Bills COO and senior VP fired

[SectionC3]

18 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

 

I just wanted to get that straight.  Thanks!

 

pointing out that "all employees are replaceable" is not responsive to the issues being discussed specifically.

Sure it is.   They apparently flouted the rules and their skills were such that the Bills made the judgment call to terminate.  If this was Josh does he hit the street and look for work? Absolutely not.  Employees who are more easily replaceable shouldn’t give the boss a reason to move on.  They did, and it was lights out for their careers with the Bills.  Frankly, any GC dumb enough to do what she allegedly did is not someone I’d want around,  anyway.  Can’t have a GC with poor judgment. 

[Mr. WEO]

15 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Sure it is.   They apparently flouted the rules and their skills were such that the Bills made the judgment call to terminate.  If this was Josh does he hit the street and look for work? Absolutely not.  Employees who are more easily replaceable shouldn’t give the boss a reason to move on.  They did, and it was lights out for their careers with the Bills.  Frankly, any GC dumb enough to do what she allegedly did is not someone I’d want around,  anyway.  Can’t have a GC with poor judgment. 

 

it's not a discussion about who is fireable

[GoBills808]

17 minutes ago, BillsFan692 said:

You can't let your manager date his underlings -- that isn't normal and is not appropriate in a corporate setting. A small business setting it could be a different scenario so every situation is different but this is corporate we are talking about and there is no way in hell that is going to fly at the highest level because as someone already state it opens the organization up to liability.

do people really not understand this lol

[GunnerBill]

27 minutes ago, BillsFan692 said:

You can't let your manager date his underlings -- that isn't normal and is not appropriate in a corporate setting. A small business setting it could be a different scenario so every situation is different but this is corporate we are talking about and there is no way in hell that is going to fly at the highest level because as someone already state it opens the organization up to liability.

 

The liability thing is a bigger perceived risk than real risk. But I had one of my staff last year had a relationship with one of his subordinates. They were both consenting adults I saw no way in which it could affect their work and I therefore concluded it was none of my business. 

[SectionC3]

27 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

it's not a discussion about who is fireable

 No, it’s a chat about the firing of these people and Doc made the point that they didn’t realize that they are replaceable (hence the terminations).  He’s right; everyone is replaceable.  They gnawed on the forbidden fruit, and Terry is going to find a new Adam and Eve.  That’s how it goes.  Hopefully this time Terry finds people who aren’t into diddling subordinates/each other.  

[Mr. WEO]

28 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

do people really not understand this lol

 

as @GunnerBill has pointed out several times, this isn't the boss with an admin assistant.  It's 2 of the 3 people who make up the Bills management team.  they all report directly to Pegula, not to eachother.

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

as @GunnerBill has pointed out several times, this isn't the boss with an admin assistant.  It's 2 of the 3 people who make up the Bills management team.  they all report directly to Pegula, not to eachother.

your general counsel manages risk lol

 

it's like a no brainer

[Mr. WEO]

6 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

I explained it above - their particular roles (GC and COO) makes it highly problematic, especially if it violates a written policy.  That said, even though she reported to him, I wouldn’t be casually referring to the General Counsel as an “underling.”  They’re both usually c-suite titles.  This probably could’ve been handled differently by everyone - they should’ve promptly disclosed the relationship (they may not have wanted to because one or both of them may be married), and then her reporting line should’ve been moved over to Terry directly.  

 

 

she didn't report to Roth.  She reported to Pegula, per the Athletics reporting of the Bills front office structure.  Roth did have a "superior title".

 

So, not an underling

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

your general counsel manages risk lol

 

it's like a no brainer

 

I don't think anyone is saying they don't.  Lot's of histrionic posts claiming this can be viewed as a boss taking advantage of "an underling".

 

It's not that.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Mr. WEO

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

she didn't report to Roth.  She reported to Pegula, per the Athletics reporting of the Bills front office structure.  Roth did have a "superior title".

 

So, not an underling

 

I don't think anyone is saying they don't.

so your issue is specifically that the hierarchy is potentially being misstated

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

so your issue is specifically that the hierarchy is potentially being misstated

 

well, being misstated then conflated into an amazing array of scenarios that would not happen as a result of this--including as damning evidence for the company in any possible "sexual harassment" case brought by any employee against another.

 

just off the rails stuff.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Mr. WEO

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

well, being misstated then conflated into an amazing array of scenarios that would not happen as a result of this--including as damning evidence for the company in any possible "sexual harassment" case brought by any employee against another.

 

just off the rails stuff.

again these are prima facie consequences of such relationships which again is why they are typically disapproved of

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

as @GunnerBill has pointed out several times, this isn't the boss with an admin assistant.  It's 2 of the 3 people who make up the Bills management team.  they all report directly to Pegula, not to eachother.

 

Tim Graham, who broke the story, said that she reported to him.  Even if not completely true, it's rarely good to have employees date each other because if (usually when) things go south, it creates unnecessary drama if not legal issues.  And when they're two entirely replaceable people, better to get rid of them sooner than too late.

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

again these are prima facie consequences of such relationships which again is why they are typically disapproved of

 

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Tim Graham, who broke the story, said that she reported to him.  Even if not completely true, it's rarely good to have employees date each other because if (usually when) things go south, it creates unnecessary drama if not legal issues.  And when they're two entirely replaceable people, better to get rid of them sooner than too late.

 

It's not true.

 

It would seem odd that a company counsel and essentially head of HR would go forward with such a relationship knowing it would get her fired---same for Roth.

 

We don't know how the rules about these issues are specifically documented in the Bills HR department.  Maybe it is not explicit and they were relying on that to continue.   Now that they are fired, could they take recourse?

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

It's not true.

 

It would seem odd that a company counsel and essentially head of HR would go forward with such a relationship knowing it would get her fired---same for Roth.

 

We don't know how the rules about these issues are specifically documented in the Bills HR department.  Maybe it is not explicit and they were relying on that to continue.   Now that they are fired, could they take recourse?

 

The history of civilization is littered with stories of people who entered into relationships they were told not to begin/should have known anyway.  Some people can't help who they fall in love/lust with. 

 

And again, after the Brandon fiasco, I have no doubt the policy was spelled-out for old employees and especially new ones.  But people can and do sue for anything these days.

 

[GoBills808]

27 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

It's not true.

 

It would seem odd that a company counsel and essentially head of HR would go forward with such a relationship knowing it would get her fired---same for Roth.

 

We don't know how the rules about these issues are specifically documented in the Bills HR department.  Maybe it is not explicit and they were relying on that to continue.   Now that they are fired, could they take recourse?

It's not odd lol

 

It's a tale as old as time

[Augie]

2 hours ago, Behindenemylines said:

If you have to ask that question you obviously don’t manage staff at any level.   
 

Even if the whole world knows it’s consensual, the subordinate can still sue stating they were taken advantage of etc and in many circumstances win. I know of a case where they LI e together for years, have several children and she still sued and won.  Crazy

 

Plus the boss and a subordinate will ALWAYS make people feel like they are second fiddle and create tensions for assignments, promotions etc. and typically leads to mother lawsuits and claims. 
 

 

 

Every big company I worked for had policies against these relationships. I’ve seen these relationships develop countless times, and someone always has to go. Regardless of whether you think you might lose a lawsuit, the employer has rules they put in place for a reason. Follow the employers rules, or pay the price, in this case both of them it appears. 

 

I’ll also caution that we probably don’t know as much as we should to be jumping to any kind of firm conclusions, IMO. 

[Simon]

 

<Waits patiently for thread to devolve into WEO and Doc maneuvering to get the last word for 3 days>

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

The history of civilization is littered with stories of people who entered into relationships they were told not to begin/should have known anyway.  Some people can't help who they fall in love/lust with. 

 

And again, after the Brandon fiasco, I have no doubt the policy was spelled-out for old employees and especially new ones.  But people can and do sue for anything these days.

 

 

Brandon was harassing individuals. No harassment here.  Certainly the head of HR would  know what was written and not written.  It's possible she/he felt she was in the clear based on this. 

 

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

It's not odd lol

 

It's a tale as old as time

 

so you are suggesting they were accepting of their inevitable firing when they started this relationship? 

 

Fatalists?  que sera sera?

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

so you are suggesting they were accepting of their inevitable firing when they started this relationship? 

 

Fatalists?  que sera sera?

sure, fatalists or idiots. or maybe just procrastinators who didn't file the requisite workplace romance forms

 

regardless it's not really a mystery to me why they both might be let go

[Doc]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

It's not odd lol

 

It's a tale as old as time

 

Beauty and the Beast...

 

38 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Brandon was harassing individuals. No harassment here.  Certainly the head of HR would  know what was written and not written.  It's possible she/he felt she was in the clear based on this.

 

If the relationship went sour, D'Angelo could claim sexual harassment.  You never know.  Again not worth the headache and better to get rid of them sooner than later.  Consider them to be like Matt Araiza, Roth especially.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Doc