other way is precisely what gets companies in hot water.

The language of my contract is confidential but I can tell you it's quite clear why some of the paragraphs exist. I also had so sign a disclosure of any relationships (including romantic) past or present with any employee at the company.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I work in consumer electronics product development. If we took Lila's approach we would be history  we have six month to a year learning curves and can't afford to annoy long term employees or scare new hires. We pay relatively well and if a new hire lucks out and ends up in my lab... Lucky them.

We have 12-24 month development cycles and the only way to get things done is to keep our people.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

jdawg2015 said:


> It's because after decades of issues, companies have been forced to deal with personal issues such as these.
> 
> Think about your statement. Why do you think nepotism clauses and policies exist? Because even the most saintly employee can easily be questioned about biases if the hire, promote, or in any way have a positive influence on their relatives employment. But you don't want companies to police morality right?
> 
> ...


It is one thing to address relationships within a company, but it is another to "regulate" behaviors outside the company.

Also, it is not because you have signed a company contract that all the elements in it are complying with the law. My previous company had me sign some non compete clause that was not time bound. I knew it had no validity in a law suit.

Companies are not policing morality, they just do not want to be on the wrong side of a lawsuit. In Lila's case, firing Jane because she had an affair would have been losing in a lawsuit, guaranteed.


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

john117 said:


> I work in consumer electronics product development. If we took Lila's approach we would be history  we have six month to a year learning curves and can't afford to annoy long term employees or scare new hires. We pay relatively well and if a new hire lucks out and ends up in my lab... Lucky them.
> 
> We have 12-24 month development cycles and the only way to get things done is to keep our people.


That's why you have to hire right in the first place! 

Establishing rules of the road upfront is by far the easiest way to do it. 

This lady created a mess. Cheating is a character issue and now she's paying the price. Now she lost the trust of her H to travel.
So she has to decide if a replaceable job is worth more than her husband. Honestly the job sounds terrible. More to life than a salary and if you are on the road the majority of the year, you have no life.

Even reading OPs description of the job it sounds like a crap place to work but people who just seek money will take it. She even talks about get experience and then go somewhere else. LOL. 

I think she's be doing Mrs Can't Travel a favor by letting her go.


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

Duguesclin said:


> It is one thing to address relationships within a company, but it is another to "regulate" behaviors outside the company.
> 
> Also, it is not because you have signed a company contract that all the elements in it are complying with the law. My previous company had me sign some non compete clause that was not time bound. I knew it had no validity in a law suit.
> 
> Companies are not policing morality, they just do not want to be on the wrong side of a lawsuit. In Lila's case, firing Jane because she had an affair would have been losing in a lawsuit, guaranteed.


You are talking semantics. Any contract can be challenged. The reality is that your non compete does not matter, it's the IP that is not time barred. So they have you anyways. I know because I have patents and can't use them at my current company. So even if the company is a competitor, they could sue my pants off if I used any of the previous work/art. So one part of your contract links to another and the entire contract is not invalidated. 

She would not be fired for having the affair (assuming no contract language), it would be for the after effects. She's at-will. I think some people think companies owe them something. If it's not a protected class, harassment, or other clear cut grounds then she's toast. 

No way the lady and husband could prevail in litigation against the company for firing her. If she doesn't travel, then it's easy. If I was OP, I would HOPE she does not travel. That woman will be drama forever.....


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Management overestimates the value of business travel at the peon level... I did my share of useless travel but at some point I, too, had to say enough and had the talk with my boss. I stopped serious travel after two trips to the west coast in one week. 

Maybe I'm not the ideal business traveller but driving or flying five hours for a useless meeting is a waste of money... And time...


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

john117 said:


> Management overestimates the value of business travel at the peon level... I did my share of useless travel but at some point I, too, had to say enough and had the talk with my boss. I stopped serious travel after two trips to the west coast in one week.
> 
> Maybe I'm not the ideal business traveller but driving or flying five hours for a useless meeting is a waste of money... And time...


:iagree:This is very true. I travelled for years and also don't have the taste for it anymore. Even at management and executive level travel for meetings is often questionable.

There's a reason why Skype for business and other tools were created. That may be an option for OP in this case. Probably even use as an idea to stop burning out staff too. I fully expect the idea will be scoffed at rather than consider changing course too.....


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

I can tell you why it's scoffed. Because to the mostly male road warriors, business travel is an escape... From home. 

So, it's to their benefit to perpetuate the process


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Jdawg,
I don't consider that semantics at all. Preventing someone from misusing your IP is totally different than preventing someone from taking a job with a competitor. 

All our employees signed confidentiality agreements. One of them egregiously violated that agreement and we fired him for cause. But we also hired numerous folks from competitors and we made a point not to put them in positions (competing product development) that would cause them to disclose confidential information. 

And Dug is right. A perpetual non compete will immediately be thrown out of court. A non compete needs to be commercially reasonable and balance the employees ability to earn a living with the companies need to protect its confidential information. 





jdawg2015 said:


> You are talking semantics. Any contract can be challenged. The reality is that your non compete does not matter, it's the IP that is not time barred. So they have you anyways. I know because I have patents and can't use them at my current company. So even if the company is a competitor, they could sue my pants off if I used any of the previous work/art. So one part of your contract links to another and the entire contract is not invalidated.
> 
> She would not be fired for having the affair (assuming no contract language), it would be for the after effects. She's at-will. I think some people think companies owe them something. If it's not a protected class, harassment, or other clear cut grounds then she's toast.
> 
> No way the lady and husband could prevail in litigation against the company for firing her. If she doesn't travel, then it's easy. If I was OP, I would HOPE she does not travel. That woman will be drama forever.....


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

And to complete my response. 

Absolutely agree she could have been fired for the 'after effects'. 

While she won't prevail in litigation, my goal was always to:
- Try to avoid making folks angry enough to want to sue
- Have a rock solid paper trail that would discourage an aggressive attorney from taking the case on contingency




jdawg2015 said:


> You are talking semantics. Any contract can be challenged. The reality is that your non compete does not matter, it's the IP that is not time barred. So they have you anyways. I know because I have patents and can't use them at my current company. So even if the company is a competitor, they could sue my pants off if I used any of the previous work/art. So one part of your contract links to another and the entire contract is not invalidated.
> 
> She would not be fired for having the affair (assuming no contract language), it would be for the after effects. She's at-will. I think some people think companies owe them something. If it's not a protected class, harassment, or other clear cut grounds then she's toast.
> 
> No way the lady and husband could prevail in litigation against the company for firing her. If she doesn't travel, then it's easy. If I was OP, I would HOPE she does not travel. That woman will be drama forever.....


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Jdawg,
> I don't consider that semantics at all. Preventing someone from misusing your IP is totally different than preventing someone from taking a job with a competitor.
> 
> All our employees signed confidentiality agreements. One of them egregiously violated that agreement and we fired him for cause. But we also hired numerous folks from competitors and we made a point not to put them in positions (competing product development) that would cause them to disclose confidential information.
> ...


The semantics I was alluding too is related to the contract itself. He implied that because the non compete clause is unbounded that the contract as a whole is worthless when in reality it's the IP that matters anyways.

The non compete is just gamesmanship by employers. They just want to plant the seed that jumping ship won't be easy, etc. Scare tactics are effective....


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Just wanted to update......

My problem child resigned effective last Friday. I have been swamped with work so may not have noticed but there was no big hoopla or big surprises. HR hasn't mentioned anything to me so my guess is that her exit interview was uneventful. 

I did wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors and left it that.


----------

