The use of 'milf', whether it's derogatory or a compliment, will depend entirely on the context of the larger conversation. Something we don't have. Something which apparently the OP didn't have either.
except don't allow trailing whitespaces at the ends of lines so more like
FirstNameLF
MILF
LastNameLF
*if she's a MILF, definitely get her first and last name... did I just ruin it?
the MILF is a violent organization that has been known to cut off peoples' heads...
I wouldn't use those terms with someone at work, during working hours... I wouldn't think it's earth ending to compliment someone after hours, outside of the work place (The terminology is a bit strong for my tastes, but assuming it is intended to be "complementary"... depending on how "comfortable" I was with someone, I might use similar terms if I "read the situation" as "she might be interested")
I'm all for "fire for harassment"... but is this really harassment (continued after refusal)? Or is this a one time thing that happened when hanging out after hours that ended upon request?
"Context is irrelevant" is a bit short sighted, because context - and responses of all involved - is completely relevant..
The female employee has little recourse to stop the advance, and has not approved it. Workplace courtship protocol requires slow, deliberate advancement with explicit ACKs from the receiver.
We have one side of the story (with a part of the trail of messages recorded).
Harassment: n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harassment
Systematic. Continued.
That's the basic definition I think when I hear the word Harassment.
Which is why context is king.
One string of conversations (including the texting)? That's not systematic or continued IF he stops when she says "I'm not interested".
If she said no, no, no, no... then that's continued. If he's pushing the issue that's continued. Some men don't know the meaning of "no". Some consider it a challenge. Some people think that non-verbal responses (like going out to a bar) mean that there IS a chance if you can get past the initial no.
At THAT point, we would have something that can be construed as harassment.
The problem with this entire conversation is we don't have the entire story. What was his response to her no? Has this continued or did it end?
This is one side of the story. I'm sorry, but I agree that a lawyer should be involved and proper procedures should be laid out going forward... and I agree IF he hasn't stopped after "no", then "bad things" should happen... but right now? We have one side of the story - and we don't have the whole story.
Slow, deliberate advancement with explicit ACKs? What is this? Some touchy feely dorm room with safe places and yes-means-yes over-PCd levels of red tape to show your interest? "May I have your permission to compliment you or can we discuss it with your lawyer?"? What nonsense...
If this true? Would you then fire her?
This is why, you need both sides of the story before you can do a "with cause" firing.
You're welcome to suggest to OP that he question his facts. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what bar he has to cross, but if his facts are true as presented, then he should proceed to termination.
As to your question regarding the female employee. Sure if is she is in fact harassing the male employee, she should be terminated. She could also have fabricated the whole thing. She could be being blackmailed. She might be playing a prank. Someone could have been impersonating the male employee. She might have mental health crisis. There are many scenarios. We weren't asked to consider them.
Remember, it's perfectly legal to date your coworkers. You can ask them out and everything! But the moment they move to stop your advances, you must cease immediately. It sounds like she was at least initially open to out-of-work conversation (as evidenced by her agreeing to switch to WhatsApp), but once she become uncomfortable it should have ended.
Acceptable:
You: We should go out sometime. I've never asked before, but would you be interested?
Your colleague (NOT subordinate): No.
You: OK, back to business. Hey, what time did they move our meeting to?
Not acceptable:
You: I know I ask you this daily, but...
You: I'm not really supposed to date people who report to me, but...
You: We went out one time and you broke it off, but...
You: This was OK last week before you asked me to stop, but...
MILF is NEVER a compliment to a stranger. It's NEVER a compliment to a friend you just met. It's probably a bad idea even if you're in her bedroom and both stripping down about to have sex.
The only time it's sorta safe to call someone a milf is if you were the one who made her a Mom, and even then, it's VERY situational.
Basically, just don't.
It's not completely implausible there is an ulterior motive. And she is well protected if there is. He, on the other hand is not.
None of us know enough about the situation to make a determination in either direction.
If the boss has known me for a long time and it seems completely out of character for me (which it would be), then maybe he talks to me about it to see WTF is up.
But some dude who just got hired? Assuming there's no record and no witnesses? You have to go with the vastly more likely case that he did it.
If that gets 1 in 10,000,000 guys unfairly fired, but gets 9,999,999 guys justly fired, that's a pretty good outcome in my book.
Is a risk-based approach less idealistic than a noble pursuit for absolute truth? Sure, but we live in the real world. Companies have to protect themselves, and there is no perfect solution for preventing sexual harassment. Education is critical, but so is a firm response.
Unfortunately I do think such accusations are made up occasionally -- though probably not as often as true accusations are dismissed as fabrications. (I believed Anita Hill.)