Why will firing him worsen the problem? I would fire this guy immediately.
> Men and women need to learn to interact at work.
Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work.
> Men and women need to learn to interact at work.
Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work.
I know it feels good to take zero tolerance policies, and we all do it (why do you think we have so many people in prison in this country).
But..maybe he is some kid in his early- or mid-20's and has very little workplace experience outside of small startups working mostly with other males his age. He may have never had the opportunity to understand why this kind of behavior makes a workplace uncomfortable for those on the receiving end (and others as well).
Firing him is obviously one way to teach that lesson, and will not only lose him this job but possibly make it difficult to find another. Giving him an opportunity to learn it through training is another.
I do, though, think it's probably unfair to make an outcast of every young male who isn't born with a deep understanding of why you need to keep your attraction to women restrained once you start a grown-up job, just because you were born that way. At that point in your life (if I'm remembering correctly, it's been quite a while ;), most of your energy and focus has been in trying to attract whatever you are attracted to, and there are often no blunt cues indicating "hey, this situation is different from what you are used to".
As patio11 said, though, lawyer first if you want to keep the business alive.
Just to be clear I think he should be fired, but it's a shitty situation to be in with a small office and a small number of, presumably close, employees.
Sexism should already be over, but it isn't, and is more complicated than people who think they are not sexist declaring zero tolerance policies.
It's significantly more complicated than your simple explanation implies, which is mostly my point.
Hint: I don't disagree with that it would be equally inappropriate for a woman to put a man in this position, but that doesn't mean it isn't sexist.
And can you please explain how it is sexist? (I have not studied sexism..and am curious to learn.) Your hint gives no justification except your assertion again that it is sexist without explanation.
If you haven't studied sexism, how do you get to claim that the situation isn't sexist? Therein lies the problem.
For some reason you think it's fine for you to declare things as not sexist despite both your acknowledged bias, and your acknowledged ignorance about what sexism is. Only people with relative social advantage can rely on support when they make pronouncements from bias and ignorance. Marginalized groups have an altogether different experience when they state what is just as obvious to them.
Ask yourself why you haven't had to learn anything about sexism, and who does need to know about it?