Dov Charney's tale is one of employee trysts, revenge porn blogs, and repeated sexual harassment claims. 

Like him or loathe him, the former CEO of American Apparel has always been a controversial figure within the multi-million dollar company. Known for his anti-corporate mentality, Charney's antics within the workplace were considered both controversial and cutting edge -- at least initially.  

But after 10 years at the helm, and with dozens of ex-employee lawsuits under his belt, it seems that the outspoken leader of the hip lifestyle brand may have finally worn out his knee-socked welcome.

American Apparel fired Dov Charney last Wednesday with a vote of 5-0. They cite the cause of Charney's termination as stemming from an "ongoing investigation into alleged misconduct."  

The timing of the board's announcement is interesting, considering Charney's decade-long tenure as the sexual lothario of American Apparel. It was a role that the brand embraced, allowing Charney the freedom to romp where he liked.

Well, until it affected the the company's bottom line, anyway.

Once trading as high as $15 per share in 2007, the value of American Apparel's stock shares are now under $1 each, and the company lost nearly $270 million during the last for years. The company debt sits at $200 million, with some of the interest rates as high as 20 percent.

While the stock moved upward again once word of Charney's firing got out, rising almost 19, the stock's low value meant investors only saw an increase of about 11 cents per share. 

While Charney was never exactly the buttoned-up CEO one would expect of a Fortune 500 company like American Apparel, he wasn't always stamped as a sexually-charged sleaze, either. In fact, there was a time when Charney was seen as quite innovative and refreshing, at least by industry standards.

After finding an innovative solution to the need for a feminine -- not boxy -- screen-printable t-shirt, Charney took it one step further, producing those "girl-tees" on local production floors while paying his employees a decent wage. Charney's method was a far cry from the sweatshop-laden fashion industry of the time, and the worker-friendly wholesale line took off.  

American Apparel eventually branched out from t-shirts wholesaler to retail giant, releasing a line of hipster-approved basics that immediately earned street cred. A number of retail stores and hip employees followed.

But while Charney's outside-the-box attitude did wonders for the development of American Apparel's clothing line, his quirky style had a downside. The bearded, outspoken CEO was earning a reputation as being overtly sexual, and while many of Charney's employee policies earned him favor with subordinates, his other more draconian policies were swept under the rug.

Rumors of looks-based hiring and sexist grooming standards began to surface, and the more Charney spoke to the media, the more those rumors seemed to hold some weight. Then came the rumors of Charney's sexual escapades, often involving multiple employee trysts and sordid production floor love triangles.

While the public began to be wary of the CEO's rumored escapades, he company took another route. They channeled Charney's sexual obsession into a marketing tool, capitalizing on that image with skimpy ads and skimpier models. The risque campaigns paid off, earning the company both backlash and applause, and of course more millions. 

But as Charney was validated for his flagrant sexuality in the workplace, he began to make no bones about discussing his controversial stances, and the rumors began to get confirmation. Strange videos and even stranger interviews ran rampant, and damage to the company was inevitable.

One of the most damaging media escapades, an interview with Jane reporter Claudia Ko in 2004, recalled Ko's experience interviewing Charney as he "pleasured" himself a number of times. He also spoke casually of the numerous sexual romps he'd had with employees. While Ko has publicly defended Charney, it was after that interview that Charney's behavior began to be a red flag for the general public, who questioned the appropriateness of his actions.

Perhaps Charney's behavior should have been a red flag for the board as well. As complaints poured in, the stock price still rose steadily under Charney's direction, and the ill-fated CEO remained in charge. 

Dozens of lawsuits were filed against the CEO during the height of American Apparel's success -- one for asking a female employee to pretend to masturbate, one for allegedly sexually assaulting an 18-year-old employee named Irene Morales, and a number more lawsuits for sexual harassment -- but Charney's tenure at American Apparel continued. 

It was only when the financials began to be compromised that any opposition from the board began to surface. While some of the misconduct the board is alluding to may indeed be sexually charged, it seems more likely that the driving decision behind Charney's firing is the company's financials.

According to the LA Times, a person close to the investigation cites Charney's misuse of funds, in conjunction with helping leak nudes of a former employee who was suing him, as the reason for his removal.

True or not, the poor financials of American Apparel certainly seem to be coincidental to the timing of Charney's removal. After all, the stream of lawsuits against Charney have remained steady for the past seven years, and more than a few were settled.

But it is only now, as American Apparel's stock prices sit historically low, and after seven years of lawsuits, that the board is claiming to be aware of Charney's "misconduct." And they just so happen to be using it as the basis for his removal. 

It's a touchy time for the company, who warned that the firing of Charney could tirgger defaults on nearly $40 million worth of outstanding loans, and throw the company into bankruptcy.

It is unlikely that Charney will go willingly from the company he started; he still owns 27 percent of the company stock, and he has vowed to vigorously contest his termination.

Under the clause of Charney's employment, a 30-day period is required before termination, which means that Charney may indeed have a leg to stand on in his case.

And while the cries of sexual harassment have never quite been hushed, despite the payoffs, his attorney, Patricia Glaser, said Charney called the allegations of misconduct "completely baseless."