Posted on 12/22/2012 10:38:53 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
IOWA CITY, Iowa — A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an “irresistible attraction,” even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.
An attorney for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight said the decision, the first of its kind in Iowa, is a victory for family values because Knight fired Melissa Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman.
But Nelson’s attorney said Iowa’s all-male high court, one of only a handful in the nation, failed to recognize the discrimination that women see routinely in the workplace.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Did she somehow become better looking since he hired her?
I wish more people would realize that unfair does not mean and should not mean unlawful all or even most of the time.
Life sucks. Wear a helmet.
Employment at will does not mean you're free to be a lying @hole. It's their livelihood, you're throwing their lives into turmoil. Not a thing to be flippant or vindictive about, at all, for your good as well as theirs.
One way to look at the need for ugly
women (per the dentist’ wife) is -
more job opportunities for the femi-nazi’s.
(I’d think that’s a fair assumption.)
That’s all true. However, they have given bosses’ wives a huge cudgel to bop attractive women out of the workplace, because they do have coercive power over their husbands.
I cannot find a pic anywhere.
Reminds me of my college days...I remember one night, there must have been 20 blondes frantically pounding on my door. I finally had to get up and let them out.
>> Employment at will does not mean you’re free to be a lying @hole. It’s their livelihood, you’re throwing their lives into turmoil. Not a thing to be flippant or vindictive about, at all, for your good as well as theirs.
There are legitimate remedies for slander not dependent on employment.
>> you’re free
>> you’re throwing
>> for your good
You mean “the employer”.
You seem to have a paternal view on this matter which of course is your option. Doesn’t mean, however, your thoughtful views should be law.
The penalty is the restriction. And are you suggesting there should be some special class of slander torts where you get extra goodies if the slander applies to your employment?
I know, I know - in our day and age the 'There Oughta be a Law' impulse is just too hard control. And it really is too much to expect for anyone, including conservatives, to resist its allure of immediate gratification.
Smells supiciously of sharia law. Can’t have women show their faces or their ankles because men can’t control their little mohammeds.
An employer should have the right to hire and fire anyone he/she wants—it’s none of the government’s darned business.
Consider numerous court cases involving hiring at Hooters and other “eye candy” venues.
A conservative finding paternalism to be a negative is something of a recent phenomenon, no doubt stemming from the rise of feminism.
You as employer should have at least some level of regard and care for those in your employ. Not having it has led to unions on the one hand or hellish company towns from which you’d be hard pressed to escape to the other extreme.
Now we have more or less sociopathic management without the least bit of concern one way or the other. Unions or even company stores and scrip will start looking better by comparison with where we are headed.
Understand the political reality that is being created by such blatant @holes. Maybe you’re in a union state and don’t see it, or maybe you’re in one of the few pockets that remain economically healthy. I don’t know, but you seem to be wearing blinders of a sort.
Glad to see someone understands the difference between illegal and unfair, not nice, immoral, etc..
So long someone is fired for a reason that is not illegal then it is not illegal to fire that person. I have this argument all the time with people. I once fired a guy because his hair was blue, seriously. He got mad, everyone under 30 got mad, and they all said I should be sued for discrimination. It was good for a laugh when I asked to see the law that made firing blue headed workers illegal.
George Constanza (almost) got away with it.
He refused to hire a ‘good looking chick’ because he was afraid she would distract him.
So, he hired ‘Marian, the Librarian’ and she was so efficient he went after her anyway and during a ‘fateful moment’ screamed out “You are getting a raise” and she ended up making more than him..
Sometimes these things just DON’T work out - FOR EVERYONE.
Noted!
Our all-around twisted abnormal world!
Dig deeper...he was sexually harassing her, with comments like “the bulge in my pants means your clothes are too revealing”, and her “...not having sex is like keeping a Lamborghini in the garage”. She should have sued for sexual harassment and she’d own his practice instead of being unemployed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.