Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Liberal_in_LA

(44,397 posts)
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:07 PM Dec 2012

Iowa Court: Bosses Can Fire 'Irresistible' (attractive female) Workers [View all]

Iowa Court: Bosses Can Fire 'Irresistible' Workers

The Iowa Supreme Court says a dentist did not commit gender discrimination when he fired an attractive female assistant he viewed as a threat to his marriage.

The court ruled Friday that a boss can fire an employee he considers an "irresistible attraction," even if the employee has done nothing wrong.

The decision is the first in Iowa, but in line with rulings elsewhere.

Justices rejected a discrimination lawsuit filed by Melissa Nelson, who was fired by Fort Dodge dentist James Knight in 2010.

Nelson had worked in Knight's office for 10 years. She and Knight eventually started texting outside work about personal matters. Knight's wife, who also worked at the office, found out and demanded Nelson's firing.

Knight's lawyer says the court's decision is "in favor of family values."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/iowa-court-bosses-fire-irresistible-workers-18038838#.UNTPPazT1iM

43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
At will employment, don't you just love it? nt Tommy_Carcetti Dec 2012 #1
That is interesting to me. ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #2
You respect him for being weak willed? Rex Dec 2012 #4
No. I typed what I meant. ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #9
By ending the career of someone else. Rex Dec 2012 #10
I adressed that too. ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #16
Ya you said that was really 'lame'. Rex Dec 2012 #17
What do my comments say to you? nt ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #20
That I am wasting my time here. Rex Dec 2012 #22
That is not what I said. I do not respect him for firing her. ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #23
You asked what your comment 'said' to me Rex Dec 2012 #28
I should have been more clear. nt ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #32
Bull maxrandb Dec 2012 #14
I am unable to read minds, I have never met this man or woman, ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #18
If he was "hitting" she would not have taken it to court. immoderate Dec 2012 #31
And what you meant says that the Dentist was weak willed as he had to get rid of the cui bono Dec 2012 #24
I'm not excusing anything. The words in my post were meant to go together. ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #27
If he was really concerned about preserving his marriage, he would have attempted to fire her before EOTE Dec 2012 #8
Maybe. nt ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #11
Or he could have been a professional and learned how to work Rex Dec 2012 #13
She should be glad to be away from that sexist pig. Rex Dec 2012 #3
Family values my ass. Initech Dec 2012 #5
On what constitutional basis can someone discriminate against blueclown Dec 2012 #6
Same here, kinda shocked at the ruling. Rex Dec 2012 #12
The problem is that it is not discrimination against the class jberryhill Dec 2012 #38
Doesn't this involve disparate impact? blueclown Dec 2012 #42
Because it only impacts one person jberryhill Dec 2012 #43
all-male court unblock Dec 2012 #7
this country has lost its fucking mind maxrandb Dec 2012 #39
What a despicable ruling (and a despicable dentist). If this court decision is in any petronius Dec 2012 #15
Yeah, does he turn away attractive female patients for the same reason? cui bono Dec 2012 #25
Unbelievably stupid decision. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #19
Family values my ass Amaril Dec 2012 #21
Sounds like "Bosses WIFE can fire attractive female workers". JoePhilly Dec 2012 #26
Good God. What is the affirmative defense against something like this? Baitball Blogger Dec 2012 #29
HUh? I'm for Iggy Dec 2012 #30
In law school we learned about the "attractive nuisance", but not this. Manifestor_of_Light Dec 2012 #33
Ladies, get your burqas out life long demo Dec 2012 #34
maybe the court tried to squeeze this in under the alienation of affection laws R B Garr Dec 2012 #35
Isn't this the justification that fundamentalist Muslims use for requiring burqas? Piazza Riforma Dec 2012 #36
does anyone else here remember that, when we were fighting to get the ERA--we were told that niyad Dec 2012 #37
did the woman suddenly have plastic surgery? an extreme makeover? she worked there for ten niyad Dec 2012 #40
We had a guy ask that a new woman be fired because his wife didn't want them travelling together Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2012 #41
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Iowa Court: Bosses Can Fi...