Bills COO and senior VP fired

[Coach Tuesday]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

So if they moved her to a different box on a chart everything would be ok?

 

 

I work for the largest employer in the county.  We all do these mandatories every year.  

 

Which employees would bring "harassment claims" against the Bills solely because these two were dating? Who is being harassed by this?

 

And if this was so out in the open, why did Pegula promote them just a few months ago?  Is he that clueless that he's the only one who didn't know?  If' he's the only one who didn't know, doesn't that dent your theory that wide knowledge of this would completely corrode workplace morale and bring a flurry of "claims"?

 

Also, the article you linked doesn't describe what happened at OBD.

 

You're missing it.

 

Let's say a female executive assistant gets let go.  She believes she should not have been let go.  She also believes she was treated poorly relative to male peers, or by her male superior.  She brings an unlawful termination claim and a sexual harassment claim.  She includes allegations in her lawsuit about the "toxic culture" at the company, citing as evidence the fact that the chief risk officers at the company - the two people with the most responsibility for ensuring that the workplace is fair and harassment-free - are openly having an affair, in violation of company policy.  "If those two people don't have to comply, who does?"  Is the message that permeates the organization.

 

This is the type of risk that every professional organization today tries to avoid.

 

I don't really need to debate this with you, it's SOP in 2023.  It is what it is, as Aristotle said.

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

You're missing it.

 

Let's say a female executive assistant gets let go.  She believes she should not have been let go.  She also believes she was treated poorly relative to male peers, or by her male superior.  She brings an unlawful termination claim and a sexual harassment claim.  She includes allegations in her lawsuit about the "toxic culture" at the company, citing as evidence the fact that the chief risk officers at the company - the two people with the most responsibility for ensuring that the workplace is fair and harassment-free - are openly having an affair, in violation of company policy.  "If those two people don't have to comply, who does?"  Is the message that permeates the organization.

 

This is the type of risk that every professional organization today tries to avoid.

 

I don't really need to debate this with you, it's SOP in 2023.  It is what it is, as Aristotle said.

 

Well people can file a lawsuit over anything in this country, so...sure, I guess.

 

 

Unfortunately for that plaintiff, pointing out that others are a couple outside of work isn't grounds for another individual claiming "harassment", nor de facto evidence of a "toxic culture" or any connection to her claimed wrongs against her.  She would have to prove their romance caused her harm and damage.

 

If in fact, all of her claims are documented and provable, she obviously would not need to mention that those two were dating to bolster her case.  That would make no sense. Unless such a plaintiff listed either of these 2 execs as defendants or as her harassers, a jury would wonder what their private life has to do with her specific claims. 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Well people can file a lawsuit over anything in this country, so...sure, I guess.

 

 

Unfortunately for that plaintiff, pointing out that others are a couple outside of work isn't grounds for another individual claiming "harassment", nor de facto evidence of a "toxic culture" or any connection to her claimed wrongs against her.  She would have to prove their romance caused her harm and damage.

 

If in fact, all of her claims are documented and provable, she obviously would not need to mention that those two were dating to bolster her case.  That would make no sense. Unless such a plaintiff listed either of these 2 execs as defendants or as her harassers, a jury would wonder what their private life has to do with her specific claims. 

 

Exactly right. It is a risk that is more in the theory than in the practice. But I understand organisations being extremely cautious in this day in age. Though there is no doubt that is what it is - extreme caution - if they were fired to protect the company against harassment or unlawful dismissal claims. 

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Exactly right. It is a risk that is more in the theory than in the practice. But I understand organisations being extremely cautious in this day in age. Though there is no doubt that is what it is - extreme caution - if they were fired to protect the company against harassment or unlawful dismissal claims. 

 

I understand as well.   Just pointing out that unless the 2 involved were directly related to the firing, assuming such a plaintiff can prove he/she wasn't fired for just cause, I can't imagine a jury would put much weight in that.  I bet the majority of the pool when told 2 of the 3 execs were a couple outside of work would say  "so?".  

[Bob Jones]

10 hours ago, Doc said:

 

The optics of having a guy boinking his female underling is worse.

Are either of them currently married? If so, I’d imagine that’s the issue…the optics of “immoral” behavior, although in today’s world, not even sure anyone cares. If they’re not married, I see nothing wrong here, at all. It’s not like he could promote her to a higher position, because to my understanding of the organizational lines, there is nowhere to go up for her, unless it’s HIS job, so obviously if he got fired or quit, he couldn’t promote her.

[LabattBlue]

Maybe Kim talked to her about women being empowered, and she mistook that for having sex with whomever she wished. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by LabattBlue

[Coach Tuesday]

28 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Well people can file a lawsuit over anything in this country, so...sure, I guess.

 

 

Unfortunately for that plaintiff, pointing out that others are a couple outside of work isn't grounds for another individual claiming "harassment", nor de facto evidence of a "toxic culture" or any connection to her claimed wrongs against her.  She would have to prove their romance caused her harm and damage.

 

If in fact, all of her claims are documented and provable, she obviously would not need to mention that those two were dating to bolster her case.  That would make no sense. Unless such a plaintiff listed either of these 2 execs as defendants or as her harassers, a jury would wonder what their private life has to do with her specific claims. 

Most of what you’ve written here is just wrong, I don’t have the time or the will to debate it all, but I’m telling you as someone with decades of experience with this stuff that you’ve got it wrong.

[May Day 10]

33 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

Are either of them currently married? If so, I’d imagine that’s the issue…the optics of “immoral” behavior, although in today’s world, not even sure anyone cares. If they’re not married, I see nothing wrong here, at all. It’s not like he could promote her to a higher position, because to my understanding of the organizational lines, there is nowhere to go up for her, unless it’s HIS job, so obviously if he got fired or quit, he couldn’t promote her.

 

What if she gets a nicer hotel room in London than others of equal/similar position?  If she has a higher wage than another person at a similar position, then that could be a problem.  Is she and Roth going out to nice dinners on a company CC and nobody else is entitled to that?  Any perceived preferential treatment is a no-no.  

 

Did he use his position of authority to get her to date him?  If they broke up, could she claim that?  If the split up and got messy, what do you do (you can get into hostile work environment territory real quick).  She can also levy all sorts of quid pro quo allegations on him and the organization.  She is an attorney, so she is armed to the teeth with the levers to pull.

 

And the tweets (or 'x's?) seem to indicate that there were PDAs in plain sight in London.  This is a no-no.  A business trip is considered part of the workplace.  That creates an odd work environment for others.  A lot of people would/can laugh it off... but all it takes is 1 employee to expose a mess.

 

 

I would assume there is more to this story than we know, or will ever know.  I know this guy was highly thought of by Terry and was recently promoted.  This isn't something he wanted to do I'm sure, and would have looked the other way if it were just an innocent relationship out of sight and out of mind.

 

 

Not worth it.  This guy didn't seem qualified for that position anyways and attorneys grow on trees.  

Edited October 12, 2023 by May Day 10

[Coach Tuesday]

32 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I understand as well.   Just pointing out that unless the 2 involved were directly related to the firing, assuming such a plaintiff can prove he/she wasn't fired for just cause, I can't imagine a jury would put much weight in that.  I bet the majority of the pool when told 2 of the 3 execs were a couple outside of work would say  "so?".  

 

No, that's just not how it works and even if a jury wouldn't be swayed by that evidence (which you're just wrong about), any professional organization wouldn't want the added risk.

 

Want another hypothetical?  A mid-level female employee is fired for not disclosing a relationship with a male colleague; she claims selective enforcement / gender discrimination and points to the open affair going on between the COO and GC.  There are tons of other hypothetical scenarios where this sort of thing presents serious and unacceptable risk to the company.

 

I've been on this board a long time, as you know - I don't ever claim to have any special football expertise (quite the opposite).  This is an instance where I do happen to have real-world expertise and I'm telling you, this is just SOP in 2023.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Coach Tuesday

[Bob Jones]

7 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

No, that's just not how it works and even if a jury wouldn't be swayed by that evidence (which you're just wrong about), any professional organization wouldn't want the added risk.

 

Want another hypothetical?  A mid-level female employee is fired for not disclosing a relationship with a male colleague; she claims selective enforcement / gender discrimination and points to the open affair going on between the COO and GC.  There are tons of other hypothetical scenarios where this sort of thing presents serious and unacceptable risk to the company.

 

I've been on this board a long time, as you know - I don't ever claim to have any special football expertise (quite the opposite).  This is an instance where I do happen to have real-world expertise and I'm telling you, this is just SOP in 2023.

Thanks for shedding light on the real world possibilities of this situation.

 

I have questions though, looking at it a different way. Let’s say they really are “in love”, and sparks flew when they first met, and they quickly deduced that they were each other’s soul mate. What SHOULD they have done.

[Coach Tuesday]

3 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

Thanks for shedding light on the real world possibilities of this situation.

 

I have questions though, looking at it a different way. Let’s say they really are “in love”, and sparks flew when they first met, and they quickly deduced that they were each other’s soul mate. What SHOULD they have done.

 

Promptly disclose it to Terry and ask for her reporting line to be moved to him (if possible).

[SectionC3]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Is it? Why? If the relationship is entirely consensual and not affecting them doing their jobs what is the problem?

We have perhaps a more difficult dynamic with such things here than in GB.  That aside, I’m going to take a whack at it and guess that, following the Russ Brandon mess, what the two people in question here allegedly were doing is contrary to company policy.  Assuming it is, if the COO and the GC don’t follow the rules, then it’s pretty difficult to expect others to follow the same standards.  They had to go.  

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah, that's Terry's fault.  

 

 

And, again, entirely replaceable.  As is he.  

Everyone is replaceable.  Some people are easier to replace than others.  Finding someone with the former GC’s level of experience is going to be a snap.  Easy pickings.  Can be done within the hour.  If she didn’t realize that, then shame on her. 

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

We have perhaps a more difficult dynamic with such things here than in GB.  

 

I agree with the rest of what you say... but what is the "difficult dynamic"? Being judgmental on people's personal lives is acceptable?

[WotAGuy]

12 hours ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

This is crazy because I literally just finished a massive project on workplace romance yesterday.

 

Dude, have some respect. She may have a few extra pounds on her but don’t call her a “massive project”. 

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I agree with the rest of what you say... but what is the "difficult dynamic"? Being judgmental on people's personal lives is acceptable?

Not in the least.  I have no idea from where you have conjured the judgmental point.  

 

The “me too” movement originated here, and there’s significant sensitivity—maybe oversensitivity, depending on one’s perspective—to a workplace superior engaging in an an intimate relationship with a subordinate.  Maybe it would have worked, or been ignored, or been accepted years ago.  But the culture at a lot of larger businesses now is one of zero tolerance for such things. 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Not in the least.  I have no idea from where you have conjured the judgmental point.  

 

The “me too” movement originated here, and there’s significant sensitivity—maybe oversensitivity, depending on one’s perspective—to a workplace superior engaging in an an intimate relationship with a subordinate.  Maybe it would have worked, or been ignored, or been accepted years ago.  But the culture at a lot of larger businesses now is one of zero tolerance for such things. 

 

Yea that is the business risk point though - which I have accepted in response to @Coach Tuesday is a legitimate concern (although I think this is an extreme caution approach). The comment of mine you responded to though was not that, it was about optics. 

[kickedface]

if they are looking for another coo with no sports or even coo experience who won't hook up with a co worker, i'm ready to roll. where do i send my resume? 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, kickedface said:

if they are looking for another coo with no sports or even coo experience who won't hook up with a co worker, i'm ready to roll. where do i send my resume? 

 

Does Diggs count as a co-worker? If so I can't promise this. 

[Mr. WEO]

55 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Most of what you’ve written here is just wrong, I don’t have the time or the will to debate it all, but I’m telling you as someone with decades of experience with this stuff that you’ve got it wrong.

 

In and of itself two bosses having a relationship isn't grounds for  "harassment" claims for others (your claim).  If the company has a rule against it, then they broke a company rule, then then broke a rule.  Simple as that.

 

If you had decades of experience here, you would understand that--or at least be able to articulate why you disagree. 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Bob Jones said:

Are either of them currently married? If so, I’d imagine that’s the issue…the optics of “immoral” behavior, although in today’s world, not even sure anyone cares. If they’re not married, I see nothing wrong here, at all. It’s not like he could promote her to a higher position, because to my understanding of the organizational lines, there is nowhere to go up for her, unless it’s HIS job, so obviously if he got fired or quit, he couldn’t promote her.

 

the old "moral turpitude" clause!

 

I argued the bolded upstream.  these other posters respond with "it opens the door to massive harassment claims"...

51 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

No, that's just not how it works and even if a jury wouldn't be swayed by that evidence (which you're just wrong about), any professional organization wouldn't want the added risk.

 

Want another hypothetical?  A mid-level female employee is fired for not disclosing a relationship with a male colleague; she claims selective enforcement / gender discrimination and points to the open affair going on between the COO and GC.  There are tons of other hypothetical scenarios where this sort of thing presents serious and unacceptable risk to the company.

 

I've been on this board a long time, as you know - I don't ever claim to have any special football expertise (quite the opposite).  This is an instance where I do happen to have real-world expertise and I'm telling you, this is just SOP in 2023.

 

 

We all understand what is SOP nowadays.  I'm disagreeing with your claim that it is a basis for de facto harassment claims by others unrelated to this affair.