What a load of crap. Seems there was much more going on here. She allegedly is discussing her sex life with her boss. He obviously is fantasizing about her and outwardly says so. He flirts with her and makes suggestive remarks to her. His wife must have been jealous of the assistant. So they decided based upon their own insecurities and projections that the assistant had to go. In my views, scrubs are not all that revealing unless the assistant was buying them a size or two too small and there is no indication of this in the article.
So, if the court says it “was clear...terminating her was not related to the fact she was a woman”, then how could she be viewed as a threat? What kind of threat? If the assistant had been a man, wouldn’t he also be a threat to the dentist’s marriage since the dentist’s wife worked there? If these really were “religious and moral” people as the article suggests, then why didn’t the dentist and his wife sit down with the assistant and explain his/their situation and concerns and then help her to find another position [even if it took a reasonable amount of time] instead of canning her with a paltry 30 days severance. Seems to me the pastor’s advice apparently wasn’t all that well thought out either. But, all this is subjective conjecture on my part since I do not have the salient and specific facts.
Excellent summation.