HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Woman fired for "bei...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:37 AM

Woman fired for "being sexy". Iowa Supreme Court Says that is OK.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/dental-assistant-fired-being-irresistible-devastated-151724600--abc-news-topstories.html

Read the whole thing. Be pissed off.

69 replies, 3931 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Woman fired for "being sexy". Iowa Supreme Court Says that is OK. (Original post)
riqster Dec 2012 OP
barbaraj Dec 2012 #1
Orrex Dec 2012 #17
Fawke Em Dec 2012 #22
Orrex Dec 2012 #28
Bake Dec 2012 #48
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #32
no_hypocrisy Dec 2012 #2
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #4
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #3
riqster Dec 2012 #5
rateyes Dec 2012 #6
riqster Dec 2012 #8
duffyduff Dec 2012 #33
Ms. Toad Dec 2012 #20
Pachamama Dec 2012 #30
Ms. Toad Dec 2012 #54
Bake Dec 2012 #49
Ms. Toad Dec 2012 #53
Bake Dec 2012 #59
Jim Lane Dec 2012 #63
Bake Dec 2012 #66
DURHAM D Dec 2012 #9
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #34
rateyes Dec 2012 #7
ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #10
duffyduff Dec 2012 #31
Orrex Dec 2012 #39
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #40
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #51
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #67
ProfessorGAC Dec 2012 #69
Harriety Dec 2012 #11
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #41
shawn703 Dec 2012 #12
LeftinOH Dec 2012 #13
ProfessionalLeftist Dec 2012 #14
mgraveman Dec 2012 #15
daleanime Dec 2012 #21
Fawke Em Dec 2012 #23
Ms. Toad Dec 2012 #24
mgraveman Dec 2012 #42
Ms. Toad Dec 2012 #57
jberryhill Dec 2012 #60
Ms. Toad Dec 2012 #62
jberryhill Dec 2012 #65
99Forever Dec 2012 #16
snot Dec 2012 #18
daleanime Dec 2012 #19
CC Dec 2012 #25
duffyduff Dec 2012 #26
sarisataka Dec 2012 #43
NewJeffCT Dec 2012 #56
NRaleighLiberal Dec 2012 #27
slampoet Dec 2012 #29
Pachamama Dec 2012 #35
slampoet Dec 2012 #45
Pachamama Dec 2012 #46
sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #36
kimbutgar Dec 2012 #37
geardaddy Dec 2012 #38
Pachamama Dec 2012 #47
AlphaCentauri Dec 2012 #44
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #50
caraher Dec 2012 #52
L0oniX Dec 2012 #55
Enrique Dec 2012 #58
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #61
Jim Lane Dec 2012 #64
SoCalDem Dec 2012 #68

Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:42 AM

1. OMG he should be on trial

This is blatant sexual harrassment, at the first mention of "bulge' she should have contacted a lawyer. I'd want his practice, slow the flow of diamonds to the idiot wife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbaraj (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:37 AM

17. Can't get to that article from my workplace for some reason, however...

An earlier article that I read on the case indicated that it wasn't filed as a harassment claim because the employee didn't feel offended or threatened by her pig of an employer's disgusting behavior.

I respect her thick skin, but he still sounds like an asshole, and IMO the ruling was grossly incorrect.


I can't help thinking that we'll see more of this kind of firing in our grand "right-to-work" future, especially in states with at-will employment.

Grand days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbaraj (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:44 AM

22. Why would you punish the wife?

Isn't she a victim, here, too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:08 AM

28. She may be a victim of her husband's piggishness, but...

The employee is a victim to both the husband and the wife, if the story is correct as told & the wife indeed goaded the husband into firing the "too sexy" worker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:08 PM

48. I believe from what I read, the wife demanded he fire the assistant.

So she's duplicitous.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbaraj (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:09 AM

32. It did go to court. All the way to Iowa Supreme Court.

The all male judges said it was legal 7-0.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:42 AM

2. Men will find new and inventive way to screw women.

“The feminist movement was created to allow ugly women access to the mainstream of society” Rush Limbaugh.

No matter what you look like as a woman, you don't have a constitutional right for equal protection in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:43 AM

4. and people will overgeneralize when they shouldn't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:42 AM

3. this will be overturned...if nelson was a man he wouldn't be attracted to him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:46 AM

5. Only if Fat Tony and his posse will agree to hear the case could it be overturned. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:54 AM

6. Cant be overturned...

It was state supreme court that ruled. No federal jurisdiction. A supreme court filled with white men, btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:56 AM

8. Not sure about that

There are federal discrimination laws that trump state laws in some cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:10 AM

33. +1

She should look into the federal route.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rateyes (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:40 AM

20. You don't quite have the law right -

but the outcome is probably the same anyway.

The original case was filed as a state matter. The person filing the case generally gets to decide which claims to bring and, in this case, chose not to bring a federal discrimination claim (for reasons that are inexplicable to me - and depending on the informed consent of the woman in the decision to exclude a federal discrimination claim might even be malpractice). But, what is done is done. If the matter was brought purely as an interpretation of state law (which her attorney says it was), there is likely no federal jurisdiction. (That is unusual in discrimination cases, and exists here only because of how her attorney drafted the initial claims.)

Generally, if the attorney drafts the claims to include allegations of discrimination under federal laws a state supreme court cannot innoculate its decision from federal review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:08 AM

30. Could a new case filed under federal laws in different jurisdiction be possible?

I am still in shock having read this and hearing about the case and ruling.....if this was not sexual harassment or gender discrimination because she is a woman, I am not sure what is...

Its disturbing on so many levels.....down to the fact that a church got to be involved....

My guess is Mr Dentist has long been dealing with "impure" thoughts that are affecting his marriage and Mrs. nelson's firing isnt going to change it. Much bigger issues going on in that household/dental office....

I know that if I was a dental client there, it would be no more....would be nice to see clients leave him in droves due to what he did.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pachamama (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:53 PM

54. That's beyond my pay grade

without additional research.

Employment discrimination law is a specialized area because it relies heavily on regulations for at least part of the procedural details.

Generally, you get one bite at the apple in order to avoid people having to repeatedly defend themselves against essentially the same claims. There is more flexibility with civil law than criminal - but the principles are the same.

But, as I said, beyond my pay grade without more research time invested than I can spend at the moment. (Now if it was IP law...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:12 PM

49. I might try an appeal on the basis that state law is unconcstitutional under the US Const.

Not sure how far it'd get though. The employee's lawyer should have included a federal claim.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:50 PM

53. Unfortunately,

There are many decisions made by legal counsel at the trial level which cannot be undone. Failing to bring a claim generally falls in that category. It cannot be reviewed on appeal if it was not a decision the trial court could have made initially. So that boat has probably already sailed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:09 PM

59. Yeah, it's too late on that.

I agree.

If the state law is contrary to some federal law, maybe an appeal on constitutionality under the Supremacy Clause. But that's a long shot.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:04 PM

63. That appeal would be a clear loser.

There is no federal constitutional right to equal employment opportunity by a private employer. The Equal Protection Clause, which has been the basis for overturning many actions that discriminate on the basis of sex, applies only to government action.

There are federal and state statutes that apply to private employers, but before those statutes were enacted, sex discrimination by private employers was, like racial discrimination, perfectly legal.

Therefore, the State of Iowa has no obligation to provide a remedy under its laws for sex discrimination.

My guess, however, is that this decision (which I haven't read) really turned on the issue of whether this was sex discrimination. The plaintiff's argument would be that a man wouldn't have been terminated. The defendant apparently argued that it wasn't that she was a woman but that it was specific facts about her appearance, dress, and conduct. The defense argument seems weak to me, but the linked news story is slanted toward the plaintiff's side and doesn't give much information about the defense argument, so I may be misjudging it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:22 PM

66. You are doubtless correct.

I was really just brainstorming for anything that might have a chance. But you are correct.

And the plaintiff has a hard time proving sex discrimination, when the employer replaced her with another woman employee. Apparently one that is less attractive and passed his wife's inspection ...



Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:19 AM

9. It will not be appealed according to the news report from yesterday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:10 AM

34. Already been to Iowa Supreme Court.

They supported it 7-0.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:56 AM

7. He should lose all his customers. They need a new dentist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:44 AM

10. There Are So Many Things Wrong With This

His wife made him fire a competent MARRIED woman.

The pastor agreed. They sought religious advice to protect their marriage instead of him just keeping his own mind out of the gutter.

He told the HUSBAND he would have an affair with her if he didn't fire her. TOLD HER HUSBAND THIS!

He employed sexual innuendo. She didn't.

The wrongful termination law in Iowa is obviously far too specific in its definition of cause, because this, from any objective and non-legalized view, this is prima facie unfair labor practice.

I get "at will". I know what it means and i understand the legal details behind it. Learned it in business school. But, this sure doesn't seem to apply.

He still has an ongoing business concern, fire someone with competence (by his own admission) because he has a self-control problem.

This seems obviously discrminatory. Like another poster said, if the assistant was a guy, he'd still have his job. She only lost her job because she's a woman. How can that not be discrimination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:09 AM

31. "At will" has NOTHING to do with this

No employer is allowed to sexually harass an employee--period. It doesn't matter if the employee belongs to a union and is under contract or not.

"At will" employees are only employees not covered by a contract. That isn't a license for employers to break the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:18 AM

39. Did the employee sue for sexual harassment?

Or did someone with legal standing file such suit on her behalf?

No?

Don't get me wrong--he sounds like a textbook sexual harasser and certainly an asshole at the very least, but the article that I read previously indicated that the employee wasn't really offended by his actions, inappropriate though they were.



As it stands, I think that it is specifically an issue of at-will employment.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:31 AM

40. No sexual harassment. There was flirtation going on both ways...

wife found the text(s) and insisted he get rid of her because of that.

She didn't sue for sexual harassment.

I also don't think it was about clothing.

End of the line is...an employer can fire you for any reason that is not against federal law. As in this case. You flirt with your married boss, or encourage him to flirt with you....you are likely to lose your job. If you have an affair with your boss, you are likely to lose your job.

Lesson: don't crap where you eat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:14 PM

51. No, there was not mutual flirtation, according to the employee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:33 PM

67. I think there was. Just my opinion.

She didn't even respond to his email, verbally or in writing, when he texted her asking about her orgasms. Say WHAT? Hey, if I rec'd an email/text like that from a boss, there would be some response by me, and it wouldn't be a silent acquiescence. That tells me that a line had been crossed previously. He had made a comment to her befofre about a bulge in his pants, if she didn't dress more "appropriately." An odd way to put a request to lower your hem line or wear looser clothing. Women don't HAVE to have done something for men to respond like a leche to something, but generally, things like this indicate a flirtation and a crossing of professional lines, both ways, so that he felt this terminology would not be overly offensive or cause her to sue for sexual harassment. I've been around in the work place for a few decades....that's what I think.

But no matter. Her boss can fire her for any reason whatsoever that doesn't conflict with federal law. And she can quit for any reason whatsoever (although the boss holds the cards in that deal...it's harder to replace a job than an employee).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:23 PM

69. Please Try To Catch Up

My whole point was that at will had nothing to do with this, and you decided to correct me by saying the very same thing.

If you're going to criticize my opinion, at least read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:06 AM

11. I saw this story on ABC news last night

The guys wife was jealous of the woman who had worked for this putz for 3 years. Seems the guy liked that woman way too much. What a disgusting couple of people. She should have won that law suit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harriety (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:34 AM

41. I disagree. He didn't break the law.

They BOTH had made inappropriate comments and done inappropriate behavior with each other. He does a text to her asking about her orgasms. That wasn't out of the blue, it seems. That means a line had been crossed...by both people.

Wife sees the text, and rightly demands that one of the source of the problem gets gone. Can't be the husband. First, he's the husband. Second, it's his business. No boss, no business.

There's no basis in law that I see for her to win the lawsuit. It is legal to fire someone for inappropriate dress (that's the reason he gave for the termination, and the reason she filed the lawsuit).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:23 AM

12. "feared he would have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her."

How ridiculous is that statement? Don't affairs generally require that both parties agree to enter into the relationship?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:24 AM

13. Wife probably said "get rid of her". n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:29 AM

14. AMERICAN TALIBAN. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:36 AM

15. It's the wife's fault

 

So he's a disgusting putz that deserved to lose this lawsuit, but it's the wife that insisted the lady be fired, not the dentist. She's the one that fired the lady for being "irrestible." This isn't about men getting away with whatever they want - it's about an idiot married to a vengeful woman and another woman who was the victim of this pathetic pair.

Get over yourself with the sexist nonsense. It wouldn't be any different if the wife was the boss that employed the dentist and the hygeniest. Same result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mgraveman (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:43 AM

21. Have to disagree.

Still his decision AND his actions before that were a problem also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mgraveman (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:47 AM

23. I don't see it that way.

I see it as a wife who felt just as victimized as the employee.

The only party at fault here is the creepy husband.

What the wife should have done is divorce the creep and take the business in the settlement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mgraveman (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:49 AM

24. I don't think you have read much about this case.

Read a number of reports and what you will find is the dentist engaging in sexual harassment:

"her former boss claimed her clothes were so tight he couldn't look at her without being aroused"

"The messages were mostly mundane, but Nelson recalled one text she received from her boss asking 'how often she experienced an orgasm.'"

"'Dr. Knight acknowledges he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing,' the justices wrote."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:37 AM

42. Typical

 

It's typical that you would assume anyone that doesn't agree with you is uninformed. I knew all that. I said he is a disgusting putz that deserved to lose the lawsuit. Of course he sexually harassed her.

That said, the wife gave him an ultimatum. His only options were a divorce or to fire her. Those two deserve each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mgraveman (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:06 PM

57. No, I was basing it on your comments

which indicated you blamed the jealous wife and you were silent on the husband's behavior leading up to the firing which constituted pretty blatant sexual harassment (which would have been grounds for a legal claim, even had he not ultimately fired him). Dismissing that as "sexist nonsense," since you acknowledge that you knew it was going on, is skating pretty close to violating the community standards of this site and/or the TOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:23 PM

60. The actual question before the court was

...about the wife demanding she be fired.

I posted a link to the full decision in one of the several threads about this.

The news stories don't convey what the actual legal issue was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:49 PM

62. Hence my comments upthread

About the chances of a federal appeal depending on the claims made (and, although I didn't say it upthread - what alleged errors were waived by failing to assert them on appeal).

In this particular sub-thread, I was only addressing the description of the concerns raised here being "sexist nonsense" - not the decision on the narrow question that was before the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:02 PM

65. Ah,okay

Seems like a pretty weird bunch of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:37 AM

16. Outrageous.

On every level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:38 AM

18. What makes this esp. messed up is

I'd be ok with the guy firing her, if he were made to compensate her for her losses.

But I gather this ruling means not only that he can fire her, but that she collects nothing for wrongful termination –– and still has to pay her legal fees!!!

And now she gets to go look for a job elsewhere, with prospective employers knowing that she sued her last one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:40 AM

19. This is nuts!

Is there any way to kick this guy out of my gender? And that court needs to go back to school until they can get a simple case like this right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:04 AM

25. So wrong on so many levels...

and no way would he be my dentist with his lack of self control. I wouldn't trust him with any female.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:06 AM

26. That court dropped the ball

If this isn't a clear-cut case of sexual harassment, I don't know what is.

Her being an "at-will" employee has nothing to do with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:37 AM

43. That is how I see it

his 'attraction' is purely based on her gender, how in the hell is firing her not an act of discrimination??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:01 PM

56. while it's a textbook case of sexual harrassment

her lawsuit was not about sexual harrassment. It was about wrongful termination due to her dressing inappropriately at work.

Unfortunately, Mrs Nelson and her attorney declined to sue for sexual harrassment, where it seems they had a much stronger case, and were also backed by federal laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:07 AM

27. Well, this man sees many problems with this - and the problems lie with the men.

I saw this on Yahoo and read it to my wife this morning - we both agreed this is yet another example of how utterly screwed up things are these days.

Back to making crab cakes and a Yule log for our holiday meals...wrapping all done. Feeling very chilled out...and we've not started drinking yet!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:08 AM

29. The courts have Always upheld the privilages of married people over the rights of single people.

All the people who are married with kids and have been burdening their single co-workers to take up the slack should not be at all surprised by this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slampoet (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:12 AM

35. But she is not single - she is a married mother of two....

This wasnt about her marital status....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pachamama (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:18 PM

45. But it is about the marriage of the boss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slampoet (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:48 PM

46. Perhaps....it seems to be more about religion....

Wonder if the Iowa Supremes would have ruled the same if the Dentist had been a married lesbian in Iowa whose lesbian wife was upset about the "irresistable" female dental asssitant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:13 AM

36. Insecure wife

threatens to dump drifting hubby. Horny hubby fires innocent assistant to appease insecure wife, calls pastor as witness while he reads a prepared statement of dismissal to innocent assistant. Calls Pastor to witness his prepared statement? There might just be an even weirder subplot here. Here's hoping the innocent assistant gets a better deal working for some normal people and sticks it to these freaks, including the minister.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:15 AM

37. Is Iowa a right to work state?

If so then she was rightfully terminated. Which is sad and sick at the same time. Under right to work and get fired for trivial reasons you have no say nor rights in the workspace, kind of like indentured servitude because there are so few jobs you are stuck working under conditions like this or get fired for stupid reasons like this.

When are the people going to wake up to the realization that right to work laws screw the workers over royally?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:17 AM

38. ...

"When Nelson's husband tried to reason with Knight, the dentist told him he "feared he would have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her.""

If I were the husband, I would have creamed that dude's corn when he said that to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geardaddy (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:52 PM

47. Has any one seen what Mr Nelson looks like?

I saw a photo...he's cute...he's got a full head of hair compared to bald dentist asshole....

I just cant believe the husband didnt point out that it takes a 2nd party to consent to a relationship....and that why would his wife want the dentist? Then he should have said that if he ever touches his wife.....

Unreal....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:40 AM

44. Somewhere there is a proud husband

you know my wife is hot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:12 PM

50. This was a private dental practice, not a corporation. The dentist couldn't fire himself, so...!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:27 PM

52. The court was kind of stuck

Given the law they reached the only decision they could (and I don't think because they were male). Read their decision. The basis of the suit was a claim of sex discrimination, and there was simply no evidence that the dentist discriminated against women in employment.

I wish she'd gone after him for sexual harassment. It's pretty clear from the ruling that the Iowa Supreme Court justices considered the firing unfair, but could not rule it unlawful given the arguments and information at hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:59 PM

55. Time to close down all those Stripper Dentist shops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:07 PM

58. don't hate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riqster (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 02:39 PM

61. Can someone be fired for being ugly?

 

Can you be turned down for a job based on "looks"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #61)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:20 PM

64. Probably.

There's no general requirement that employment decisions be fair or sensible. An employer may act for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.

The restriction on that rule is that the action (firing, demotion, refusal to hire, etc.) can't be for any of a limited group of impermissible reasons -- race, gender, etc. Also, an impermissible reason can't be smuggled in through another factor if it has a disparate impact. For example, an employer couldn't say that no secretary may be taller than 5' 3" because that would exclude more men than women.

In your hypothetical case, there could be a basis for an inquiry as to what the employer considers "ugly". If it turns out that the employer considers all or most Asian features to be ugly, for example, then the "no ugly employees" rule would have a disparate impact based on ethnic origin, and would be illegal.

On the other hand, if the employer's superficial and small-minded criterion doesn't run afoul of any of the specific anti-discrimination statutes, then it's legal. Fairness is not legally mandated. An employer can legally refuse to hire Capricorns or people with Social Security numbers divisible by 5, because these absurd decisions don't affect any of the statutory criteria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #61)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:44 PM

68. People are not-hired for being unattractive all the time

That's not the official reason given when they are not hired, but trust me, it happens a LOT.

Bosses who are truly worried about employees dressing too "sexy", have the solution.. It's called a dress code. They can also mandate uniforms. If the boss provides & launders the uniforms, they can also control the "fit" of the uniforms.

A friend of mine (quite an attractive, fit woman in her 40's) was thrilled to have found such a job. The women wore scrubs...nice loose fitting, comfy scrubs. She was delighted to not have to worry about what to wear..or to have to wear nylons....She said it was the best job ever and the benefits of wearing a comfy sports-bra & comfy shoes ended her back problems as a side-effect. She was a dental hygienist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread