Court Upholds Woman's Firing For Being Too Attractive

[c.d.]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/23/iowa-supreme-court-upholds-dentists-firing-of-female-assistant-for-being-too-attractive/

c.d.

[Cogidubnus]

Based purely upon this story (and maybe there's more to come) my own belief is that the dentist and his wife should both be neutered to avoid further pollution of the gene pool, and for similar reasons the entire Supreme Court should be decapitated, (on the basis of the reports they surely lack anything worth saving above neck level anyway)....but surely this isn't the whole story?

All the best

Dave

[c.d.]

Hello Dave,

Here in the U.S. employees have very few rights. The law is heavily weighted towards the employer. Her situation was employment-at-will which means that she could quit for any reason. Her employer could fire her for any reason or no reason at all as long as it was not a certain type of discrimination (age, gender, religion, etc.). The court did not accept her argument that it was gender discrimination and her employer covered his butt by hiring another woman. Basically, it's the goldern rule -- them with the gold (the employer) makes the rules.

c.d.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi cd,

I expressed my personal belief, not a comment upon US law...

(which would've been similar to any belief I held on UK or any other law)

In reality the law's lower than anything pubic and always eventually favours the rich over the poor...it ain't how it SHOULD be, but effectively it is how it is...

(don't worry, I'm only a rebel here, not in reality!)

every good wish

Dave

[Ally]

Based purely upon this story (and maybe there's more to come) my own belief is that the dentist and his wife should both be neutered to avoid further pollution of the gene pool, and for similar reasons the entire Supreme Court should be decapitated, (on the basis of the reports they surely lack anything worth saving above neck level anyway)....but surely this isn't the whole story?

All the best

Dave

So you'd be okay with your wife employing a hot young guy she found sexually attractive and was interested in sleeping with?

[RivkahChaya]

In reality the law's lower than anything pubic....

I see what you did there.


Honestly, if I ever move to Iowa, I'll have to make sure I don't go to this dentist, because he sounds awful. Does he refuse to take attractive women as patients? Is that noted in his ad in the yellow pages? I wish the employee had fired a sexual harassment case, instead of a gender discrimination case; if he really made that "bulging pants" remark, that crosses a line, and I don't know how someone who made a comment like that gets away with calling himself moral and religious.

I wish someone would figure out if the employee has some kind of a livelihood interference suit against the pastor. Probably not, but I can't help being furious at him for telling the dentist to fire someone who worked for him for ten years. That's the best advice he has for a marriage on the rocks? They need something more than to avoid temptation at every turn, because there's going to be more than this one employee (who says she was never interested, but the next thing might be Dr. Dentist checking out internet dating sites); these people need to do something that actually strengthens their marriage.

Anyway, I forget what the legal term for interfering in someone's livelihood is, but maybe a lawyer on the site can refresh my memory.

That said, the Iowa Supreme Court can't help it if this is the decision they have to make. They have to go with existing law and the Iowa constitution. They can't just make stuff up. Maybe the woman's lawyer did misplay, and should have used a different strategy, or maybe the law just really needs to change in Iowa.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ally

You're a little unfortunate in your choice of target love...my good lady wife's been sleeping with whoever she pleases for however many years she pleases...it may not exactly be by my choice, but it doesn't particularly distress me either...now did you have a VALID argument to make or are you just taking up valuable space?

Lots of love

Dave

[Ally]

Actually my point is valid. The fact that you are in the minority of couples who don't put a priority on monogamy makes you an outlier, and doesn't mean that your opinions actually take precedence over his.

The fact is, some people value monogamy as being central to marriage, and he was becoming increasingly likely to stray. You may well find it a big fuss over nothing, especially since you say your wife sleeps with whomever she wants whether you want her to or not, but some people might find such actions unpalatable.

Some people actually expect their spouses to respect their wishes and take them into consideration. His wife apparently was not okay with it. So at this point the guy had a choice, break up his marriage or fire an assistant. Which is more valuable long term to him? He decided the marriage. That's his choice.

Also, I imagine if he's sexually attracted to the woman, it might well be impacting the work environment. I certainly don't want the guy performing a root canal to be sitting there fantasizing about the breasts across the room instead of having his mind on the job.

Why was this woman having text conversations about her sex life with her boss in the first place? She wasn't some innocent little lamb just out in the woods while the big bad slavering wolf dreamed of pouncing on her. She claims she saw him as a father figure. Really? I don't complain about my sex life to my father figures. I don't know many women who do. They drop hints about their lack of a sex life to people they are hoping will fill the void or who they want to keep on the hook for whatever reason.

She can't really claim sexual harassment when she's sitting there voluntarily discussing her sex life with her boss.

[RivkahChaya]

She can't really claim sexual harassment when she's sitting there voluntarily discussing her sex life with her boss.

Eek! was that what she was doing? I must have read a different article. Now I'm amazed that she stayed there for ten years. I stand by my remarks that the couple should work on their marriage, and not count on just ducking temptation whenever it pops up, but I do agree that coming on to your boss is a good reason for getting fired. It might not be fair, especially if it "he started it," but that's just how the employer-employee dynamic is.

[Errata]

My only problem with this is that it reinforces the idea that men are incapable of controlling themselves sexually, and women just need to get used to it. The idea that a woman was so attractive to a man that he had to fire her to prevent himself from leaping upon her and putting his penis all over her is insane. This is the exact same argument that rapists have used for centuries. He had a choice. Participate in this flirtation or not. He chose to participate. His wife found out, he got in trouble, and the woman is fired. There are ways available to employers to remove employees without firing them. I've had bosses find me other positions because I didn't work out with them, but they honestly thought I would work out elsewhere. I've even had a bosses wife tell me that she would sue me for alienation if I didn't leave her husbands employ. That was a little different because I was trying to get husband to come out instead of trying to sleep with him, but she still had a case. This "too attractive I coudn't help myself" bullshit is dangerous. The laws agrees with him. That sets precedent. People can in fact help themselves. They are capable of self control. If the law believes otherwise, we are all screwed. The correct response would have been "This is gender bias because by your own argument you have stated that her sex and the physical features that go with her sex were the problem. That her being a woman you found attractive was the reason you terminated her. Therefore you lose. If you had argued that you consistently chose to not exercise self control, so you fired her in order to please your wife, that would not be gender bias."

[RivkahChaya]

That's your only problem?

I have lots of problems. I have a problem with a pastor advising a person to fire someone, and not getting any repercussions. I have a problem with this woman apparently participating in flirtation, then crying foul when it came back around and hit her. I have a problem with anyone saying this case is a "triumph for family values."

Yes, I have a problem with men who think their dicks are other people's problems, but that wasn't the basis for this ruling. The basis had to do with at-will employment, and whether this was truly gender discrimination; the fact that he didn't fire her strictly for her gender, but for what she looked like-- which may have been inextricably bound to her gender, but that's another matter-- it's like a cab company firing a driver for developing vision problems; that's not a disability discrimination problem, because being able to see is inextricably bound to the driver's ability to perform (yes, the cab company is required by the ADA to look for a lateral transfer, but if it isn't possible, they can terminate him).

If the dentist happened to be bisexual, he could also have fired a male assistant he found attractive. And as it happened, the replacement he hired was another woman, presumably one to whom he wasn't attracted. This is why is isn't gender discrimination. Her suit was for gender discrimination, and the court was required to make a ruling on the merits of gender discrimination. The court is not allowed to go fishing for another reason that the termination was unjustified, or tell the dentist he is a shmuck, because being a shmuck is not against the law, and it doesn't become the justices to insult defendants just for the heck of it.

Not everything that is terribly and obviously wrong is illegal. If you have really strong feelings, then go to Iowa, and start lobbying your representative.

This sets a precedent, FWIW, only in Iowa, and only in civil court. No rapist in New York is going to be able to use this case for exculpation.

[jason_c]

My only problem with this is that it reinforces the idea that men are incapable of controlling themselves sexually, and women just need to get used to it. The idea that a woman was so attractive to a man that he had to fire her to prevent himself from leaping upon her and putting his penis all over her is insane. This is the exact same argument that rapists have used for centuries. He had a choice. Participate in this flirtation or not. He chose to participate. His wife found out, he got in trouble, and the woman is fired. There are ways available to employers to remove employees without firing them. I've had bosses find me other positions because I didn't work out with them, but they honestly thought I would work out elsewhere. I've even had a bosses wife tell me that she would sue me for alienation if I didn't leave her husbands employ. That was a little different because I was trying to get husband to come out instead of trying to sleep with him, but she still had a case. This "too attractive I coudn't help myself" bullshit is dangerous. The laws agrees with him. That sets precedent. People can in fact help themselves. They are capable of self control. If the law believes otherwise, we are all screwed. The correct response would have been "This is gender bias because by your own argument you have stated that her sex and the physical features that go with her sex were the problem. That her being a woman you found attractive was the reason you terminated her. Therefore you lose. If you had argued that you consistently chose to not exercise self control, so you fired her in order to please your wife, that would not be gender bias."

The bolded part is a very biased viewpoint with very biased use of language. Not all office relationships between boss and secretary are the result of a sleazy boss with a warped view of power. Sometimes it can be a mutual attraction, sometimes it can be a flirty secretary, indeed a whole host of dynamics can be going on.

Personally, im not about to jump to any conclusion on this case based on a one page news story with an accompanying titillating headline. The judges heard all of the evidence, we did not. I also note the judges voted unanimously in favour of the dentist.

[Errata]

The bolded part is a very biased viewpoint with very biased use of language. Not all office relationships between boss and secretary are the result of a sleazy boss with a warped view of power. Sometimes it can be a mutual attraction, sometimes it can be a flirty secretary, indeed a whole host of dynamics can be going on.

Personally, im not about to jump to any conclusion on this case based on a one page news story with an accompanying titillating headline. The judges heard all of the evidence, we did not. I also note the judges voted unanimously in favour of the dentist.

Of course not all office relationships are predatory. I don't even think this one was. I think it was two people with bad judgement engaging in behavior that anyone with two brain cells to rub together ought to be able to deal with. I object to the idea that he HAD to fire her because she was so attractive to him that it was the only way for him not to have an affair. He could just as easily not have an affair with her by not having an affair with her. Hell he could have fired her for inappropriate sexual advances. It would have been true. But no. For some outlandish reason, he chose the uncontrollable penis defense. I mean, grow the hell up people.

It's not the relationship I object to, because you know, none of my business. It's not even the idea that he would be better off if she didn't work there, which clearly his wife felt to be true. It's not even the 100 other reasons he could have fired her that would have been totally legit, or questionable but at least on the face of things reasonable. No, he fired her because if he didn't, his penis was going to take him on some rampage against his will. That is my objection.

[Ally]

It should also be pointed out that the man's wife worked in the office. He probably risked a daily braining every time his wife caught him checking out the assistant. Far less risky to just fire her. I personally would have found it hysterical if he didn't fire her and the WIFE turned around and sued them both for creating a "sexually charged working environment".

But I'm warped that way.

[jason_c]

Of course not all office relationships are predatory. I don't even think this one was. I think it was two people with bad judgement engaging in behavior that anyone with two brain cells to rub together ought to be able to deal with. I object to the idea that he HAD to fire her because she was so attractive to him that it was the only way for him not to have an affair. He could just as easily not have an affair with her by not having an affair with her. Hell he could have fired her for inappropriate sexual advances. It would have been true. But no. For some outlandish reason, he chose the uncontrollable penis defense. I mean, grow the hell up people.

It's not the relationship I object to, because you know, none of my business. It's not even the idea that he would be better off if she didn't work there, which clearly his wife felt to be true. It's not even the 100 other reasons he could have fired her that would have been totally legit, or questionable but at least on the face of things reasonable. No, he fired her because if he didn't, his penis was going to take him on some rampage against his will. That is my objection.

Well, your obviously unwilling to comprehend that many many people have moments of weakness. In fact I'd say weakness is our default setting. Now, simply becauae you in theory do not see this does not mean it isn't there. Working together 5 or 6 days of the week, with the pressure that involves, sometimes means we(both sexes) do dumb things. Humans are not reasonable 100% of the time. Passions become inflamed, even if ideally we wish this weren't so. I think you ought to view the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.