View Full Version : Attractive? Female? Live in Iowa?
If your answer to all three is yes, then beware, your job may be in danger, and legally terminated, according to Iowa's Supreme Court...
(Reuters) - An Iowa dentist did not discriminate against a female assistant he fired for being "too attractive," the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Friday in its second decision in the case.
In December, the all-male court ruled that Dr. James Knight did not discriminate in firing dental hygienist Melissa Nelson after more than 10 years' service because he found her too attractive and his wife saw her as a threat.
Nelson had argued she would not have been fired if she were a man, and her attorney, Paige Fiedler, argued in seeking a second hearing that their decision was a setback for gender equality in the workplace.
"We ultimately conclude the conduct does not amount to unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act," Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.
Knight had hired Nelson in 1999 and on several occasions in the 18 months before he fired her in early 2010, he complained that her clothing was too tight, revealing and distracting, the decision said. She denied wearing anything inappropriate.
Nelson and Knight began texting each other in 2009, the opinion said. Most messages were work-related or otherwise innocuous, but some were more suggestive, including one in which Knight asked Nelson how often she had an orgasm, the opinion said. Nelson did not answer that text.
"The fact of the matter is Nelson was terminated because of the activities of her consensual personal relationship with her employer, not because of her gender," Chief Justice Mark Cady wrote in a separate special concurrence.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/12/us-usa-dentist-sex-idUSBRE96B0XA20130712
:salute:
NightTrain
09-07-2014, 12:01 PM
Oops.
Looks like the Good Doctor got caught trying to raid the cookie jar.
I can see how his wife might take offense and make him get rid of her after seeing the texts. I'll wager it's still a bit chilly around the house. :laugh:
Oops.
Looks like the Good Doctor got caught trying to raid the cookie jar.
I can see how his wife might take offense and make him get rid of her after seeing the texts. I'll wager it's still a bit chilly around the house. :laugh:
...the woman got fired because this man decided she was a threat to his relationship with his wife! And the courts said that's a-okay!
Gunny
09-07-2014, 12:17 PM
...the woman got fired because this man decided she was a threat to his relationship with his wife! And the courts said that's a-okay!
Well, she should have been black. THEN the fireworks would begin. :laugh:
NightTrain
09-07-2014, 12:31 PM
...the woman got fired because this man decided she was a threat to his relationship with his wife! And the courts said that's a-okay!
She wasn't blameless.
Look at what the Judge wrote - there was more going on than just texts.
"The fact of the matter is Nelson was terminated because of the activities of her consensual personal relationship with her employer, not because of her gender," Chief Justice Mark Cady wrote in a separate special concurrence.
You start screwing your boss and his wife finds out, there will be repercussions. She shouldn't have played and he shouldn't have strayed.
...the woman got fired because this man decided she was a threat to his relationship with his wife! And the courts said that's a-okay!So, what's your point? Are you suggesting that attractive people are a protected class?
She wasn't blameless. Look at what the Judge wrote - there was more going on than just texts.
It does not say anywhere there where 'more than texts'.
About six months before the sacking, the texting began. While Nelson was willing to engage in text exchanges, she reproved him when he told her off for wearing a shirt that was too tight, and refused to respond when he asked her how frequently she experienced orgasm.
Some time before the sacking, Knight's wife, who also worked at the dental surgery, discovered one of the text exchanges on his phone. Rather than demanding that he change his behaviour, she insisted that he fire his employee. The couple consulted their pastor, and the pastor agreed: the woman had to go, for the sake of his marriage.
If this man did not want to cheat on his wife, all he would have to do is, um, not cheat on his wife.
Gunny
09-07-2014, 01:03 PM
It does not say anywhere there where 'more than texts'.
If this man did not want to cheat on his wife, all he would have to do is, um, not cheat on his wife.
That.
NightTrain
09-07-2014, 01:11 PM
It does not say anywhere there where 'more than texts'.
If this man did not want to cheat on his wife, all he would have to do is, um, not cheat on his wife.
I guess you and I have a different idea of what the definition of "her consensual personal relationship with her employer" means.
When a Judge phrases something like that - 'consensual personal relationship' means a sexual relationship. If there were no hanky-panky going on, he wouldn't have said that.
I highly doubt she would have lost that case if she had rebuffed all advances and was innocent. Some details are not broadcast to the world in sex scandals but you can read between the lines.
Gunny
09-07-2014, 01:14 PM
I guess you and I have a different idea of what the definition of "her consensual personal relationship with her employer" means.
When a Judge phrases something like that - 'consensual personal relationship' means a sexual relationship. If there were no hanky-panky going on, he wouldn't have said that.
I highly doubt she would have lost that case if she had rebuffed all advances and was innocent. Some details are not broadcast to the world in sex scandals but you can read between the lines.
BUT ,,, does that STILL make it okay to fire her?
I guess you and I have a different idea of what the definition of "her consensual personal relationship with her employer" means. When a Judge phrases something like that - 'consensual personal relationship' means a sexual relationship. If there were no hanky-panky going on, he wouldn't have said that. I highly doubt she would have lost that case if she had rebuffed all advances and was innocent. Some details are not broadcast to the world in sex scandals but you can read between the lines.
Impressive.
NightTrain
09-07-2014, 01:21 PM
BUT ,,, does that STILL make it okay to fire her?
Well, something had to give, right? Sure, Nelson got a raw deal, but she had to know the possibility was there unless she was unbelievably naive.
The Dentist was wrong, and so was she... IMO he's more guilty by a long shot.
The wife made him fire her, and I really can't blame the wife for making him do it. I don't think any married person would be okay with continued employment of "the other woman" in her husband's office.
She knew better, and paid the price.
NightTrain
09-07-2014, 01:27 PM
Impressive.
My uber-sensitive sarcasm meter just red-lined.
Abbey Marie
09-07-2014, 02:54 PM
Noir, if you want to get offended by perceived sexual discrimination, consider these two points:
1. Attractiveness is not a female-only attribute, and
2. Had she been male, she would in all likelihood not have been hired as a dental assistant in the first place. From my experience, they are rare as hen's teeth in this country. Perhaps there is your real sex discrimination...
fj1200
09-07-2014, 10:07 PM
Well, something had to give, right? Sure, Nelson got a raw deal, but she had to know the possibility was there unless she was unbelievably naive.
The Dentist was wrong, and so was she... IMO he's more guilty by a long shot.
The wife made him fire her, and I really can't blame the wife for making him do it. I don't think any married person would be okay with continued employment of "the other woman" in her husband's office.
She knew better, and paid the price.
IIRC from when this first came out there wasn't any relationship between the two and it was just a weird case. Attractiveness is not a protected class but I'm surprised that it wasn't a sexual harassment suit. I don't think this particular decision is too much to get worked up over like suggested in the OP but if it were and all the Hawkeye Hotties are out in the street DMP might be able to import a new wife from Iowa.
Noir, if you want to get offended by perceived sexual discrimination, consider these two points:
1. Attractiveness is not a female-only attribute, and
2. Had she been male, she would in all likelihood not have been hired as a dental assistant in the first place. From my experience, they are rare as hen's teeth in this country. Perhaps there is your real sex discrimination...
1 - Obviously, had it been an attractive man that was fired, because his boss, a woman, found him "irresistible" and so a threat to her marriage, the case would be no different.
2 - Saying 'You were only hired because you're an attractive woman, therefore you can be fired for being an attractive woman.' Is not adequate IMO, discrimination does not justify discrimination.
Gunny
09-10-2014, 07:52 AM
1 - Obviously, had it been an attractive man that was fired, because his boss, a woman, found him "irresistible" and so a threat to her marriage, the case would be no different.
2 - Saying 'You were only hired because you're an attractive woman, therefore you can be fired for being an attractive woman.' Is not adequate IMO, discrimination does not justify discrimination.
I think there really isn't a right answer to this. Had she not exchanged texts with him at all on the personal level, that may have given more power to her argument.
NightTrain
09-10-2014, 08:14 AM
If she had reported it and was innocent of any wrongdoing, she'd be sitting on a pile of cash right now.
jimnyc
09-10-2014, 08:18 AM
BUT ,,, does that STILL make it okay to fire her?
Barring a contract in place, or an actual law being broken - it's ok to fire someone for any reason or no reason at all.
jimnyc
09-10-2014, 08:19 AM
1 - Obviously, had it been an attractive man that was fired, because his boss, a woman, found him "irresistible" and so a threat to her marriage, the case would be no different.
2 - Saying 'You were only hired because you're an attractive woman, therefore you can be fired for being an attractive woman.' Is not adequate IMO, discrimination does not justify discrimination.
99% of discrimination is perfectly legal. It may not be justified in some opinions, but that doesn't make it illegal. There are actually very few times when discrimination is considered illegal - see Title XII
Gunny
09-10-2014, 08:20 AM
Barring a contract in place, or an actual law being broken - it's ok to fire someone for any reason or no reason at all.
A-HA! As I suspected, She IS white. :laugh:
NightTrain
09-10-2014, 08:27 AM
A-HA! As I suspected, She IS white. :laugh:
Blonde, too!
I didn't think she was particularly good looking. Seemed to me that the Good Doctor was going through a midlife crisis.
Next time he's feeling froggy, he'll probably buy a corvette. Lots cheaper in the long run, especially when the wife finds out.
tailfins
09-10-2014, 08:58 AM
She wasn't blameless.
Look at what the Judge wrote - there was more going on than just texts.
[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
You start screwing your boss and his wife finds out, there will be repercussions. She shouldn't have played and he shouldn't have strayed.
What you're describing is moral turpitude, which is valid grounds for dismissal.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.