You're too hot - I might do ya. You're FIRED

[NoahFence]

Are you kidding me????


http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x4...rt-says?zc_p=0

Quote:

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.

And here I was thinking we were moving forward on equality. DOH! Glad I don't play the ponies. I suck at predicting.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

"You can't work here - I might rape you".

[StankApe]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Are you kidding me????


http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x4...rt-says?zc_p=0





And here I was thinking we were moving forward on equality. DOH! Glad I don't play the ponies. I suck at predicting.

the ruling appears gender neutral

so beware all you pretty boys!

[Argumemnon]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Are you kidding me????


http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x4...rt-says?zc_p=0





And here I was thinking we were moving forward on equality. DOH! Glad I don't play the ponies. I suck at predicting.

This kind of nonsense idea is what gets some women the 'privilege' of wearing a full-body veil. Just in case they're too hot to handle for men.

[lionking]

This just fills me with despair. She worked with this guy for 10 years!

I wonder if there is other legal action she can take?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by StankApe

the ruling appears gender neutral

so beware all you pretty boys!

It is until you realize that due to gender disparity in management, the chance that your boss is an heterosexual man is much higher than hetero woman or homo man, therefor this ruling allowed to be jurisprudence would predominentely hit women.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What about this part:

Quote:

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.
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.”

Knight and Nelson – both married with children – started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired.

Maybe the wording of the ruling leaves a lot to be desired, and maybe the fired worker's legal defense had some merit. But it sounds like there may very well have been at least some flirting on both the boss' and the employee's parts and the dentist's wife put her foot down.

[StankApe]

I think the ruling is BS myself. I fully expect this to be kicked up to the next level.

It has USSC written all over it.

[Monketi Ghost]

...and hey, since you don't work here anymore, wanna go get some coffee?

[StankApe]

This is really a convenient ruling for me. When ladies ask me if I am employed I can respond "I used to have my own successful business, but I was forced to fire myself for excessive hotness! Now let's go over to this cozy little spot in the corner and talk about it....."

[NewtonTrino]

You don't need a reason to not employ someone anyway in an "at will" state. I don't see why this is an issue.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Even in at-will states, you can be terminated unlawfully.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Think of it as affirmative action for ugly people, who have been statistically shown to be oppressed in the workplace (and in life).

[RemieV]

I think the issue might be that she filed the wrong kind of complaint. They're saying it's not a Civil Rights issue in particular, because she wasn't fired strictly on the basis of her gender - which is true, because the boss ONLY employs women and they weren't all fired.

What could be argued better is that it's a case of sexual harassment, because her firing implies that she would have sex with him. She intentionally did not file that way, because she didn't think there was enough evidence. I think her firing and the reasons thereof are plenty.

[BlackLyon]

"Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he [Knight’s attorney, Stuart Cochrane] said."

Yes, fire a loyal employee of ten years and place her family into a position of financial hardship, all because you can't keep your sexual urges under control. That sure sounds like the moral thing to do!

[BenBurch]

I think we need to ratify the ERA ASAP.

[Checkmite]

Quote:

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

What a pig.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

What a pig.

He's a pig, but that wasn't the question before the court. The question was whether there were any statutes that made it illegal, and being a pig is not illegal in general. Perhaps there should be some specific law covering cases such as this, but nothing presented in this thread tells me that there are, at least not any that were used as the basis for the complaint.

[Checkmite]

Well it's established he's not a lawbreaker I guess.

I'll have to settle for calling him a pig.

[WildCat]

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.

I've hilited the problem.

Wife was jealous, says the worker goes or she goes. He picked his wife. I really don't see the legal issue here.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

Even in at-will states, you can be terminated unlawfully.

But those that do the firing will only get caught if they're dumb enough to state their unlawful reason for terminating someone. At-will state employers don't have to give a reason at all for termination.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

I've hilited the problem.

Wife was jealous, says the worker goes or she goes. He picked his wife. I really don't see the legal issue here.

You mean someone who wasn't a manager or even on the company payroll was able to dictate an employee's firing? Interesting.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

You mean someone who wasn't a manager or even on the company payroll was able to dictate an employee's firing? Interesting.

The wife worked there too, not that it matters. She'd be far from the first wife to meddle in her husband's business.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

But those that do the firing will only get caught if they're dumb enough to state their unlawful reason for terminating someone. At-will state employers don't have to give a reason at all for termination.

And that's where Knight is a clown as well as a pig. He could easily have given a bland reason for firing Nelson instead of calling her (in effect) a she-devil. I hope there is some action that can be taken against the clown.

[theprestige]

Interesting. When someone complains of forming an unhealthy attraction towards someone else, what's the usual advice?

"Break off contact with that person."

It'd be nice if everybody was able to exercise rational self-control in all areas of their lives. But reality isn't like that. We don't tell an alcoholic, "keep booze in the house; just don't drink any".

We don't tell a philanderer, "spend time with the objects of your attraction, but don't hit on them".

We don't tell the girl attracted to bad boys (or the fellow attracted to bad girls, or to bad boys, etc.) "hang out with all the bad boys you like, but don't hook up with any of them".

No. We tell them, "if it's a problem for you, if it's a trigger for you, if it's an area of personal weakness for you, put some distance between you and it. If you see it coming cross over to the other side of the street. Walk the other way."

In this case, what? "Life's too short. Save your marriage, save your business. Get on with your life. Like you need this to be a problem you have to deal with, on top of everything else."

[Loosekannon]

Who hired the hotty in the first place?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Interesting. When someone complains of forming an unhealthy attraction towards someone else, what's the usual advice?

"Break off contact with that person."

It'd be nice if everybody was able to exercise rational self-control in all areas of their lives. But reality isn't like that. We don't tell an alcoholic, "keep booze in the house; just don't drink any".

We don't tell a philanderer, "spend time with the objects of your attraction, but don't hit on them".

We don't tell the girl attracted to bad boys (or the fellow attracted to bad girls, or to bad boys, etc.) "hang out with all the bad boys you like, but don't hook up with any of them".

No. We tell them, "if it's a problem for you, if it's a trigger for you, if it's an area of personal weakness for you, put some distance between you and it. If you see it coming cross over to the other side of the street. Walk the other way."

In this case, what? "Life's too short. Save your marriage, save your business. Get on with your life. Like you need this to be a problem you have to deal with, on top of everything else."

The problem with that is "I can't deal with this person"->She gets fired.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

The problem with that is "I can't deal with this person"->She gets fired.

It's a crap situation all around, and the jerk should have probably never hired her in the first place.

But what is he supposed to do? Quit his own business? Is there any other way for an employer to sever an unwanted employer-employee relationship, except by firing the employee?

Everywhere I've been, the customary severance is two week's pay. He gave her double that, which is pretty generous. And if this were to happen in California, the fact that he's not firing her "for cause" means she's also entitled to unemployment insurance payments.

What else do you want? That she stay in a relationship with a jerk boss whose healthiest course of action is to sever that relationship?

What would your advice be, if it was your friend who was struggling with this? "Sure, she's triggering your weakness, the the place in your life where you lack self-control, where you're prone to bad judgement and life-damaging mistakes, but keep her around anyway. Pretend that this time it's going to be alright. Pretend your marriage isn't in jeopardy. Pretend you're not just one harassment lawsuit away from losing your entire business. Pretend you totally need to have this problem in your life right now."

Or would your advice be, "get her out of your life, man. Give her a generous severance package--the most generous you can afford. Make sure she's eligible for unemployment insurance payments. But do it now. Get her out of your life as soon as possible. This is a problem you don't need."

[jj]

So, prestige, it's ok to fire this woman because the guy has a weakness.

Didn't I see somebody here talking about 'morally strong' a while ago?

It's the guy's failing, and he should be utterly and totally responsible for his weakness, right?

RIGHT?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by jj

So, prestige, it's ok to fire this woman because the guy has a weakness.

Didn't I see somebody here talking about 'morally strong' a while ago?

It's the guy's failing, and he should be utterly and totally responsible for his weakness, right?

RIGHT?

He gave her a generous payout, and ended the relationship. What else do you want him to do?

[Morrigan]

Not be a complete ****?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by theprestige

He gave her a generous payout, and ended the relationship. What else do you want him to do?

Generous? You have to be joking. She was a 10 year employee.

As to what he could do? Control himself, seek help. The victim is being blamed here.

[jj]

Originally Posted by theprestige

He gave her a generous payout, and ended the relationship. What else do you want him to do?

He is the one concerned about acting out. Why is she paying for his moral weakness?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

What about this part:Maybe the wording of the ruling leaves a lot to be desired, and maybe the fired worker's legal defense had some merit. But it sounds like there may very well have been at least some flirting on both the boss' and the employee's parts and the dentist's wife put her foot down.

Read further the woman says she saw him as a father figure and never was flirting. The decription of it "as flirting" is actually the dentist side.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Not be a complete ****?

Agreed. And yet sometimes life doesn't work out that way.

Sometimes the best solution to a bad relationship is to break up.

Originally Posted by lionking

Generous? You have to be joking. She was a 10 year employee.

As to what he could do? Control himself, seek help. The victim is being blamed here.

It doesn't seem to me like anyone is blaming the victim. Sometimes the best solution to a bad relationship is to break up, regardless of who's at fault, and regardless of whether one party wants to continue the relationship. Sometimes the party that wants to continue the relationship is the one who should be breaking it off.

Sometimes marriages end in divorce. You wanna say "control himself, seek help" is the magic bullet that would save this relationship?

[jj]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Sometimes marriages end in divorce. You wanna say "control himself, seek help" is the magic bullet that would save this relationship?

So, she should suffer for some other person's moral weakness, you're saying?

Let's just get it straight. The woman should suffer for the man's moral weakness?

[Skeptic Ginger]

My post seems to have been ignored. I shall repeat it:
What about this part:

Quote:

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.
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.”

Knight and Nelson – both married with children – started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired.

...It sounds like there may very well have been at least some flirting on both the boss' and the employee's parts and the dentist's wife put her foot down.


Employers can expect employees to dress appropriately. They were texting each other. It sounds like the relationship was indeed moving in a dangerous direction. Maybe there were other solutions, but this is not a case of an employer simply firing an employee because the employer lusted after her.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by jj

So, she should suffer for some other person's moral weakness, you're saying?

No, she shouldn't. But she's probably going to anyway. Life isn't always fair or rational.

Sometimes the best way to end the suffering is to end the relationship. Breakups are almost never pretty, and people almost always get hurt who don't deserve it. Sometimes that's just the way it is.

Quote:

Let's just get it straight. The woman should suffer for the man's moral weakness?

You seem to be trying to extrapolate some perversely sexist general case from this specific event. Go ahead if you want to, but it's got nothing to do with me: this horrible fantasy is all yours.

[StankApe]

I am too hot to be employed, pay me millions!!! It's my right!

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

My post seems to have been ignored. I shall repeat it:
What about this part:

...It sounds like there may very well have been at least some flirting on both the boss' and the employee's parts and the dentist's wife put her foot down.


Employers can expect employees to dress appropriately. They were texting each other. It sounds like the relationship was indeed moving in a dangerous direction. Maybe there were other solutions, but this is not a case of an employer simply firing an employee because the employer lusted after her.

You also ignored mine so I think fair is fair.