Bosses can legally fire employees they see as an ‘irresistible attraction’

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I do not consider myself any sort of authority on that definition but if you want to know my thoughts I will oblige you.

I think feminism probably means many different things to many different people. To me it used to mean someone who believed in equal rights for women, equal pay for equal work, the belief that gender should not inhibit someone in their career dreams and aspirations. Lately it seems to more and more get used in a militant kind of mentality, that everything has to be viewed through a lens that being a woman means automatically being in a victim class, that has the right and responsibility to aggressively seize justice for all past grievances every chance she gets and that no longer sees men as necessary. At least that is what seems to come across.

What does the word mean to you?

I agree. It used to be about equal rights, but some people take it past that to man hatred. I used to be involved in a women's union with feminists. I couldn't stand that the original movement was being tainted by these people that claimed they were feminists. Feminism was about having women be treated the same as men, no different for their gender, and now it's "women are better than men" by so many of "them" that people think that's what the movement is about and take it too far.

This woman wasn't discriminated against for her gender, that's quite clear. She was fired for pissing off the owners wife and while I don't think that's fair, it's not discrimination.

it's interesting because she's been there for 10 years, he obviously wasn't attracted to her until recently, until their text discussions began, and the wife didn't feel threatened until then. So she shares the blame for her firing by engaging in an inappropriate relationship with her boss. You never get too close to the boss, I thought this was common knowledge in professional circles. "Familiarity breeds contempt".

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I agree. It used to be about equal rights, but some people take it past that to man hatred. I used to be involved in a women's union with feminists. I couldn't stand that the original movement was being tainted by these people that claimed they were feminists. Feminism was about having women be treated the same as men, no different for their gender, and now it's "women are better than men" by so many of "them" that people think that's what the movement is about and take it too far.

This woman wasn't discriminated against for her gender, that's quite clear. She was fired for pissing off the owners wife and while I don't think that's fair, it's not discrimination.

it's interesting because she's been there for 10 years, he obviously wasn't attracted to her until recently, until their text discussions began, and the wife didn't feel threatened until then. So she shares the blame for her firing by engaging in an inappropriate relationship with her boss. You never get too close to the boss, I thought this was common knowledge in professional circles. "Familiarity breeds contempt".

Feminists much more often hate women, not men. Feminism is not about being equal with men, it is about being equal with other women. Usually attractive women. So there is no outcry from feminist groups over a woman losing her job because she is "too attractive".

There would be an outcry if she were fired for being ugly. Of course IF you can be fired for being attractive, then you can also be fired for being ugly.

The whole feminist movement is not about rights for women but simply a cover story for whatever political advantage these phonies want.

They were exposed for what they are when they had no objection to Bill Clinton using a woman's ####### for his personal cigar humidor. Tell me how they supported Monica Lewinsky's rights.

[JensJrny2Ray 367]

I hope this woman tries another legal route. This decision is just a slippery slope and it allows for wrongful termination at whim. This woman has states she had zero interest in starting an extra-marital affair with this man. He was the one who clearly had other intentions other than professional ones, and now SHE has to pay for it? I read in an interview (as has been pointed out here) that her clothing was not provocative as she wore scrubs to work. I just hope she gets some good publicity from this debacle and gets hired on at a better job.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I agree. It used to be about equal rights, but some people take it past that to man hatred. I used to be involved in a women's union with feminists. I couldn't stand that the original movement was being tainted by these people that claimed they were feminists. Feminism was about having women be treated the same as men, no different for their gender, and now it's "women are better than men" by so many of "them" that people think that's what the movement is about and take it too far.

This woman wasn't discriminated against for her gender, that's quite clear. She was fired for pissing off the owners wife and while I don't think that's fair, it's not discrimination.

it's interesting because she's been there for 10 years, he obviously wasn't attracted to her until recently, until their text discussions began, and the wife didn't feel threatened until then. So she shares the blame for her firing by engaging in an inappropriate relationship with her boss. You never get too close to the boss, I thought this was common knowledge in professional circles. "Familiarity breeds contempt".

Nobody has claimed the woman had an inappropriate relationship with her boss.

And a "wife feeling threatened" has got to be one of the silliest excuses ever for a job termination.

What part of bitchy female jealousy do you not understand here?

[Dakine10 5,452]

I hope this woman tries another legal route. This decision is just a slippery slope and it allows for wrongful termination at whim. This woman has states she had zero interest in starting an extra-marital affair with this man. He was the one who clearly had other intentions other than professional ones, and now SHE has to pay for it? I read in an interview (as has been pointed out here) that her clothing was not provocative as she wore scrubs to work. I just hope she gets some good publicity from this debacle and gets hired on at a better job.

It's hard to say. In an "at will" state, you can terminate without cause, but you can't make up stuff to terminate someone. It does seem the dentist made some of this up, because there didn't seem to be a problem with the working relationship prior to the dentists wife finding the exhanged text messages.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I hope this woman tries another legal route. This decision is just a slippery slope and it allows for wrongful termination at whim.

Iowa is an at-will state. Do you know what that means? It means people can be fired, or can quit for NO reason. I can be fired simply because I had onion for breakfast. I could quit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

There is no slippery slope because it's already known.

You state "wrongful termination" but as long as it's not discrimination, it's legal.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Nobody has claimed the woman had an inappropriate relationship with her boss.

And a "wife feeling threatened" has got to be one of the silliest excuses ever for a job termination.

What part of bitchy female jealousy do you not understand here?

What part of "it doesn't matter that it was jealousy" do you not understand? At-will employment is where "any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work"

She was fired. It wasn't gender discrimination. End of story.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This guy was being a creep and got away with it for pretending that she was the problem even if he says it was his problem, he's not the one who lost his job (or marriage) over it.

[JensJrny2Ray 367]

What part of "it doesn't matter that it was jealousy" do you not understand? At-will employment is where "any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work"

She was fired. It wasn't gender discrimination. End of story.

It was gender discrimination. If "she" was a "he", "he" wouldn't have been fired.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

It was gender discrimination. If "she" was a "he", "he" wouldn't have been fired.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Iowa is an at-will state. Do you know what that means? It means people can be fired, or can quit for NO reason. I can be fired simply because I had onion for breakfast. I could quit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

There is no slippery slope because it's already known.

You state "wrongful termination" but as long as it's not discrimination, it's legal.

Vanessa, I understand what "at will" employment is. Stop being pedantic.

I still seeing you leaping to conclusions about the parties engaging in an "inappropriate relationship" and the wife feeling threatened by a thing that didn't exist. Are you not bothered that a woman can come into a workplace and cause the termination of a 10 year employee for something that DID NOT HAPPEN? For something that is nothing more than the manifestation of the wife's anxiety? Oh wait - the assistants clothes were probably too tight and she texted with the dentist. Well, hey - then no discrimination occurred! Wife wins!

This is not really about discrimination but you're too stuck on the poor wife to get that. This is about one woman wielding power over another in a vindictive, unlawful manner. Wife was already in the "dentist's wife/divorce/perpetual alimony" catbird seat but that's not enough for her. She decides to crack the whip and ruin someone's career. If the assitant had been male, wore tight trousers, and texted with his male boss - would the wife have been mad? You tell me.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Vanessa, I understand what "at will" employment is. Stop being pedantic.

I still seeing you leaping to conclusions about the parties engaging in an "inappropriate relationship" and the wife feeling threatened by a thing that didn't exist. Are you not bothered that a woman can come into a workplace and cause the termination of a 10 year employee for something that DID NOT HAPPEN? For something that is nothing more than the manifestation of the wife's anxiety? Oh wait - the assistants clothes were probably too tight and she texted with the dentist. Well, hey - then no discrimination occurred! Wife wins!

This is not really about discrimination but you're too stuck on the poor wife to get that. This is about one woman wielding power over another in a vindictive, unlawful manner. Wife was already in the "dentist's wife/divorce/perpetual alimony" catbird seat but that's not enough for her. She decides to crack the whip and ruin someone's career. If the assitant had been male, wore tight trousers, and texted with his male boss - would the wife have been mad? You tell me.

It's not unlawful. Again, at will employment. Yes it sucks. It's absolutely UNFAIR but it's not discrimination. Do I like the idea that I can get fired simply because someone doesn't like me? Is jealous of me? is threatened by me? Wants to sit at my desk instead of me? No I don't think it's fair, but that's the law.

No the wife may not have been mad at a man dressing like that. The husband may have been mad and worried about sexual harassment issues and fired him for that dress. We have no idea. it wasn't because of her gender. It's because of what SHE did. She started texting the boss about personal matters. That's been admitted. That made their relationship more than work, that was inappropriate and the wife recognised that.

Stop trying to twist it to fit discrimination, their lawyer already tried that and he lost. It's not discrimination. She was fired because she wasn't liked. She wasn't liked because she became a threat to the wife (whether by her own doing or not). She admitted texting the boss. She admitted she didn't find anything that swayed it to sexual harassment.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

It's because of what SHE did.

Um.

No.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

It was gender discrimination. If "she" was a "he", "he" wouldn't have been fired.

Correct "he" wouldn't have been fired for making the wife jealous by engaging in an inappropriate relationship with the boss (inappropriate being texting about personal matters after hours) but "he" may have been fired for other reasons. It is not the fact she was female, it was the fact that the wife didn't like her because of her relationship with the boss. That's perfectly legal.

Now it COULD have been gender discrimination if she had been involved with another male staff member and only she had been fired or penalised (or vice versa) when it was discovered by the bosses. As he is the boss he can't fire himself. If he were just another employee the wife could have made him quit his job and find another one away from her. Instead the only option was to get rid of the woman who was part of the problem. It's not fair, but again, it's not discrimination. Getting rid of her was the only way to resolve the situation properly.

Also, why would you want to stay there? If I were working for such a person I wouldn't want to stay there anyway. She was given a months severance, probably still a good reference. SHE is the one that advertised why she was fired. Now she'll be lucky to want any woman to work with her if she's okay with texting a married man outside business hours.

Um.

No.

Um yes. I can see you're a dogged feminist ignoring the facts. She texted the boss about personal matters. Had she not texted the boss, had she continued as she had the previous 9 years and not engaged in that behaviour, she wouldn't be in this position.

It is of course not ONLY her fault. She is not even probably half-way at fault, but she does share a small portion of the blame. It was stupid, she's paying the price.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Vanessa&Tony

[decocker 7,198]

i don't buy that this wouldn't have happened if she had been a he. if an employee starts getting too personal and bossman's wife doesn't appreciate the encroachment on her territory, that's all it would take to be let go. in a right to work state it is extremely difficult to prove unlawful termination. i don't know how many ex employees at my job have tried to get unemployment after being let go without being given a reason. my boss will have to do a conference call with the virginia employment commission and give whatever reasonable reason he chooses. i've worked here ten years and NO ONE has ever received unemployment after being let go. anytime there is an error made, no matter how petty - a copy goes in our hr file. that way there is always a reason to fire anybody, at any time.

Edited December 24, 2012 by val erie