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

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

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 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.

LOL you say that as if it's an insult!

BECAUSE I believe in womens rights, I think it's bollocks for another woman to play her "power" card against another woman over an issue like this. It's this kind of ####### that causes men not to take us seriously! And - no matter how hard you try and defend the wife's actions because they are "legal" - you are perpetuating the stereotypes of territorial feminine treachery.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

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.

Not so where we live. It takes "gross misconduct" for any employee to lose their unemployment compensation.

In a case like this, the employee would have had to have been warned, in writing, to stop with the texting. And even then, the conduct would have had to be far more reprehensible that the facts of this case for a claim to be denied.

I know for a fact that someone "not liking someone" would not even be simple misconduct in my home state.

It's a ludicrous excuse for a termination. It's not even "he said/she said". It's a case of pure vindictiveness and spite.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Not so where we live. It takes "gross misconduct" for any employee to lose their unemployment compensation.

In a case like this, the employee would have had to have been warned, in writing, to stop with the texting. And even then, the conduct would have had to be far more reprehensible that the facts of this case for a claim to be denied.

I know for a fact that someone "not liking someone" would not even be simple misconduct in my home state.

It's a ludicrous excuse for a termination. It's not even "he said/she said". It's a case of pure vindictiveness and spite.

Is there an appeal? This could royally screw up labor rights in this country IMO.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Is there an appeal? This could royally screw up labor rights in this country IMO.

Appeal? For whom? And I don't understand what you are saying about labor rights.

[Karee 4,190]

Is there an appeal? This could royally screw up labor rights in this country IMO.

It's best not to jump in the middle of a cat fight while in progress.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Appeal? For whom? And I don't understand what you are saying about labor rights.

Did you even read the article? If you did, which I'm guessing you did then why make that post?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Did you even read the article? If you did, which I'm guessing you did then why make that post?

Because I don't quite understand the question?

I don't think you do either, but that's OK........

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Because I don't quite understand the question?

I don't think you do either, but that's OK........

No he does. I was referring to the Iowa Court Decision in the OP.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

No he does. I was referring to the Iowa Court Decision in the OP.

Ah, OK then! My bad. I thought you were talking to me about WV Unemployment decisions (since you quoted me).

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Ah, OK then! My bad. I thought you were talking to me about WV Unemployment decisions (since you quoted me).

Sorry I think I was keying on the last line of your post which I took broadly. I can understand the confusion.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Sorry I think I was keying on the last line of your post which I took broadly. I can understand the confusion.

No problem.

If you were asking me what I think about it as far as labor rights in this country, I think it's an Iowa problem and not a nationwide setback. I think it's pretty laughable nationwide. Both parties claim no misconduct. The dentist says he fired the woman soley because his marriage was in trouble.

I can't even wrap my head around what kind of issue this really is. It certainly involves the sex of the discharged employee. Or at least the "attractiveness" of the employee. Everybody says there was no misconduct. So why was she let go? Because of "family values", as the dentist's attorney would have us believe? God help us, here we go again. Turn all the puritans loose on the rest of us.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/12/onion_invading_real_life.php

TPM Editor’s Blog

Onion Invading Real Life

Josh Marshall December 21, 2012, 4:48 PM

The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that a dentist was within his rights firing an assistant who he found attractive simply because he and his wife thought she was a threat to their marriage. That seems a bit iffy to me. But perhaps he could be held culpable simply for saying the following. And I don’t just mean for harassment — that seems kind of like a given in this case, just for being maybe the weirdest dentist ever, in addition to being a harasser.

This from the AP …

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

He also explained to Nelson’s husband about how his desire to bed his wife might have become a problem …

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

Late Update: TPM Reader KM notes that ‘you’re so hot my spouse is threatened’ is something the federal courts have generally been okay with as a cause for termination, which is bizarre, but there you go …

That decision may seem surprising, but as someone who represents plaintiff’s in sexual harassment cases, I can tell you that it is pretty consistent with federal decisions, including the New York-based federal appeals court. Firing an employee because your spouse is jealous (which seems to be what happened here if the AP report is right) has been consistently been held to be a non-discriminatory, lawful motivation. There’s little doubt that women get fired for this reason about a million times more often than men, but the courts don’t seem to factor that into the analysis. And, yes, that dentist is weird, but I’ve seen much worse in my practice.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/12/onion_invading_real_life.php

TPM Editor’s Blog

Onion Invading Real Life

Josh Marshall December 21, 2012, 4:48 PM

The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that a dentist was within his rights firing an assistant who he found attractive simply because he and his wife thought she was a threat to their marriage. That seems a bit iffy to me. But perhaps he could be held culpable simply for saying the following. And I don’t just mean for harassment — that seems kind of like a given in this case, just for being maybe the weirdest dentist ever, in addition to being a harasser.

This from the AP …

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

He also explained to Nelson’s husband about how his desire to bed his wife might have become a problem …

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

Late Update: TPM Reader KM notes that ‘you’re so hot my spouse is threatened’ is something the federal courts have generally been okay with as a cause for termination, which is bizarre, but there you go …

That decision may seem surprising, but as someone who represents plaintiff’s in sexual harassment cases, I can tell you that it is pretty consistent with federal decisions, including the New York-based federal appeals court. Firing an employee because your spouse is jealous (which seems to be what happened here if the AP report is right) has been consistently been held to be a non-discriminatory, lawful motivation. There’s little doubt that women get fired for this reason about a million times more often than men, but the courts don’t seem to factor that into the analysis. And, yes, that dentist is weird, but I’ve seen much worse in my practice.

That entire story sounds like something out of a B movie. And he told the assistants husband he wanted to do his wife? I mean like wth? I guess he was honest although I'm surprised the husband didn't knock his teeth out right then and there.

[BaBamSam 239]

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.

This makes me laugh hard. I am sorry that you are so misinformed about feminism.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

This makes me laugh hard. I am sorry that you are so misinformed about feminism.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Bad_Daddy