Bosses can legally fire employees they see as an ‘irresistible attraction’

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Had the woman filed based on "wrongful termination" instead of gender discrimination, she may have won the lawsuit. The good doctor did not discriminate against her because she's a woman, but because she was a person who distracted him from doing his work properly despite the fact that he asked her to dress differently, more professionally. The dentist hired another woman, so he does not mind a woman as a dental assistant; what he did mind is a dental assistant that looked like a sex toy to be humped.

The sex toy's attorney could still argue that the good doctor should be able to control his natural instincts, but arguing that she was fired because she's a woman is stupid if another woman took her place. Attorney's mistake.

What sex toy?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I wonder if the law would hold up the same if a straight guy had a gay boss who found him irresistible?

[SMOKE 1,426]

Wouldn't you know you found someone irresistible during the interview process?

[Dakine10 5,452]

Some pics of this chick would be nice but nothing comes up on google images that's specific to this gal. I mean is she hot or not?

I'd have to think the dentist's wife finding the text messages played a big part in the firing. Up until that point, they all seemed to be able to work together.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I'd have to think the dentist's wife finding the text messages played a big part in the firing. Up until that point, they all seemed to be able to work together.

Yah. I think you're on to something there.

[rade2rising 205]

this hot woman should appeal the case to supreme court since this is complete BS. Hot women are a necessity in offices esp someplace like dentist office. My dentist got a super hot blonde assistant makes my appointments more relaxing.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Is Iowa now an 'at will' state?

Yes, is and has been for a while. http://www.w-p.com/CM/Articles/EmploymentAtWillInIowa.asp

[VanessaTony 3,567]

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.

<snip>

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. 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. He asked her to dress less revealing, she obviously didn't. This isn't necessarily about him finding her attractive, but also concern for how the office looks. It's called dressing appropriately.

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." How did he know about her infrequent sex life? She obviously discussed it with him

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. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate. They were being inappropriate. I would not want my husband texting some woman about personal matters

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. I don't know if this has been proven, if he admitted to this, but he went to HER husband and told him that he was worried they would have an affair?

Nelson was stunned because she viewed the 53-year-old Knight as a father figure and had never been interested in starting a relationship, Fiedler said. So she regularly dresses provocatively for her father, tells her dad about her infrequent sex life, and exchanges personal messages about her private life, as a married woman, to her dad? Right...

Nelson filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, arguing she would not have been terminated if she was male. She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight's conduct may not have risen to that level and didn't particularly offend her, Fiedler said. So she didn't feel she was sexually harassed... She obviously enjoyed the attention and wanted to keep her job. She should have just asked for a reference and moved on

Knight argued Nelson was fired not because of her gender, but because her continued employment threatened his marriage. A district judge agreed dismissing the case before trial, and the high court upheld that ruling. The actual reason is - his wife didn't like her. As Iowa is an "at will" state there's nothing illegal about that. it's not because she's a woman, but because the wife didn't like her.

Mansfield noted that Knight had an all-female workforce and Nelson was replaced by a woman.

He said the decision was in line with state and federal court rulings that found workers can be fired for relationships that cause jealousy and tension within a business owner's family. One such case from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a business owner's firing of a valued employee who was seen by his wife as a threat to their marriage. In that case, the fired employee had engaged in flirtatious conduct.

The decision to terminate her was not related to the fact that she was a woman

"I don't view this as a decision that was either pro-women or opposed to women's rights at all. In my view, this was a decision that followed the appropriate case law."

I live in Iowa. I know it's an "employment at will" state. I work in Illinois which is also an employment at will state. I'm aware I can be fired for no just cause, simply because they don't like me. This is all that happened here. The wife of the owner didn't like this woman so she was fired. The fact that she was fired because the husband had what was bordering on an inappropriate relationship with her is a factor, not the fact she is a woman. Otherwise ALL the females would be fired. This woman, stupidly, became too close to her boss and made herself a threat to the owners wife.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I live in Iowa. I know it's an "employment at will" state. I work in Illinois which is also an employment at will state. I'm aware I can be fired for no just cause, simply because they don't like me. This is all that happened here. The wife of the owner didn't like this woman so she was fired. The fact that she was fired because the husband had what was bordering on an inappropriate relationship with her is a factor, not the fact she is a woman. Otherwise ALL the females would be fired. This woman, stupidly, became too close to her boss and made herself a threat to the owners wife.

So it's the employee's fault that the wife has self-esteem issues?

Wow.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

So it's the employee's fault that the wife has self-esteem issues?

Wow.

No, but she should take some responsibility for what happened. Cause and effect. She obviously didn't expect that would happen, but sometimes things happen based on our choices. I don't think she expected it would go that far, to inappropriate levels, but it obviously did if her boss knew about her infrequent sex life. The wife hasn't had all the other female employees fired, and the woman didn't want to pursue sexual harassment for who knows what reasons... maybe so her conversations wouldn't be analysed and show she DID enter an inappropriate relationship.

Either way she wasn't fired for her gender, she was fired for an inappropriate relationship with the boss, or because the wife was jealous, for dressing inappropriately, for ignoring bosses instructions to alter her dressing style, but not because she was a woman... which is why it was correctly denied.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Vanessa&Tony

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

No, but she should take some responsibility for what happened. Cause and effect. She obviously didn't expect that would happen, but sometimes things happen based on our choices. I don't think she expected it would go that far, to inappropriate levels, but it obviously did if her boss knew about her infrequent sex life. The wife hasn't had all the other female employees fired, and the woman didn't want to pursue sexual harassment for who knows what reasons... maybe so her conversations wouldn't be analysed and show she DID enter an inappropriate relationship.

Either way she wasn't fired for her gender, she was fired for an inappropriate relationship with the boss, or because the wife was jealous, for dressing inappropriately, for ignoring bosses instructions to alter her dressing style, but not because she was a woman... which is why it was correctly denied.

How do you come to the conclusion that the employee had to have been discussing her sex life with her boss? Have you never had a man say a COMPLETELY inappropriate thing to you? I have. You don't always have to be "on topic" with those kind of men, you know.

This reminds of saying a woman did something to invite a rape. I'm disgusted.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

How do you come to the conclusion that the employee had to have been discussing her sex life with her boss? Have you never had a man say a COMPLETELY inappropriate thing to you? I have. You don't always have to be "on topic" with those kind of men, you know.

This reminds of saying a woman did something to invite a rape. I'm disgusted.

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."

The context suggests they had a discussion about it. Of course I wasn't there and can only go by the article.

You are clearly projecting your feelings. The article clearly states:

Nelson filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, arguing she would not have been terminated if she was male. She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight's conduct may not have risen to that level and didn't particularly offend her, Fiedler said.

Had she NOT been talking to him about her sex life, then as you stated, she would have had a right to be offended at the off topic conversation and would have filed sexual harassment instead. But as she wasn't offended, the implication is she was fine with the discussion about her sex life.

There is no connection to rape. It is disgusting of you to try and draw one.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Vanessa&Tony

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

The context suggests they had a discussion about it. Of course I wasn't there and can only go by the article.

You are clearly projecting your feelings. The article clearly states:

Had she NOT been talking to him about her sex life, then as you stated, she would have had a right to be offended at the off topic conversation and would have filed sexual harassment instead. But as she wasn't offended, the implication is she was fine with the discussion about her sex life and maybe even started it.

There is no connection to rape. It is disgusting of you to try and draw one.

No, the only implication is that her attorney ill advised her about the type of suit to file. Or maybe she went pro-se. Who knows.

And Vanessa - I'm not projecting a damn thing. I spent plenty of years in the workplace in the US when men (and women) could get away with saying COMPLETELY inappropriate things to each other. And there was never any sort of reprimand - any sort of penalty. There was just icky, uncomfortable situations and the "perpetrator" often enjoyed every minute of it.

If there is PROOF or ADMISSIONS that both acted inappropriately, then that's different. In the meantime, I'm not going to adopt a horse and buggy attitude of looking down my nose at the woman because of her clothing - OR make assumptions about what she did or didn't do.

LOL - this reminds of that meme - "I can't believe I still have to protest this sh*t".

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Dental Assistants where scrubs. How sexy can scrubs be?

[james&olya 1,121]

That is a form of gender discrimination in that he was sexualizing her because of her gender. Whether she was replaced by a man or a woman is irrelevant.

Ruling that a man is incapable of controlling his sexual desires is laughable. And men should be insulted in this, as it basically implies that men are no better evolved than animals. It also makes them unaccountable for other sexual actions, like harassment, assault and rape. All of this falls under similar categories as victim-blaming and #######-shaming. The woman did nothing wrong and should not be punished for doing nothing wrong. The man should be held accountable for his own actions. How can he get away with blaming someone for his own thoughts and fears?

I am extremely disappointed that we live in a society where this sort of sexism, discrimination, and male supremacy can still reign in the eyes of the law.

He was the boss, for crying out loud! I guess he could have fired himself instead but how would that have worked out for this woman? Seriously people, it is vastly different when you are a lone professional employing several people for the sole purpose of aiding you in your profession! The rules for large employers are different. There was no other solution here. Sheesh!