April 10, 2015 3:00 pm -


Well, he’s honest.

A married Long Island ­limo-company manager told a female dispatcher he was firing her because she rejected his sexual ­advances — and even put it in writing.

The damning text — sent by former US Limousine manager Raymond Towns­end to pretty underling Geralyn Ganci — ended up costing him and his employer more than $700,000 in legal damages and fees, court papers show.

Ganci, 32, sued Townsend after she was fired for repeatedly refusing his barrage of sleazy requests, which eventually landed her in the hospital with extreme emotional distress, her suit said.

The sex-crazed Townsend said in one text that he “had to pull over to the side of the road and masturbate thinking about me,” Ganci said in her suit.

Ganci said she was shocked and sickened by his behavior — which occurred despite the fact that Townsend’s wife worked at the same New Hyde Park company and sat near her.

Finally, after allegedly forcing her into a restroom and putting his hand up her shirt, Townsend told the resistant Ganci she was fired in February 2009.

“The plaintiff even received another text message from Raymond Townsend which has been preserved stating that the reason plaintiff was fired was because he ‘refused to have sex with the general manager,’ ” according to the court papers.


D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

14 responses to Boss Tells Employee She’s Fired For Not Having Sex With Him

  1. FatRat April 10th, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    Ganci should’ve realized that he was a sleaze bag when he would continuously do J Turns in the parking lot while lip syncing to I Touch Myself. lol

    • Suzanne McFly April 10th, 2015 at 4:05 pm


  2. illinoisboy1977 April 10th, 2015 at 4:08 pm

    If he forced her into a restroom and put his hand up her shirt without her consent, he committed a sexual assault. He should be prosecuted, imprisoned and made to register as a sex offender.
    What a creep!

  3. labman57 April 10th, 2015 at 5:06 pm

    And the misogynistic clowns on FOX & Friends will make a snide joke about this story in … 3 … 2 … 1 …

  4. nola878 April 10th, 2015 at 6:27 pm

    Put it in writing? This man’s not only a masher who should be charged, he’s a f*cking idiot to boot!

  5. CHOCOL8MILK April 10th, 2015 at 7:53 pm

    I wish more creeps would be dumb like that idiot and document their behavior, we’d have more convictions and successful law suits. Hope that guy got a fat divorce package from the wife. What a pathetic loser.

    • burqa April 10th, 2015 at 10:00 pm

      I agree 100%. Too damned bad there’s no video to go with it.

      • Robert M. Snyder April 10th, 2015 at 10:41 pm

        The only part about this that worries me is that the employer had to pay some portion of the fines. If the employer was negligent in some way, then okay. But as a small business person who is considering the possibility of hiring a few people if my business expands, these kinds of stories worry me. I’ve put countless hours into designing a good product that meets an important need for my customers. If I unwittingly hire somebody like this guy, and through no fault of mine he crosses the line with another employee, I fear that my business could be sued or fined out of existence. That not only hurts me and my other employees, but also my customers who rely on my products and services. It makes me want to automate my business to the maximum degree possible, and hire as few employees as possible. I doubt that I am the only business person who feels this way. If this is a common concern, then it is not helping the economy. I am not a legal expert. Are my fears reasonable, or do employers only get punished for the actions of employees when the employer failed to exercise due diligence?

        • burqa April 10th, 2015 at 10:49 pm

          I understand your concern. I think this case is one that can serve to alert employers they have to be involved in what’s going on and not just hide in the office. They’ve got to get out there and be around their employees often enough to be aware of their concerns and issues that face them. Doing so helps establish and preserve a harmonious workplace, which makes it a more productive workplace. Doing so is also valuable because close interaction with those employees makes it possible for their suggestions on how to improve the business to be heard.

          • Robert M. Snyder April 11th, 2015 at 12:12 am

            I agree with your thinking on this. However, it appears that even when the employer does everything right, they may still be liable for a rogue employee’s actions if that employee supervises other employees. It sounds like a good reason NOT to delegate authority if I’ve only got a few employees and I can supervise them myself.

            “Immediate supervisors: Since such individuals are not high enough to be the employer’s proxy, but are given direct authority over the victim, the employer is generally strictly liable for harassment committed by immediate supervisors.”


          • burqa April 11th, 2015 at 10:20 pm

            You make a good point. There are times when even the most conscientious supervisor or employer can be victimized by a dopey employee. There’s just too many nitwits out there.
            This is why they need to let me shoot people, or at least be able to deport whomever I want (with no appeals process, of course).

  6. rg9rts April 11th, 2015 at 3:34 am

    Now he dispatches for Harry’s house of happiness….

  7. rg9rts April 11th, 2015 at 3:37 am

    She could have ended it sooner by showing the texts to his (ex?) wife..

  8. jybarz April 11th, 2015 at 11:46 pm

    It looks like Dick’s little head overruled his big head.
    The blood rush to both his heads seemed too much for him to control.
    It clouded his intelligence and judgement.
    Hopefully, he has learned now to use the right head, not the wrong head.
    And that one can think and the other can’t.