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

renie408

(9,854 posts)

9. OOOhhhhh....

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:38 AM

Dec 2012

Well, that is ...weird.

Why not just stop texting? I mean, on both sides. Why take it this far and why would either side let it get to court? You would think that reasonably intelligent people could figure something out other than this.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Iowa Supreme Court says its OK for woman to be fired for being "irresistibly" attractive [View all] davidn3600 Dec 2012 OP

Full decision jberryhill Dec 2012 #1

What bullshit! smirkymonkey Dec 2012 #2

It mentions her behavior and dress. renie408 Dec 2012 #3

This. ismnotwasm Dec 2012 #4

It wasn't about how she dressed or him being attracted jberryhill Dec 2012 #7

OOOhhhhh.... renie408 Dec 2012 #9

She worked there too jberryhill Dec 2012 #13

A lot of it had to do with the dentist's jealous wife too davidn3600 Dec 2012 #5

That was the actual question before the court jberryhill Dec 2012 #6

After 10 1/2 years???? JDPriestly Dec 2012 #8

Thank YOU! +1000 smirkymonkey Dec 2012 #11

"There is more to this story than we are being told" jberryhill Dec 2012 #14

Is one month's pay adequate damages? caraher Dec 2012 #18

maybe he would have fired the man dsc Dec 2012 #20

+1 uponit7771 Dec 2012 #27

As a dentist, I am uniquely qualified at least here, to say PCIntern Dec 2012 #10

Employers can fire you for any reason that's not against fed. discrimination laws. Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #12

And according to the court opinion, he had her put on a lab coat sometimes caraher Dec 2012 #17

Yeah. Also, the article didn't say how she responded to HIS email to her about orgasm.... Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #19

I think it may be telling that they did not pursue the sexual harassment angle caraher Dec 2012 #21

According to the decision.... jberryhill Dec 2012 #22

Depends on how you interpret things caraher Dec 2012 #23

The pastor being there is pretty f-ing weird... jberryhill Dec 2012 #24

Agreed caraher Dec 2012 #25

+1 uponit7771 Dec 2012 #28

Statute of limitations problem somehow? I'm not sure what that is for sexual harassment in Iowa? JDPriestly Dec 2012 #26

This is only saying it was not sexual discrimination. n-t Logical Dec 2012 #15

The actual decision makes more sense than the Yahoo! take on it caraher Dec 2012 #16