"Irresistible" worker fired in Iowa

[merithyn]

I'm a bit confused on this one. On the one hand, I think it should be a business owner's right to hire and fire who they will so long as it's not discrimination. On the other hand, some of the comments this guy made really make me wonder if it's not bordering on sexual harassment. I mean, seriously. "If there's a bulge in my pants, you know you're dressing too provocatively."  Just the same, she seemed to be okay with it if they were texting one another.

As inflammatory as the headline is, I kinda' side with the courts on this. It sucks, but it was obviously going to continue to cause friction in the guy's marriage. At least he realized it before the affair happened and took steps to prevent it. He sounds like a complete douche, but I don't think that he did anything wrong in the firing.

LINK

(CNN) -- It may not be fair, but it's not illegal -- not in Iowa.

Melissa Nelson, a worker fired for being "irresistible" to her boss, spoke out Saturday about a high court decision that said her termination broke no discrimination law.

"The last couple of days have just been an emotional roller coaster. I'm trying to stay strong. It's tough," she told CNN's Don Lemon. "I don't think it's fair. I don't think it's right."

Nelson spoke one day after the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled on her case. The high court sided with a lower court, ruling that Nelson's termination did not constitute sex discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

She was not fired because of her gender, the court decided, but because her boss and his wife felt Nelson was a threat to their marriage.

Nelson was hired in 1999 as a dental assistant for James Knight. She stayed on at the Fort Dodge business for more than 10 years.

"The court got it absolutely right," said Stuart Cochrane, Knight's attorney. He said that for the Iowa Supreme Court to have acted otherwise, it would have had to "ignore every other case we could find" with similar facts.

At first blush, he said, the result might sound bizarre. But Cochrane stressed that if all the facts of the case were known, the court's decision would seem more fair.

"He and his wife really agonized about it," Cochrane said about Knight. "He didn't want to terminate her."
According to the high court's decision, Knight complained to Nelson toward the end of her employment that her clothes were tight and "distracting." Cochrane said Knight asked her repeatedly to dress differently.

Nelson denied that what she wore was out of place, and when asked by CNN's Lemon whether she dressed appropriately at work, she said she wore scrubs.

At one point, Knight told Nelson that "if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing," the decision read.

At another point, in response to an alleged comment Nelson made about the infrequency of her sex life, Knight responded: [T]hat's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

Nelson and Knight, both married with children, also exchanged text messages to each other outside of work. Neither objected to the texting.

But Knight's wife, who was employed at the same dental office, found out about those messages in late 2009 and demanded he fire Nelson. In early 2010, he did just that.

In the presence of a pastor, Knight told Nelson that she had become a "detriment" to his family and for the sakes of both their families, they should no longer work together. Knight gave Nelson one month's severance.

In a subsequent conversation between Knight and Nelson's husband, Knight said Nelson had done nothing wrong and that "she was the best dental assistant he ever had," the decision read.
Nelson filed a lawsuit, arguing that Knight fired her because of her gender. She did not contend that he committed sexual harassment.

In response, Knight argued that Nelson was fired because of the "nature of their relationship and the perceived threat" to his marriage, not because of her gender. In fact, he said, Knight only employs women and replaced Nelson with another female worker. A district court sided with Knight; Nelson appealed.

Framing the issue for the Iowa Supreme Court, Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote: "The question we must answer is ... whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction."

Answering the question, he continued: "The issue before us is not whether a jury could find that Dr. Knight treated Nelson badly. We are asked to decide only if a genuine fact issue exists as to whether Dr. Knight engaged in unlawful gender discrimination when he fired Nelson at the request of his wife. For the reasons previously discussed, we believe this conduct did not amount to unlawful discrimination, and therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court."

Chick in question

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yah, seems like to me:

1. She didn't even claim it was sexual harassment, so whatever communications they had was not unwanted between her and the dentist so no sexual harassment concern.
2. It doesn't look like the dentist is discriminating against anyone by gender or only allowing male hygienists to work there or etc. Instead it seems like his wife developed a personal animus to the woman based on personal problems and as an employer the dentist has wide latitude in resolving such personal disputes between workers. Since the hygienist was hired and worked there for a decade, being a woman the whole time, I don't see it being easy to demonstrate gender discrimination in his hiring or firing practices.

[Ideologue]

You know, if he didn't fuck her for ten years, that sounds like the definition of "resistable."

[Martinus]

I fail to see how this isn't found to be discrimination. 

[sbr]

I fail to see how this isn't found to be discrimination. 

You should study law.

[Martinus]

I fail to see how this isn't found to be discrimination. 

You should study law.

You know, in the civilized world (Europe), "employment discrimination" is any unequal treatment based on traits that are outside of the scope of the work performance. We don't have the whole "protected groups" bullshit here.

This would be clearly found to constitute discrimination, because the employee is fired irrespective of her work performance, because of out-of-work characteristics.

Not to mention, the standard is more demanding when it comes to existing employees, for obvious reasons. The guy would be paying through his nose.

[DGuller]

What does "paying through his nose" mean anyway?  I've never seen someone pay through their nose, and it sounds disgusting.  If you have to pay a lot of money, wouldn't you choose a method that's easy and quick, like writing a check, rather than a very slow, inefficient, painful, and disgusting method?

[sbr]

I fail to see how this isn't found to be discrimination. 

You should study law.

You know, in the civilized world (Europe), "employment discrimination" is any unequal treatment based on traits that are outside of the scope of the work performance. We don't have the whole "protected groups" bullshit here.

This would be clearly found to constitute discrimination, because the employee is fired irrespective of her work performance, because of out-of-work characteristics.

Not to mention, the standard is more demanding when it comes to existing employees, for obvious reasons. The guy would be paying through his nose.

SO what if he fucked her, and then the wife said 'Fire her or we are getting a divorce'.  Would that still be "discrimination"?

[Neil]

You know, in the civilized world (Europe), "employment discrimination" is any unequal treatment based on traits that are outside of the scope of the work performance. We don't have the whole "protected groups" bullshit here.

The continent that gave us the Nuremberg laws has nothing to teach anyone about the proper way to use the law.

[Valmy]

You know, in the civilized world (Europe), "employment discrimination" is any unequal treatment based on traits that are outside of the scope of the work performance. We don't have the whole "protected groups" bullshit here.

This would be clearly found to constitute discrimination, because the employee is fired irrespective of her work performance, because of out-of-work characteristics.

Not to mention, the standard is more demanding when it comes to existing employees, for obvious reasons. The guy would be paying through his nose.

So I guess he just had to divorce his wife or shut down his business?  Man no wonder nobody gets hired in Europe.

[Martinus]

So I guess he just had to divorce his wife or shut down his business?  Man no wonder nobody gets hired in Europe.

His marital problems have no bearing on the assessment of the contract between him and his employee - terminating it for reasons not connected with her work performance would be illegal here.

If he really wanted he could have reached a settlement with the employee so she left on her own.

Incidentally, this is being reported all over Europe as one of the "Americans are stupid" stories. I haven't seen a single comment supporting the judgement.

[Martinus]

SO what if he fucked her, and then the wife said 'Fire her or we are getting a divorce'.  Would that still be "discrimination"?

That would add sexual harassment charges to the picture if the employee had a lawyer with half a brain and claimed she maintained sexual contacts with him to keep her job.

[Razgovory]

I fail to see how this isn't found to be discrimination. 

You should study law.

You know, in the civilized world (Europe), "employment discrimination" is any unequal treatment based on traits that are outside of the scope of the work performance. We don't have the whole "protected groups" bullshit here.

This would be clearly found to constitute discrimination, because the employee is fired irrespective of her work performance, because of out-of-work characteristics.

Not to mention, the standard is more demanding when it comes to existing employees, for obvious reasons. The guy would be paying through his nose.

See, this is why nobody takes you seriously as a lawyer.  There are "protected groups" in Europe that benefit from "employment discrimination" as you define it.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Germany

[Neil]

See?  Europe is barbaric and stupid.

[Ideologue]

So I guess he just had to divorce his wife or shut down his business?  Man no wonder nobody gets hired in Europe.

His marital problems have no bearing on the assessment of the contract between him and his employee - terminating it for reasons not connected with her work performance would be illegal here.

If he really wanted he could have reached a settlement with the employee so she left on her own.

Incidentally, this is being reported all over Europe as one of the "Americans are stupid" stories. I haven't seen a single comment supporting the judgement.

Iowa's an at-will employment state.  He could have fired her for wearing blue.  There is no real employment contract, unless there's a written employment contract that gives her more rights than that.

Don't like it?  Lump it.  It sucks, but that's America.  This is not a special story.

Are the Euro comments against the judgment are actually applying facts to law?