Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands December 24th, 2012 12:00am

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?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

wetheslaves Live each moment fully
12/24/12 9:13 pm

So you haven't given up on the overwhelming like notifications?

mama3
12/24/12 9:08 pm

Pretty presumptuous of the dentist to assume she'd even be interested in him.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 9:05 pm

I'm being too presumptuous in saying the Iowa Supreme Court got it wrong. Maybe that's what Truth means. I don't know more than established judges. But from the looks of it, there are serious lapses in their judgement. That's what I'm saying

Reply
JackTorS Clap you stupid bastards
12/24/12 9:05 pm

NELSON stated that Knight never harassed her sexually. If he did, why wasn't it mentioned in the lawsuit?

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 9:02 pm

sexual orientation they are. In other words, the court here got it wrong according to the SCOTUS because sexual harassment resulting in termination is still a violation of eeoc gender equality laws. Her rights in the workplace as a woman were violated because he felt she was "irresistible".

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 9:00 pm

That's where the coverage of sexual harassment embraces Article VII. It doesn't matter what gender or sexual orientation a person is, when they're sexually harassed and their employment is adversely affected by it, the employer has violate Article VII protections based on whatever gender or

Reply
Rosebud Ohio
12/24/12 8:58 pm

He harassed her. I don't think anyone said he didn't. But the lawsuit wasn't because of his sexual harassment. She sue regarding gender discrimination. Had she been a man that the owner felt for as well, she would have been fired.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 8:58 pm

Meritorious Savings Bank v Vinson said sexual harassment is still a violation of Article VII.

In Faragher v City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v Ellerth, the court said the the employer is liable for acts of harassment that culminate in tangible employment action directed against employee

Reply
JackTorS Clap you stupid bastards
12/24/12 8:56 pm

Justice Mansfield was also quoted in saying:
"Allowing Nelson's lawsuit would stretch the definition of discrimination to allow anyone fired over a relationship to file a claim arguing they would not have been fired but for their gender".
He has a very valid point for abuse of precedent in lieu

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 8:54 pm

I don't think the premise of what Palin said require a specific gender or sexual orientation. Harassment is harassment.

Reply
Rosebud Ohio
12/24/12 8:52 pm

Palin- are you denying that someone can be homosexual? If not.... It's not gender-based.

truth1 Florida
12/24/12 8:47 pm

The downside of ideological consistency is that you have to sometimes defend d-bags

The upside of emotional politics is that you can always pretend to be righteous

Reply
Aliggan China and Florida
12/24/12 8:46 pm

The last few polls have told me that a whole lot of people in Mississippi think the same way. Mostly to the opposite of the majority...

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 8:45 pm

for that any different?

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 8:45 pm

Knight ADMITS to discharging her because of the sexual feelings he has for her.

Well what are the reasons women are protected from discrimination in the workplace? It's PRECISELY for that kind of objectification. You can't decide NOT to hire someone bc they might "turn you on". How is firing her

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 8:43 pm

The court uses the narrow excuse that Nelson's firing was an "emotional response", not a response to her gender. But the response was DIRECTLY related to her gender. The sexual feelings he feels and admits to are exactly the kind of prejudicial, sexist thinking the CRA sought to eliminate.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 8:40 pm

The question about whether or not this is an emotional response is valid, but it doesn't excuse the act of discrimination. Using the same logic the court uses here, one can say that a person's skin color caused them to have an "emotional response" that lead them to fire the employee.

Reply
JackTorS Clap you stupid bastards
12/24/12 8:38 pm

I think he brings up some excellent arguing points I would not have thought of otherwise.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 8:36 pm

Is that all you can say? You're like a little kid. If you disagree, let's see what you got... Otherwise you're being as dumb as anarchy. Just loudly repeating something. You disagree, that's fine. But if you're going to disagree w/what I'm saying, then provide points countering. What are you? 13?

Reply
dreamitliveit IDLH
12/24/12 8:36 pm

Okie, fireman's carry isn't part of the physical test. But the Dummy Drag (carrying a dummy for 100ft) is part of the test. Sounds like you & the dummy are pretty interchangeable.
PS I'm female and I can carry that dummy all day long, with turnout gear on.

Reply
forte6627 Ugh
12/24/12 8:32 pm

This is a case that would not stand if she was in a union.

Reply
dreamitliveit IDLH
12/24/12 8:31 pm

All firefighters, male and female, have to meet the same requirements to get the job. They must pass physical, psychological, medical, written, and polygraph tests. And pass the oral boards (multiple interviews). Fire depts make sure their personnel are up to the task.

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 8:29 pm

she would know that what she was wearing was inappropriate if she looked down and saw a bulge in his pants. and, that her lack of a sex life was like having a Lamborghini and keeping it in the garage.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
12/24/12 8:28 pm

Well a state Supreme Court disagrees with you apparently.

rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
12/24/12 8:25 pm

I fail to see how beta, I really do. It's THEIR business, to run as THEY see fit, hiring, operations, who they serve to, firing, all of it. You don't get to dictate any of that through government and back it up with threats of "do it this way or else."

That doesn't sound very "land of the free."

Reply
rebelfury76 No Justice, No Peace
12/24/12 8:21 pm

I think employers should be allowed to discriminate based on ANYTHING.

Why? Because then we KNOW who the bigots are, now we don't, and can choose not to support them. Besides, its their business, not mine, not yours.

Reply
anarchy GET OFF MY LAWN
12/24/12 8:19 pm

Palindrome is not able to think logically...period! He's too in the tank for a corrupt political party ruled by corrupt politicians in a corrupt city who count on people like him to reelect them as long as the money keeps on flowing out from the "evil rich" to the "desperate and needy"

Reply
truth1 Florida
12/24/12 8:17 pm

Palindrome is NOT able to think logically about this issue. We all need to accept that

Reply
noahj96 North Carolina
12/24/12 8:16 pm

I wanna see how that conversation went down: "Well you are very qualified...but you're too damn sexy, gotta let ya go"

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 8:14 pm

you may have an issue firing someone because of their religion.

Reply
JackTorS Clap you stupid bastards
12/24/12 8:12 pm

@tyrianpike
So, if Knight were bisexual, it wouldn't be discrimination based on gender?

Rosebud Ohio
12/24/12 8:05 pm

It doesn't require someone to be pretty to have someone else crush/like/love them.

Rosebud Ohio
12/24/12 8:04 pm

Uhm.... You talked about slavery. You support it. Same logic there. And what in the world does that have to do with anything relating to this question?

Rosebud Ohio
12/24/12 8:03 pm

I agree. However, that doesn't mean every lawsuit about her firing is a winnable case.

Rosebud Ohio
12/24/12 8:02 pm

I think the whole situation is a little ludicrous. However, he was well within his rights to fire her. Remove the source of the problem, preferably before anything truly happens. I'd have wanted my husband to fire her too.
She should have sued for sexual harassment though.

Reply
Rosebud Ohio
12/24/12 8:02 pm

Palin, you didn't address his question. No, we have homosexual and bisexual people. It very well could have happened if the employee was male. Her gender had very little relevance. And she wasn't fired for her gender but his feelings toward her. Is it really so bad he prevented cheating on his wife?

sydwel
12/24/12 7:57 pm

Its a little ridiculous. Most people can exert a little more self control than the dentist.

Reply
JackTorS Clap you stupid bastards
12/24/12 7:50 pm

into addressing his emotional state towards her and her physical appearance.

JackTorS Clap you stupid bastards
12/24/12 7:47 pm

Knight stated in court that he contacted Nelson's husband and sated that he was worried that he was getting "too personally attached" and feared that he may eventually start an affair with her. He also stated that if his pants were "bulging", her clothes were too revealing. This definitely ties

SGTHOOAH
12/24/12 7:46 pm

Political?, religious?

Reply
monroe5011@ yahoo.com
12/24/12 7:45 pm

There was much more to the story that you should read before you cast your vote!!

Reply
praetorianus65
12/24/12 7:37 pm

And to forestall any misunderstandings : I do NOT agree women shouldn't be firefighters BUT they have to meet the same requirements men do - if they meet them okay, if not it's not discrimination.

Reply
satiricalnick meh
12/24/12 7:37 pm

Theres no amendment for this bud, nice try.

RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 7:36 pm

probably not. what ideals are you clashing on?

SGTHOOAH
12/24/12 7:34 pm

If I was an employer and I and an employee "clashed" ideals, would I be in the "wrong" letting him go?

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 7:34 pm

has anyone read some of the comments the dentist made to her? I have no idea why she didn't sue for harassment. By all accounts, this guy is a pig. It's just a matter of time until he gets into more trouble.

Reply