Jump to content

Can a boss fire an employee he finds attractive because he and his wife...


JamesM

Recommended Posts

...see her as a threat to their marriage?

 

Read this story. The dentist had an assistant for more than ten years who was attractive. He and her texted. Wife found out and wanted her fired. He did it. She sued. He won.

 

During the last six months of Nelson's employment, Nelson and Knight, both married with children, started sending text messages to each other outside of work. Neither objected to the texting.

 

Knight's wife, who was employed at the same dental office, found out about those messages in late 2009 and demanded he fire Nelson.

 

Comments?

 

Iowa Supreme Court: OK to fire 'irresistible' worker - CNN.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

no. it sounds as if she had a stupid attorney and filed a suit under the wrong statute, one she could not win.

 

She may have done much, much better under sexual harassment.

 

She just needed a better cause or reason. Hopefully, a better attorney will read this story and represent her under a better " cause. "

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many other states, Iowa is an "employment at will" state, meaning that the employer or the employee may terminate employment at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. There are only a few "actionable" causes: harassment, whistle blowing, and discrimination (race, age, religion).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If your mere presence causes a MM to get a hard-on and make his W jealous, it's YOUR responsibility to take the fall in your career, no matter what you've done (or didn't do) and regardless of your work performance. He gets off scot-free, and is protected by law and apparently by religion too.

 

Real nice.

 

The ironic part is, the W thinks this will actually prevent her H from cheating on her. :laugh:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Montana is also an at will state. I do not even have to give a reason to fire someone. I usually say it's just not working out for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If your mere presence causes a MM to get a hard-on and make his W jealous, it's YOUR responsibility to take the fall in your career, no matter what you've done (or didn't do) and regardless of your work performance. He gets off scot-free, and is protected by law and apparently by religion too.

 

Real nice.

 

The ironic part is, the W thinks this will actually prevent her H from cheating on her. :laugh:

You are indeed correct but your hypothetical boss doesn't have to be a man, could just as easily be a woman. It works both ways...

 

Mr. Lucky

Link to post
Share on other sites
If your mere presence causes a MM to get a hard-on and make his W jealous, it's YOUR responsibility to take the fall in your career, no matter what you've done (or didn't do) and regardless of your work performance. He gets off scot-free, and is protected by law and apparently by religion too.

 

Real nice.

 

The ironic part is, the W thinks this will actually prevent her H from cheating on her. :laugh:

 

Don't disregard how the wife had no problem with her working there for 9.5yrs, yrs in which they undoubtedly met.

She had a problem only when it developed into something that could be seen as an EA.

 

You would obviously stand to the same opinion if that were your Husband.

 

Oh, and after reading that link, i can only say that her lawyer has no real case, if she resorts to asking for AA on the Supreme Court.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

JamesM;

Just read the whole article. Very interesting read.

Thing is, the suit was for discriminition Not harassment as the text reveal there was none. The discrimination suit (gender) wouldn't work because his whoe office is women.

Had I been the the W, dang silly I would have asked him to fire her or let her go. The H, I think, did the right thing too & handled it well w/bringing in the pastor etc...

The married couple were being protective of their marriage when it became vulnerable due to the attraction. I'm glad action was taken BEFORE "real" feelings developed and it became an issue of love and betrayal.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, most couples who are trying to reconcile from any type of inappropriate behavior - be it texting/sexting/flirting or a full-fledged physical affair - are going to want their wandering spouse REMOVED from the company of that person.

 

You read it all the time on the infidelity boards - wives or husbands insisting their spouses transfer to another part of the company and/or making them find completely NEW jobs in order to stay out of the company of their affair partner.

 

That's pretty standard stuff.

 

The only difference here is that the husband happens to own this practice (or have ownership in it) and can't just leave or ask for a transfer. So she had to go.

 

Sorry, but the other poster is right. If you live in an 'at will' state, your company can fire you if they don't like the blue shirt you wore to work that day - and they'd be perfectly within the law to do so. In order for the terminated person to 'prove' discrimination as cause for termination, the position would have had to be re-filled with someone a lot younger (possible age discrimination lawsuit) or the fired person was a minority and the new employee was not (race discrimination lawsuit). That sort of thing.

 

Otherwise, he's perfectly within the law. And let's be realistic here - this wife is no different than any OTHER wife who wants her husband to have NO CONTACT with the object of his desire once they begin reconciliation. It's not a matter of trying to "control him" or "thinking she's going to keep him from cheating." It's just a natural step in the reconciliation process.

 

While these are pieces of discrimination these are not the only ones. And just because a company is working in an "at will" state does not mean they can fire for any reason. Below is the government's restriction on sex discrimination. And while an employer can chose to lie about the reason, thomasb, that doesn't mean it will end up being defensible. I would recommend checking the EEOC stats for "at will states". :rolleyes:

 

Sex-Based Discrimination

 

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm

 

Sex-Based Discrimination

Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person’s sex.

 

Sex discrimination also can involve treating someone less favorably because of his or her connection with an organization or group that is generally associated with people of a certain sex.

 

Sex Discrimination & Work Situations

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

 

Sex Discrimination Harassment

It is unlawful to harass a person because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

 

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

 

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

 

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

 

Sex Discrimination & Employment Policies/Practices

An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of sex, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a certain sex and is not job-related or necessary to the operation of the business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it seems mutual, with texts, they both participated in, that are described as mostly innocuous and involving personal matters, and allegations of flirting in both directions, I'm not sure harassment would work. If the allegations are accurate, it sounds like it was already in the emotional affair regime, by mutual consent. On the other hand, if the allegations are not accurate, then she should have sued for harassment from the start.

 

The sex discrimination doesn't seem appropriate since it was because of their specific interactions in the last year or two of a 10 year employment record that she was fired. That doesn't sound like sex discrimination as the judge argued.

 

I think the title and pitch of the news articles are set so as to sensationalize this case. The reality is more murky, if the allegations of her own behavior are true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to point out that again, we live in an imperfect world. Ever notice those who demand fairness are usually the last ones to give it? Funny. Not.

 

Let's talk about the tens-of-thousands of people who leverage their looks to gain employment every year. Yeah, men and women, but women more so. That's because men are more gullible and easily swayed by such things.

 

As for working 'rights', any job, or any employee that I couldn't dismiss at any given time (for any reason) isn't something I'd want to be involved in. Ethical people seldom find themselves in that position, but it happens. Either way, you can trace these 'working rights' as part of the reason why the USA is getting it's head handed to it by other industrialized nations...not counting those without child labor standards. When the desire for security is stronger than the desire for advancement, you have issues.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing took 2.5yrs to get to this stage, let's think for a little here.

She's a nurse or something, those don't make outrageous cash, and i doubt she is married or if she is, that her husband supported her in her EA looking endeavour.

Going by my personal LS experience, the whole thing resembles a 'woman scorned' scenario, a bunny boiler.

Simplest explanation is that she was upset at him choosing her [and i suspect it went all the way to PA or talk of D], and she wanted either to make his life miserable or to shame him into cutting a deal.

Then the lawyer, female ... risking that all those yrs wasted on the case would be all for naught. Either motivated feminazi, or interested in making a name for herself and maybe some money ... maybe a combination of the both [ambulance chaser anyone].

There might even be a small possibility that the lawyer in the quest for recognition [trial at the Supreme Court], might have lied to the client about the chances of the trial itself.

 

---

 

Let's try this a little different now.

Pretend you are the hubby, it's your business, and your wife wants for R that you get rid of her.

What would mean if the law prevented you from firing her 'at will' ?

Well, you employ many ppl, and each one of them has a potential family that depends on the paycheck you provide them with.

So for the 'fairness' of a bunny boiler [and your own stupidity as a man], you have a lot of ppl who have to suffer as you are left with just 2 choices :

- wind down the practice, hire new ppl later on at a new location under a new firm

- keep the woman on, and potentially lose your marriage

 

Steadf, you are damned right. :)

 

This stinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly a sexist and unfair case (plus all 7 judges were male curiously).

It doesn't matter if she was participating or not (in all articles I've read this is being denied), the fact is that she was discriminated because of her sex.

Substitute attractive female with attractive male or attractive car, vacuum cleaner etc and it's obvious it's a case of gender discrimination. The dismissal would not have happened if his male assistant was attractive.

As if it was her fault for being attractive and the man had no self control. That's insulting to both men and women. Maybe in Iowa women should start wearing Burkas because men can't help it? That's indeed the closest example I've seen people associate this to. I hope this case goes to Supreme Court.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
They were having an emotional affair and she was let go because the wife found out.

 

No discrimination.

Case closed.

No, even if they WERE having an emotional affair (which we know NOTHING about, in fact it's being denied) it was still sexist discrimination.

 

Just forget who was at fault here (husband, pushy wife, assistant)...

 

This case is dangerous as it has set a precedent: An employer can now fire an employee simply for the reason (excuse) of the employee being attractive for goodness sake! This is utter madness!

Edited by silvermercy
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't a matter of "simply" being attractive. They were clearly engaged in an emotional affair.

I will repeat myself again:

 

First, we DON'T KNOW THEY WERE HAVING AN EMOTIONAL AFFAIR!

I text my boss all the time for various reasons, non-affair related obviously as we're not involved like that in any way.

 

Second, who cares if they were? The courts will not care if someone fires someone by citing emotional affair or attractive employee in the same sentence. This will be the EXCUSE from now on, regardless if it happened or not. An unfair dismissal will be protected by LAW if this case decision is not overturned. This is a very dangerous precedent.

Edited by silvermercy
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't text my boss. We don't text each other about the kids, the weather, etc.

If I did, my husband's eyebrow would raise for sure.

 

If my bosses wife got wind of that?

I would be fired the next day.

 

If this is suddenly used as an excuse, then the fired employee can take it to court and try to prove otherwise just like this lady did.

 

Read my edited post above. I text my boss all the time just like we all do at work and I won't have anyone accuse me as being inappropriate.

 

I guess I should expect such responses in an INFIDELITY forum... My fault.

 

I think people here immediately see "affair" and don't see how dangerous this case may be for women and employees in general.

Edited by silvermercy
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Read my edited post above. I text my boss all the time just like we all do at work and I won't have anyone accuse me as being inappropriate.

 

I guess I should expect such responses in an INFIDELITY forum... My fault.

 

I think people here immediately see "affair" and don't see how dangerous this case may be for women and employees in general.

 

I don't think it is that dangerous. Afterall, this woman worked for 8 years or so with no problem. Then they started some personal texting and other behavior is alleged. She was the same sex for those 8 years and she was replaced by someone of the same sex, so I don't see how sex discrimination applies.

 

It is whatever behavior was displayed in the last year or two that changed things. If the behavior was all one-sided, then she should have claimed sexual harassment. There is no such claim of one-sided and unwanted attention.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? ALL the time?

 

Is your boss married?

Are you?

 

What do you text with your boss about?

Its nobody's business, but I'm not married, he is. ALL OF US AT OUR JOB DO THE SAME THING. It's not a secret. No matter how much you try to make it sound inappropriate, it's not. Sorry to disappoint.

I will try not not answer any further as you seem to have totally missed the point of this case and my posts. Not my fault.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
The "affair" is the ENTIRE case and the reason why it will never be overturned.

 

Omg! I think I'm gonna go crazy with you. That's not the point of the case! Read other articles and comments on the web!

 

I'm... just... no. Sorry.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it is that dangerous. Afterall, this woman worked for 8 years or so with no problem. Then they started some personal texting and other behavior is alleged. She was the same sex for those 8 years and she was replaced by someone of the same sex, so I don't see how sex discrimination applies.

 

It is whatever behavior was displayed in the last year or two that changed things. If the behavior was all one-sided, then she should have claimed sexual harassment. There is no such claim of one-sided and unwanted attention.

 

It's still a dangerous precedent no matter what angle people see it. For more details and information why (with legal terms etc) I will direct you to other newspapers and comments on the web and google. I wish I had more time to post all the full analyses made already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its nobody's business, but I'm not married, he is. ALL OF US AT OUR JOB DO THE SAME THING. It's not a secret. No matter how much you try to make it sound inappropriate, it's not. Sorry to disappoint.

I will try not not answer any further as you seem to have totally missed the point of this case and my posts. Not my fault.

 

Maybe you are identifying your own case too much with this case. Most people don't talk to their boss about how much sex they are having with their spouse, as this woman allegedly did. In any case, we don't have all the details. Just don't see how she expected to win a sex discrimination suit when she worked as a woman fine for 8 or more years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...