At the request of his wife, an Iowa dentist fired a female assistant because she was "irresistible and a threat to his marriage." She sued, claiming discrimination. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of the dentist. Good call?
Isn't BS (but it it kinda sounds like is), then I'd say the dentist could've made a responsible decision and the right call. He may have won this lawsuit, but if in X amount of time he goes on pervert overload, he's not gonna win the sexual harassment suit, y'know.
The same to you all! Merry Christmas and to all a good year!
Thanks, RJ. Merry Christmas.
I think you mean "at will" state.
So I definitely understand the discrimination argument, but lets say he didn't fire her, and for whatever reason he can't resist her, haha. So the assistant is gonna be ok with putting up with her bosses sexual advances and creepiness? I doubt it. So I don't know, if the whole sexual tension thing
Peace to all.
No, I wouldn't. Even without bearing in mind how much my job sucks, I don't believe in forcing someone to employ me against their will.
She in no way indicated nor testified that she felt the same way towards this man. How can it be an affair when she doesn't reciprocate his advances?
This might be a case where a really nice small town girl (bc she can REALLLY screw this guy) ends up losing. We'll see what else comes of it
Wow, meant :)
The ;) face made it just a little weirder haha
Hope you all get what you wanted ;)
Even when we don't agree, I enjoy you guys! Woo!
How would you like it if your boss fired you for those reasons? Bet you'll be singin' a different tune then.
He texted her at night asking her how many orgasms she's had etc... She didn't respond to him.
Then he fires her because he's afraid he'll get into an affair with her?
Would that be an issue it she were instead a man? The entire basis of her firing is because of this perceived "relationship"
What a load of crap. I can't controls libido, so you loose your job. Grow up!!!
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
An employer should be able to fire who he wants
It's funny that my 3 favorite people reply first.
Well said RJ
Thank you. Merry Christmas.
....and Merry Christmas to you too!
We don't always agree, and sometimes we get flat out ugly. But Merry Christmas to all you SoHers out there. It's YOU that make this app great. And Tony in some small part ;) From the bottom of my heart guys, Happy Holidays.
and the gov should have every right to shut a business down as well.
Rasberry, as a school admin, I know if she didn't meet her performance goal and job descriptors she would be put on a plan and gone soon after. Sounds like the old gal is not liked, but does her job. Teaching is not a popularity contest, determination of a bad teacher is about perspective vs job.
right to work is more a tool to fight the unions/mafia protection rackets
as an employer, you should be able to fire any employee for no reason at all
well, apparently she doesn't have a right to work because a perv can't control himself and was ordered by his wife to fire her.
he testified that she was the best employee he had ever had.
You can't prove discrimination but he could have always said that she wasn't meeting the demands of the job!
Are you kidding me ? Is this really what America is coming to ?
This is the only exception. Are there multiple exceptions like this for tort claims?
In my state, the only situation an officer is allowed to make an arrest for a potential crime is an instance of eminent disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace. This is if an officer leaves the scene where the parties are still present and his action of leaving would cause the crime to be committed.
Having an affair with Nelson and sexually harassing her are two different things.
An affair is complicit with both parties. If he had approached her looking to get lucky and she is offended by his advances, that may be harassment.
Jack- sure there are. If there is a credible threat that a crime is actionable, authorities can arrest to prevent.
Rosebud- true. And that's where things get very interesting if you're into law. It's well known that retaliation firing is against the law. But what about pre-emotive firing?? Hmmm
A company owner can do whatever the hell they want to do. Isn't Iowa a right to work state? I love it!
..find you another position, a GOOD one, and I'll give you a great recommendation. Wouldn't that have been the morally right thing to do? Otherwise, he's just a giant ass, even if what he did was legal.
So Palin, you cannot remove yourself from a situation in order to avoid breaking the law and destroying the marriage? That's what he did... He didn't fire her for retaliation for anything she did.
Yes. That was the irresistible part he said led him to the conclusion that Nelson was a threat to his marriage. He said he "feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her"
I don't know the technicalities of the law, but let's assume firing her didn't violate any laws. OK, but did he HAVE to FIRE her? If its not her fault (again, an assumption), why couldn't he have said to her: Look, this is a bad situation and I want to do the right thing. Lets see if we can...
In our society, you can't be arrested because you might break the law. I would assume this applies to lawsuits as well.
Did Knight state that he would have harassed her sexually if she remained on the job?
You're right about it being my opinion too. Yes. But I think, given the evidence that Knight WAS being increasingly suggestive in his advances towards Nelson (texting her at night, asking her about how many orgasms she has etc), that there was an imminent harassment coming and the firing is unlawful
I think an employer should have the right to hire or fire for any reason or no reason whatsoever, even if that reason is dumb.
It was probably the dentist's wife who was presuming.
I'm going to have to say, more deliberation will be needed.
Jack- you're right. She does not contend that sexual harassment was committed (which would be a violation), instead she argues that the firing was to PREVENT sexual harassment.
Ultimate Question is, is a firing to "avoid sexual harassment" on the same level of a firing for actual sexual harassment?
Palin- if she never claimed he harassed her, then they were still in the right to rule against her.
It's a private company? Do what you want
You may be right, but unfortunately that is only opinion, albeit a very passionate one.
I'm not sure if this ruling opens more cans of worms than it closes, but judging from the emotional response in this thread alone, one thing is certain; more deliberation is needed.
Everybody wants to sue someone.