Fired for being too attractive.. why we need stronger worker protections!

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2011
168,471
31,398
2,220
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
This is lovely. I'd like to hear one of our "Business Uber Alles" types defend this shit.

‘Irresistible’ Iowa woman fired for being too sexy | Inquirer News

An “irresistible” Iowa dental assistant fired for threatening her boss’s marriage – even though she turned away his advances – has lost her discrimination lawsuit.
Melissa Nelson, who is married with children, had worked for James Knight for 10 years before his wife complained about his infatuation with her.
Nelson told the court that she had seen Knight as a father figure and a man of “integrity” who generally treated her with respect.
But about nine years into the job, Knight started to complain that her clothes were “distracting” because they “accentuated her body,” and he sometimes asked her to cover up with her lab coat.
....
And at one point when Knight discussed infrequency in Nelson’s sex life, he told her “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, put her foot down when she discovered the two were texting each other.
After meeting with their pastor, Knight agreed to fire Nelson because she was a “big threat to our marriage.”
 
Personally..I rather have the government completely out of the mix.

But if government is choosing sides..it should be on the side of labor. Which in this country, it's not.
 
Last edited:
I think it goes without saying the wife is a nutcase.

I also wonder what kind of pastor tells a guy to fire an employee because he can't control himself.

The thing is, the termination was wrongful, and the court that decided against her was kind of nuts. Of course, it was all men on the court.
 
This is not about a protected class in employment law because the facts fit that the dentist could have been homosexual with a partner and the assistant could have been attractive male.

The 8-0 finding is conclusive. The plaintiff said the case was now over.

It's over.
 
This is not about a protected class in employment law because the facts fit that the dentist could have been homosexual with a partner and the assistant could have been attractive male.

The 8-0 finding is conclusive. The plaintiff said the case was now over.

It's over.

Actually, it's a pretty stupid ruling and shows why we need strong unions and stronger worker protections.

Now, yeah, as a practical matter, she's probably better off being out of that snakepit.

But she did her job, did it well, worked their for 9 years, and she loses her job because the Dentist's wife is a nutcase?
 
This is not about a protected class in employment law because the facts fit that the dentist could have been homosexual with a partner and the assistant could have been attractive male.

The 8-0 finding is conclusive. The plaintiff said the case was now over.

It's over.

It's about a capricious discharge. And this sort of thing effects the economy at large. Employment is what the majority of Americans are dependent on for income. And the government provides a vast array of incentives for people to open businesses and keep those business profitable to help sustain the economy.

If employers are allowed to fire people because of silly things, it bodes badly for the economy at large. Why? Simply because people will always be in fear of losing their jobs. They will spend less. And for an economy that's based almost entirely on consumerism, that deadly.
 
People should always be in fear of losing their jobs. Then they are motivated to do a good job. Auto workers have union protection so they can drink and smoke dope coming back to work too high to function.

After all her years on the job, this woman felt secure enough to start texting her boss. If she hadn't done that, she might still be working there.
 
People should always be in fear of losing their jobs. Then they are motivated to do a good job. Auto workers have union protection so they can drink and smoke dope coming back to work too high to function.

After all her years on the job, this woman felt secure enough to start texting her boss. If she hadn't done that, she might still be working there.

She wasn't fired for texting.

She wasn't fired for bad performance.

She was fired because a pastor suggested it might cause marital troubles in the future.

That's patently ridiculous.
 
People should always be in fear of losing their jobs. Then they are motivated to do a good job. Auto workers have union protection so they can drink and smoke dope coming back to work too high to function.

After all her years on the job, this woman felt secure enough to start texting her boss. If she hadn't done that, she might still be working there.

She wasn't fired for texting.

She wasn't fired for bad performance.

She was fired because a pastor suggested it might cause marital troubles in the future.

That's patently ridiculous.

She was fired because the dentist's wife saw texts from the assistant on her husband's cell phone. They were innocent texts but it was a personal contact and she saw where this road was going. The pastor did not wake up one morning and think it was a good idea for this man to fire his assistant. Neither did the pastor contact this man out of the blue and tell him to fire his assistant.
 

She's not hard on the eyes face wise... would like to see what the big deal was from the head down though. Sounds like a case of jealous wife syndrome to me....

Melissa-Nelson_zps5ecbc8df.jpg
 
Where's a picture of the wife?

What a change it would have made to David Petreaus if he had a pastor that said "get a new biographer". Paula Broadwell is no raving beauty either.
 
People should always be in fear of losing their jobs. Then they are motivated to do a good job. Auto workers have union protection so they can drink and smoke dope coming back to work too high to function.

After all her years on the job, this woman felt secure enough to start texting her boss. If she hadn't done that, she might still be working there.

She wasn't fired for texting.

She wasn't fired for bad performance.

She was fired because a pastor suggested it might cause marital troubles in the future.

That's patently ridiculous.

She was fired because the dentist's wife saw texts from the assistant on her husband's cell phone. They were innocent texts but it was a personal contact and she saw where this road was going. The pastor did not wake up one morning and think it was a good idea for this man to fire his assistant. Neither did the pastor contact this man out of the blue and tell him to fire his assistant.

I text my boss..who is a woman..all the time.

It's part of my job responsiblities.

If she needs to reach me..about say..covering the desk at off hours or an online production issue when I am not in the office..she sends me texts.

I should not be subject to getting fired because of that.
 
The ruling is good, and would have been unaffected by strong unions or other worker protections. This was not an action about protected classes under the law.

This is not about a protected class in employment law because the facts fit that the dentist could have been homosexual with a partner and the assistant could have been attractive male.

The 8-0 finding is conclusive. The plaintiff said the case was now over.

It's over.

Actually, it's a pretty stupid ruling and shows why we need strong unions and stronger worker protections.

Now, yeah, as a practical matter, she's probably better off being out of that snakepit.

But she did her job, did it well, worked their for 9 years, and she loses her job because the Dentist's wife is a nutcase?
 
She was fired because the wife was jealous of her, not because of texting.

No class protection exists for "those who are abused by bosses' spouses".

She wasn't fired for texting.

She wasn't fired for bad performance.

She was fired because a pastor suggested it might cause marital troubles in the future.

That's patently ridiculous.

She was fired because the dentist's wife saw texts from the assistant on her husband's cell phone. They were innocent texts but it was a personal contact and she saw where this road was going. The pastor did not wake up one morning and think it was a good idea for this man to fire his assistant. Neither did the pastor contact this man out of the blue and tell him to fire his assistant.

I text my boss..who is a woman..all the time.

It's part of my job responsiblities.

If she needs to reach me..about say..covering the desk at off hours or an online production issue when I am not in the office..she sends me texts.

I should not be subject to getting fired because of that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top