Fired for being Hot!

[NameGoesHere1066]

I know this might cause a shitstorm since similar topics have gone that way but I really thought this particular case of a religious dentist firing his attractive younger female assistant out of fear of cheating on his wife was jaw dropper. I don't know if this girl actually did anything in terms of flirtation to tempt the guy but I thought, "wow, this went infront of a judge, and he was deemed in the right to terminate her" as being pretty old fashioned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2348381.html

IOWA CITY, Iowa -- 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.

But Nelson's attorney said Iowa's all-male high court, one of only a handful in the nation, failed to recognize the discrimination that women see routinely in the workplace.

"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."

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 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. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

Mansfield said allowing Nelson's lawsuit would stretch the definition of discrimination to allow anyone fired over a relationship to file a claim arguing they would not have been fired but for their gender.

Knight's attorney, Stuart Cochrane, said the court got it right. The decision clarified that bosses can make decisions showing favoritism to a family member without committing discrimination; in this case, by allowing Knight to honor his wife's wishes to fire Nelson, he said.

Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.

"While there was really no fault on the part of Mrs. Nelson, it was just as clear the decision to terminate her was not related to the fact that she was a woman," he said. "The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage.

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

[Candy Kappa]

Stay classy Iowa, stay classy.

[愛]

If the hiring terms state they are under an evaluation period of 30-90 days or whatever that they can be let go without reason, then he was absolutely in his right to let her go for being hot. I wouldn't have stated that as the reason, though.

[BubblyShell22]

Honestly, I find this to be ridiculous. If the woman had flirted with the guy, then I could understand why he would fire her as it would be a threat to his marriage. But if she didn't do anything of the sort, then I don't see why he had to fire her like that.

[Cure]

She's not even that good looking.



Unless she's got an ass like boom pow.

[BubblyShell22]

Yeah, she's pretty average looking.

[Jay $tarkiller]

Only in america.. Sorry guys, but as a german lawyer I gotta say, that the us legal system is completely weird!? Wtf...firing somebody because she's attractive and could turn me on?! Seriously on what legal grounds?! That's just straight nuts

[Sword Slicin' Leo]

Originally Posted by BubblyShell22

Yeah, she's pretty average looking.

Thought i was the only one who thought that

[Storm Eagle]

Originally Posted by Raph12

Only in America.. Sorry guys, but as a German lawyer I gotta say, that the US legal system is completely weird!? WTF...firing somebody because she's attractive and could turn me on?! Seriously on what legal grounds?! That's just straight nuts

I forget which state it was, but one of them has a law about not being able to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket.

Anyway, the woman isn't too bad looking, but I've seen better.

[CyberCubed]

Its not that the woman is hot in general, its that the boss found her attractive.

She looks like a average mother-type face to me.

[zodiac brave]

she looks like sweet dee from its always sunny.

[Katie]

Originally Posted by Raph12

Only in america.. Sorry guys, but as a german lawyer I gotta say, that the us legal system is completely weird!? Wtf...firing somebody because she's attractive and could turn me on?! Seriously on what legal grounds?! That's just straight nuts

Iowa is a "right to work" state. That means you can be fired for any reason or no reason (as long as it is not blatently because of one of the protected classes). The sticky part of this is that gender is one of those protected classes.

I don't find her all that innocent though. If your boss says you are dressing inappropriately and you answer him by saying "if I see your pants start to bulge, then I know I'm dressing inappropriatly". That's idiotic. I'd fire her too.

Stupid situation. Stupid boss who can't control himself. Stupid woman for not acting professionally. Stupid to have the preacher on hand when you fire someone.

[Dirty Blond]

I keep worrying the mods are gonna ban me for being too hot.

[Jester]

I ain't been banned yet, good sir.

[Redeemer]

Originally Posted by Dirty Blond

I keep worrying the mods are gonna ban me for being too hot.

lol good one

[Venom]

Probably boils down to his wife finally took notice at the women he worked with, deemed the woman to be the most attractive and told him to fire her.

P****-whipped.

[BubblyShell22]

Yeah, and with Right To Work states, there's no union to back you up even if you do get wrongly fired. So, the woman's screwed. But if she was dressing inappropriately, then that would definitely be a problem.

[Sage Ninja]

I feel bad for this woman, bow that this issue has been made public and not only does she have to deal with the embarrassment of the reason she was fired, she also has to deal with the embarrassment of having her appearance scrutinized and judged on whether or not she is/was actually hot enough to get fired.

[Katie]

What someone finds attractive or unattractive is very subjective. If she is the kind of person who is deeply affected by what someone thinks about her looks, then she never matured beyond Jr. High and I pitty her for that.

And also, on unions, they are not the be all end all. In my mind all they do is promote rediculous wages for workers who don't have the skill to earn that salary otherwise. Sure back at the turn of the 20th century unions were necessary and useful, but now they are rediculous and outdated. I prefer the right to work laws.

[zkarlette]

Originally Posted by zodiac brave

she looks like sweet dee from its always sunny.

Lol...I was thinking the same.