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

[VanessaTony 3,567]

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.

It doesn't matter (legally) that he was sexually attracted to her because of her gender, he didn't FIRE her because of her gender. He fired her because he was attracted to her and that was putting his marriage as risk, but he didn't fire her simply because she was a woman. You are confusing the two issues.

They can't approve it because she wasn't fired for being a woman. Gender discrimination is when the conditions of the workplace are altered simply because of someones gender. For example pay, benefits, promotions etc. If she was fired simply for being a woman, another woman wouldn't have been hired in her place, and he wouldn't have other female employees.

He's not attracted to the other women, so it's not the fact that she was "just a woman" that was the reason he was attracted to her. He was attracted to her as a person, not just because she's a woman. So if he was sexualising her only because she was a woman, he'd feel the same about the other women.

No. She was fired because they started to have an inappropriate relationship. He fired her for a personality conflict, or because he didn't like her or whatever, Iowa is an at-will state so that's perfectly legal.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Vanessa&Tony

[BaBamSam 239]

It doesn't matter (legally) that he was sexually attracted to her because of her gender, he didn't FIRE her because of her gender. He fired her because he was attracted to her and that was putting his marriage as risk, but he didn't fire her simply because she was a woman. You are confusing the two issues.

They can't approve it because she wasn't fired for being a woman. Gender discrimination is when the conditions of the workplace are altered simply because of someones gender. For example pay, benefits, promotions etc. If she was fired simply for being a woman, another woman wouldn't have been hired in her place, and he wouldn't have other female employees.

He's not attracted to the other women, so it's not the fact that she was "just a woman" that was the reason he was attracted to her. He was attracted to her as a person, not just because she's a woman. So if he was sexualising her only because she was a woman, he'd feel the same about the other women.

No. She was fired because they started to have an inappropriate relationship. He fired her for a personality conflict, or because he didn't like her or whatever, Iowa is an at-will state so that's perfectly legal.

I have to disagree because he fired her because of the sexualization he made based on her gender. Her gender and the sexualization of it is the reason he felt his marriage was in jeopardy.

"Gender" extends beyond just being a man or a woman in biological terms, though. Hence the cases of gender discrimination by men fired by male bosses for "not being manly enough". Gender is a social construct that encompasses traits society has assigned to each sex. Sexuality is a trait assigned to sexes, therefore it is a condition of gender. And, yes, sexuality varies from person to person within each gender as well. Hence why he could find her attractive, but not other women.

If you want to argue that the law doesn't see it in those terms, then that's fine. I can understand why it can be viewed as a grey area.

Still, if it's not gender discrimination (which I can understand that argument, whilst I do not agree with it) how is it still justified firing? Legal, yes in Iowa. But morally and ethically correct is my argument here. Legality and morality are not synonymous.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The ironic part is that Kira's a dental assistant and she got hit on by a married dentist. The same one I had a talk to out in the parking lot. But this guy has no balls if he's going to let his wife pull that ####### and not back up his employee of ten years. That's just pathetic. We need to get neonreds take on this. He's a dentist with his own clinic and he's married to a RUB gal and he hires RUB chicks as far as I know.

I saw a photo of this woman. Are you kidding me? The court should have ordered this guy to serve 48 hours on Kreshatik street in July and then he would have found this woman totally resistable.

But I am intrigued with the concept of firing women for personal appearance reasons, Funny the feminists don't care if attractive women get dumped on. Who knew?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I have to disagree because he fired her because of the sexualization he made based on her gender. Her gender and the sexualization of it is the reason he felt his marriage was in jeopardy.

"Gender" extends beyond just being a man or a woman in biological terms, though. Hence the cases of gender discrimination by men fired by male bosses for "not being manly enough". Gender is a social construct that encompasses traits society has assigned to each sex. Sexuality is a trait assigned to sexes, therefore it is a condition of gender. And, yes, sexuality varies from person to person within each gender as well. Hence why he could find her attractive, but not other women.

If you want to argue that the law doesn't see it in those terms, then that's fine. I can understand why it can be viewed as a grey area.

Still, if it's not gender discrimination (which I can understand that argument, whilst I do not agree with it) how is it still justified firing? Legal, yes in Iowa. But morally and ethically correct is my argument here. Legality and morality are not synonymous.

Whatever.

48 hours on Kreshatik street for the dentist and this girl gets her job back and is never a temptation again. Win-win.

[james&olya 1,121]

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.

If she 'relaxes' you maybe you are gay?!!

[james&olya 1,121]

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

Wow.

This 'entitlement' mentality that somehow this woman is entitled to having her job with this dentist in spite of the very real personal problems it was creating really bugs me! NO, she is NOT entitled to have a job working for this dentist! Fault is not an issue. This dentist can hire or fire anybody he wants as long as he is not discriminating on the usual things. He had an excellent reason to terminate her and I am sure he would have been more than happy to make clear to any future employer that his loss would be their gain if they gave her a job.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

I saw a photo of this woman. Are you kidding me? The court should have ordered this guy to serve 48 hours on Kreshatik street in July and then he would have found this woman totally resistable.

But I am intrigued with the concept of firing women for personal appearance reasons, Funny the feminists don't care if attractive women get dumped on. Who knew?

The feminist blogosphere is most certainly on this woman's side. You've simply decided that it could not be so without bothering to discover the reality out there.

I'm waiting to read legal blogs to decide what I think of this decision. Reading the decision itself is quite useful and reveals the guy to look like even more of an unprofessional horndog than what's been reported in this article. However, if there is precedent in Iowa for this ruling, no matter how noxious it seems the judges may have ruled correctly. It is really up to a higher court to make sense of this on appeal.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Maybe she should have said yes instead of saying no.

[decocker 7,198]

Maybe she should have said yes instead of saying no.

and there it is...

[james&olya 1,121]

The feminist blogosphere is most certainly on this woman's side. You've simply decided that it could not be so without bothering to discover the reality out there.

Which is why I am glad I am not married to a feminist. Their original goals were admirable but they have deteriorated into something many decent people now find distasteful!

I feel sympathy for this woman's predicament but not to the point of recognizing her having any legal right to win any damages. Little in life is 'fair' and this dentist should not be legally obligated to continue employing this woman!!

Edited December 24, 2012 by james&olya

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Which is why I am glad I am not married to a feminist. Their original goals were admirable but they have deteriorated into something many decent people now find distasteful!

I feel sympathy for this woman's predicament but not to the point of recognizing her having any legal right to win any damages. Little in life is 'fair' and this dentist should not be legally obligated to continue employing this woman!!

Please tell me what a feminist is.

[kev_n_jena 89]

Dental Assistants where scrubs. How sexy can scrubs be?

My wife is sexy is scrubs. No I can't post pictures.

[james&olya 1,121]

Please tell me what a feminist is.

I do not consider myself any sort of authority on that definition but if you want to know my thoughts I will oblige you.

I think feminism probably means many different things to many different people. To me it used to mean someone who believed in equal rights for women, equal pay for equal work, the belief that gender should not inhibit someone in their career dreams and aspirations. Lately it seems to more and more get used in a militant kind of mentality, that everything has to be viewed through a lens that being a woman means automatically being in a victim class, that has the right and responsibility to aggressively seize justice for all past grievances every chance she gets and that no longer sees men as necessary. At least that is what seems to come across.

What does the word mean to you?

[kev_n_jena 89]

Life isn't always fair? Who can I sue? I wonder what kind of letter of recommendation she'll get? How ugly is her replacement to make the wife happy? So many questions...

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

My wife is sexy is scrubs. No I can't post pictures.

Chicken.

Here's a pic of my wife in her scrubs. I googled "sexy scrubs" just now and they actually have hot looking scrubs for gals.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Bad_Daddy