Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sure she would have if the boss was attracted to her, Noomi.
There is no protected class issue at all here, simply employment at well issues.
I support the Court on this one, and feel bad for the plaintiff.
Sure she would have if the boss was attracted to her, Noomi.
There is no protected class issue at all here, simply employment at well issues.
I support the Court on this one, and feel bad for the plaintiff.
The dentist did the right thing. The fired employee's work was stellar, she will have no problem whatsoever finding another job and will undoubtably get a sterling recommendation. She has no case which is exactly what the Court determined.
December 22, 2012
by Jazz Shaw
One of the wilder stories from the judicial branch to cross our desk in some time popped up this weekend. Our tale takes place in an Iowa dentists office, where an attractive, married woman works as a dental assistant. After ten years on the job providing what the dentist himself described as stellar performance, she was fired because she was too attractive and represented a threat to the owners marriage. There was no affair. There was no allegation of an affair. But the dentists wife also worked there and, after discovering some personal (not sexual) text messages between the two, she wanted the woman gone. The assistant went to court claiming unjust termination. Theres no way that one holds up, right? Wrong.
A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an irresistible attraction, even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.
An attorney for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight said the decision, the first of its kind in Iowa, is a victory for family values because Knight fired Melissa Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman.
Someone I frequently turn to when I need to understand the byzantine maze of the legal system, Dr. James Joyner, seems to feel that this was pretty much the correct call.
As weird and embarrassing as this case is, its a reasonable decision in the narrow case of a sole proprietorship. Should the boss be able to work with women he finds attractive and resist crossing boundaries of professionalism? Sure. But, if its his shop, he should have the right to remove the temptation.
This obviously becomes more problematic in a larger firm, especially when the supervisor isnt also the owner. In those cases, asking for reassignments or just moving on to another firm are more appropriate solutions. But thats unreasonable if its your firm.
In Iowa you can be fired for being too pretty « Hot Air
Isn't the business a partnership with his wife? Maybe she is the one that got rid of the woman that wore overly tight clothing to work....... maybe it was the wife that felt that the assistant was hitting on her husband. It's assumed it's all the guy's fault.......why?
had you read the article you would have read that he was sending her dirty texts and commenting about his bulge in his pants.
But hey why read right?
There was no affair. There was no allegation of an affair. But the dentists wife also worked there and, after discovering some personal (not sexual) text messages between the two, she wanted the woman gone.
I read the article ace, did you? Where did you read about "dirty" texts?
Sure she would have if the boss was attracted to her, Noomi.
There is no protected class issue at all here, simply employment at well issues.
I support the Court on this one, and feel bad for the plaintiff.
But in this case, we know for a fact that had she been male, she would not have been fired.
The only reason she was fired is because the man's wife was a jealous bitch and the guy had a hard on for someone other than his missus.
An employer should be able to terminate an employee's employment at any time for any reason they choose.
She was fired for being female. She has a case. Its gender discrimination, because we know for a fact that she wouldn't have been fired if she were male.
She wasn't fired for being female. She was fired because her boss was attracted to her in an unhealthy fashion.She was fired for being female. She has a case. Its gender discrimination, because we know for a fact that she wouldn't have been fired if she were male.
She wasn't fired for being female. She was fired because her boss was attracted to her in an unhealthy fashion.She was fired for being female. She has a case. Its gender discrimination, because we know for a fact that she wouldn't have been fired if she were male.
She wasn't fired for being female. She was fired because her boss was attracted to her in an unhealthy fashion.She was fired for being female. She has a case. Its gender discrimination, because we know for a fact that she wouldn't have been fired if she were male.
Key word is "her."
Since boss would not be attracted to a male, then he discriminated against an employee based on their gender.
This is why I do not work in Iowa.
An employer should be able to terminate an employee's employment at any time for any reason they choose.
Immaterial because if his wife told him "no, choose", and the assistant was a male, he would have acted the same way.
She wasn't fired for being female. She was fired because her boss was attracted to her in an unhealthy fashion.
Key word is "her."
Since boss would not be attracted to a male, then he discriminated against an employee based on their gender.
