Should you be fired for being a, irresistible attraction?

[nsaspook]

Should you be fired for being a, “irresistible attraction”?

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/12/21/iowa-court-bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — 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.

It seems a strange reason to fire someone even if it's legal. People have been fired at Hooters for being unattractive but they know the rules when they are hired. What if she was so unattractive he payed her more than others doing the same job for keeping his marriage closer.

 

[Evo]

He fired her because his wife probably threatened to take him for every penney he had and kill his practice. Family values, right.

Where were his family values when he said

But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

The dental assistants in my dentists' office wear long "lab coats".

“These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don’t think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires and that Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and control their bosses’ sexual desires,” said attorney Paige Fiedler. “If they get out of hand, then the women can be legally fired for it.”

WHAT?

 

[I like Serena]

Interesting!

Something I've never thought about before.
I have always just accepted as a fact of life that attractive women have it easier.
Apparently the wives of men involved also have a say in the matter and that say is accepted unanimously in court.

 

[OmCheeto]

It's no wonder I'm messed up.

I was 17 when this came out

The Playboy Interview - Excerpt
November 1976

Because I'm just human and I'm tempted and Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. The Bible says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Christ said, I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery. I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times... This is something that God recognizes, that I will do and have done, and God forgives me for it. But that doesn't mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock. Christ says, don't consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to his wife. The guy who's loyal to his wife ought not to be condescending or proud because of the relative degree of sinfulness.

It might be something only a man can understand. God knows that either I exited, they exited, or inappropriate behavior would have ensued.

Or, in the words of Lord Attenbourough;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Z5k1_LgkE

"it emits its mighty mating call"

Mew!

I side with the all male justices... Sexy shoes should not be allowed in the workplace.

 

[Choppy]

I can't help, but wonder if this is one of those cases where there's a great deal of information lost between the court ruling and the headlines.

It would seem after reading the article that the former employee attempted a lawsuit based specifically on gender discrimination and the court was unable to find that this was a case of gender discrimination. Had she presented it as a sexual harassment challenge it may have gone differently. That first quote that Evo has above would suggest a pretty strong case for harassment to me.

 

[Pengwuino]

No wonder I can't get a job.

 

[edward]

December 21, 2012 -- The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that a dentist was justified in firing his female dental assistant because he was worried her presence in his practice would ruin his relationship with his wife.

James H. Knight, DDS, of Fort Dodge hired 20-year-old dental assistant Melissa Nelson in 1999, shortly after she graduated from community college. Nelson worked for Dr. Knight for more than 10 years.

http://www.drbicuspid.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=pmt&pag=dis&ItemID=312289&wf=33

Wow it took him ten years to notice.

 

[Evo]

http://www.drbicuspid.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=pmt&pag=dis&ItemID=312289&wf=33

Wow it took him ten years to notice.

Actually, according to the article, it seems it took his wife ten years to notice. :tongue:

 

[Yayfordoritos]

No wonder I can't get a job.

I'm sure you are gorgeous!

 

[Yayfordoritos]

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/12/21/iowa-court-bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/



It seems a strange reason to fire someone even if it's legal. People have been fired at Hooters for being unattractive but they know the rules when they are hired. What if she was so unattractive he payed her more than others doing the same job for keeping his marriage closer.

I read about this article he told her that if you see my pants bulge that means your outfit is too sexy. What type of boss says that? Also I almost went to school to be a dental assistant, I decided against it cause something about sticking my fingers in people's mouths grossed me out, and it just didn't seem right. Anywho when I took a tour of the school and I saw the dental assisting students, they were all wearing scrubs, and white lab coats. There wasn't much chance to be sexy in those

 

[BobG]

I can't help, but wonder if this is one of those cases where there's a great deal of information lost between the court ruling and the headlines.

Yes, the content of the text messages between the dentist and the assistant are missing. Whatever they may have said to each other in the messages may have been:

1) the normal things an employer and employee would talk to each other about after work, while each is home with their own families.

2) the normal things friends talk to each other about, including asking and giving advice on how to handle problems in each other's families. Almost always not a great idea when you're employer/employee, and often not a good idea when you're just friends of the opposite sex (do you really want her asking some other guy advice about how to handle her sex life with you?)

For example, from the original article: "He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.” Why in the world would an employer know how often his employee has sex with her husband?


3) or, worst case scenario, exchanging messages that would suggest a very intimate relationship between the dentist and assistant.

It's good PR for the dental assistant and her lawyer to focus on the employer's sexual attraction to her, but it was the text messages that raised red flags with the wife - and those are only referenced indirectly in the articles.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I hate to throw facts into this mix, especially since many people's minds are made up, but I would encourage you to read the decision: http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20121221/11-1857.pdf

First, the issue is not whether Melissa Nelson was treated unfairly. The court concludes:

As we have indicated above, the issue before us is not whether a jury could find that Dr. Knight treated Nelson badly. We are asked to decide only if a genuine fact issue exists as to whether Dr. Knight engaged in unlawful gender discrimination when he fired Nelson at the request of his wife.

And earlier:

Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act are not general fairness laws, and an employer does not violate them by treating an employee unfairly so long as the employer does not engage in discrimination based upon the employee’s protected status.

The suit was on the basis of sex discrimination and equal opportunity.

Nelson's argument had several points, but I find two particularly interesting. The first was a sine qua non argument. Nelson argued that had she not been a woman, the concern on the part of the wife would not have occurred, and therefore it was indirectly because she was a member of a protected class. The court rejected this argument, noting a) that another woman was hired as Nelson's replacement, and b) federal case law exists on this, but hinted that they might have accepted it had Mrs. Knight told her husband that he couldn't hire any women.

The second one asks the question "if Dr. Knight would have been liable to Nelson for sexually harassing her, should he be able to avoid liability for terminating her out of fear that he was going to harass her?" The court answered this one in the affirmative, arguing that the alternative is to hold people liable for acts that they have not committed, but only might commit in the future.

 

[Danger]

My dentist is an extremely attractive lady, young enough to be my granddaughter. I joked with her a bit last week while she was rebuilding a broken tooth, but I'm smart enough to know who controls the anesthetic.

edit: I'm amazed that neither her nor the equally young and attractive assistant were aware of the use of a dental dam as a sexual device until I mentioned it. They probably still don't know the details, since I didn't offer them.

edit #2: Back on track as per the OP: If the guy has trouble controlling the trouser eel based upon his assistant's clothing, he should set forth a dress code before the fact. The owner of a strip bar is guilty if he assaults a naked woman who works for him. Being alluring is the basis of her job. Some women who apply for any job expect that to be part of it.

 

[tahayassen]

I hate to throw facts into this mix, especially since many people's minds are made up, but I would encourage you to read the decision: http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20121221/11-1857.pdf

First, the issue is not whether Melissa Nelson was treated unfairly. The court concludes:
And earlier:
The suit was on the basis of sex discrimination and equal opportunity.

Nelson's argument had several points, but I find two particularly interesting. The first was a sine qua non argument. Nelson argued that had she not been a woman, the concern on the part of the wife would not have occurred, and therefore it was indirectly because she was a member of a protected class. The court rejected this argument, noting a) that another woman was hired as Nelson's replacement, and b) federal case law exists on this, but hinted that they might have accepted it had Mrs. Knight told her husband that he couldn't hire any women.

The second one asks the question "if Dr. Knight would have been liable to Nelson for sexually harassing her, should he be able to avoid liability for terminating her out of fear that he was going to harass her?" The court answered this one in the affirmative, arguing that the alternative is to hold people liable for acts that they have not committed, but only might commit in the future.

Sigh, I already made my mind up and now you come here with your "unbiased logic." -_-

 

[OmCheeto]

I hate to throw facts into this mix, especially since many people's minds are made up, but I would encourage you to read the decision: http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20121221/11-1857.pdf

First, the issue is not whether Melissa Nelson was treated unfairly. The court concludes:



And earlier:



The suit was on the basis of sex discrimination and equal opportunity.

Nelson's argument had several points, but I find two particularly interesting. The first was a sine qua non argument. Nelson argued that had she not been a woman, the concern on the part of the wife would not have occurred, and therefore it was indirectly because she was a member of a protected class. The court rejected this argument, noting a) that another woman was hired as Nelson's replacement, and b) federal case law exists on this, but hinted that they might have accepted it had Mrs. Knight told her husband that he couldn't hire any women.

The second one asks the question "if Dr. Knight would have been liable to Nelson for sexually harassing her, should he be able to avoid liability for terminating her out of fear that he was going to harass her?" The court answered this one in the affirmative, arguing that the alternative is to hold people liable for acts that they have not committed, but only might commit in the future.

One of the long time mentors started a thread quite a while ago regarding a SCOTUS decision. I of course jumped in and, based on media hype and gobbledy goop, started re-spewing the gobbledy goop.

I later read the court decision, seemed like a thousand pages long, and decided what we were arguing about had absolutely nothing to do with the case.

I of course slyly slinked out of the thread, never acknowledging my complicity in spreading silliness.

False! We simply discourage exotic speculation, misleading information, general silliness and nonsense.

---------------------
That was a good thread. OMG! I outed myself as a kook that day! Why on Earth am I still here?
"I don't believe in Asimov's 'positronic brain' any more than I believe in putting Cheeze Whiz on a pizza, but he inspired me to seek out scientific facts."... Danger
I must not have known how to quote people in my sig back then... "Cheeze Whiz on a pizza"... hmmm...

 

[encorp]

Well, it looks like she LOST in court today.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121222/NEWS01/312220050/-1/COUPON/Iowa-Supreme-Court-Firing-attractive-worker-not-harassment?nclick_check=1

 

[Yayfordoritos]

I think the dentist and his wife seem like nutcases. Don't understand why the assistant didn't quit, I wouldn't want to work at a place like that.

 

[MarneMath]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/12/us/iowa-irresistible-worker/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Update on the story.