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

[silvermercy]

It's not just sex discrimination. It's not about affairs... The woman simply had crap legal representation. She shouldn't have gone down that route she was advised to go as she wouldn't win. It's just that the legal ramifications of this outcome are dangerous.

 

Not gonna argue any further here as people have missed the point.

As I said my fault for coming to discuss this in an infidelity forum.

Edited December 23, 2012 by silvermercy

[waterwoman]

DOn't know about the legal position although I can't see what grounds she was dismissed on, but morally speaking that STINKS!

 

You can be sacked at my work for 'gross indecency' which basically means having sex or exposing yourself on the premises - having an EA is neither of those things. I think he w needs to tackle her H not the OW.

[silvermercy]

I've also read the comments of reputable legal representatives for this. I trust THEIR comments.

[Woggle]

If a man insists he just can't handle himself around attractive women then he really is everything misandrists claim men to be. These days we are all going to have to work around attractive people of the opposite sex and if we just can't help cheating around them then maybe we shouldn't be married in the first place. This decision was completely ridiculous.

[woinlove]

Nelson's lawyer said they didn't go the sexual harassment route because Knight's behavior didn't offend Nelson. So, apparently she wasn't offended by her boss's questions about her orgasms or his talk about a bulge in his pants. Meanwhile, Knight's lawyer said if all the facts of the case were known, the court's decision would seem more fair.

 

Who knows what the actual details are, but the specific angle Nelson pursued, sex discrimination, doesn't seem to fit as the courts found. The "irresistible" and "too attractive" are likely just headline sensationalism, rather than an accurate portrayal of the case.

[SidLyon]

I read the case itself, not just the media portrayal. It looks like a sound decision to me, based on the law that applies.

 

Harassment couldn't be claimed because the behaviour was consensual and neither of the parties felt upset or harassed by the behaviour, thus no harassment.

 

Obviously discrimination on the basis of gender (sex) was not allowable in that particular jurisdiction but the law had nothing to say about discrimination on the basis of "attractiveness", or "threat to someone's marriage". Therefore in order to succeed the claimant had to prove discrimination on the basis of gender. [Edited to add, she attempted to do this by the use of the "but for" test, but her argument failed]

 

The defence was that she was sacked for being a threat to the marriage, not for being female. She was unsuccessful in proving she was discriminated against just for being female and obviously the judges accepted that other factors were at play. As the law didn't provide a remedy for being discriminated against on the basis of attractiveness or being a threat to someone's marriage, her case failed.

 

Legally the decision was correct.

 

Morally is another matter. If the people of that State/jurisdiction (or any other state or jurisdiction for that matter) want to extend the grounds for claiming discrimination to "attractiveness" or "threat to a marriage" then they need to lobby their local lawmakers (parliamentarians) to change the law. Bear in mind many people would claim they were discriminated against for being unattractive though, so the courts might be snowed under with unattractive people claiming they weren't promoted or didn't get a job because the successful applicants were more attractive.

 

PS I'm a lawyer.

Edited December 23, 2012 by SidLyon

[Radu]

It's not just sex discrimination. It's not about affairs... The woman simply had crap legal representation. She shouldn't have gone down that route she was advised to go as she wouldn't win. It's just that the legal ramifications of this outcome are dangerous.

 

Not gonna argue any further here as people have missed the point.

As I said my fault for coming to discuss this in an infidelity forum.

 

Tbh, it sounds like she had good legal representation judging by the media comments given by her lawyer.

 

If you want to pin guilt on something may i suggest :

- common sense

- men in the Supreme Court who are married and have the above mentioned common sense

- paper-thin case

 

Also, love the burqa comment; it obviously shows a great parallel between central USA and islamic nations.

[SidLyon]

Since her lawyer was successful in getting the case up as high as the Iowa Supreme Court I'm sure her lawyer did a very good job.

 

I agree. The "but for" argument can be very powerful (and simple), but it failed in this instance.

[road]

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.

 

 

I found an article where the OW said I'll know when my shirts are to tight when I see a bulge in your pants.

 

Another examle cited the WH said to the OW did you orgasm the last time you had sex.

 

This was an EA.

 

The BW said get rid of the OW.

 

The OWH said it was wrong to fire his wife. The OM expalined to the OWH that the temptation for me is too great and I'm afraid it would lead to a PA.

 

This remark did not sway the soundness of the OM and OW going NC to the OWH.

 

Google is a wonderful thing.

[SidLyon]

I found an article ...

 

Google is a wonderful thing.

 

Some of the articles have got the "facts" wrong.

 

The official decision is at:

 

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/12/21/11-1857.pdf

 

The facts as stated in this decision, have either been proved to the satisfaction of the court or have been agreed to by the parties. These will therefore be closest to the true facts, and where there is some doubt they have expressed them in the most favourable way to the employee.

Edited December 24, 2012 by SidLyon

[silvermercy]

No, you read the headlines and misleading, condensed articles and blogs, which don't include all the facts of the case. If they included all the facts of the case, then it wouldn't get a read, let alone go national/international.

 

The facts of the case are clear. The nature of their relationship was the issue, which was inappropriate. It was an emotional affair.

 

So contrary to the headlines and misleading, condensed articles and comments on the internet, the doctor and the assistant's relationship wasn't GOING TO BE inappropriate (it ALREADY was) and she did not get fired merely because he found her attractive.

Just read the legal documents. I still see it quite differently. But as I said not my problem. Just NOT on this side of the Pond please!

Edited December 24, 2012 by silvermercy

[SidLyon]

Never thought I would say that here but you MUST be Americans to be ok with this decision. All European-based articles and lawyer comments I've read hold a different view.

 

 

No I'm not American and I don't live there. I'm merely suggesting that the decision was legally sound on the basis of the law that applies there.

 

If the people to whom those laws apply, don't like it then they need to take whatever action is necessary to change the law. People to whom the law doesn't apply (such as you and I) don't get much of a say in US laws.

Edited December 25, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Taramere]

No I'm not American and I don't live there. I'm merely suggesting that the decision was legally sound on the basis of the law that applies there.

 

If the people to whom those laws apply, don't like it then they need to take whatever action is necessary to change the law. People to whom the law doesn't apply (such as you and I) don't get much of a say in US laws.

 

I was just looking at this in the other thread. I felt much the same, that there seemed to be no real case for sex discrimination, until I saw this part.

 

Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties

 

If a religion demands a standard of behaviour from women that isn't demanded of men (eg modest dress, covering themselves up or removing themselves from sight in order to avoid distracting men -which is certainly not a more uncommon view amongst more fundamentalist, or very, religious individuals) then that's sex discrimination.

 

If somebody who is "very religious" takes that kind of thinking into the workplace to the point where he regards removing the woman from his sight as the best solution for everybody, that sounds like sex discrimination.

[Eternal Sunshine]

This is insane! Is this MM going to murder any attractive woman that crosses his path? And then argue that he was saving his marriage?

 

I though that men have evolved from animals. Apparently I was wrong

[Taramere]

Another thing is that a case like this probably encourages sexual harassment complaints, since the fact that she didn't complain about his texts went against her.

 

I can think of a lot of situations where male colleagues have said things to me that were very inappropriate and would have sounded appalling in the context of an employment tribunal. However, most people want to try to preserve relationships in the workplace where possible, and often that calls for a diplomatic response to some pretty undiplomatic behaviour. Providing gentle reminders of when they're going over the score, as opposed to raising grievances all over the place. So much for thinking that's the right, proportional and sensible approach, eh?

 

Looking at the official case report, it seems as though this guy brought quite a bit in the way of his own emotional needs into the workplace. He sounds personally intrusive, and she sounds like somebody who was trying to handle that by sharing some personal info with him, but ignoring the more explicitly worded intrusions (eg his text asking her how often she had an orgasm).

 

Frankly if I had a boss who started asking me questions like that, I wouldn't ignore it. I'd tell him to knock it off, but it sounds as if she adopted a more passive approach, she saw him as a father figure and she was trying to preserve a good working relationship with him. In a setting like that, where they're working in close proximity all day, that's going to involve some level of banter and informality. Definitely not on the level where he's asking her how often she orgasms, though. If he isn't capable of having an informally toned professional relationship with a normally attractive woman without sexualising it in that way, then he's not cut out for a professional rule that involves him having close physical contact with patients.

 

Women see case decisions like that and it impacts upon the way they deal with sexualised comments in the workplace. It makes them more likely to raise a complaint early on than to try to deal with it tactfully by combining gentle boundaries with good humour. I see the dentist brought his church pastor in to help him fire the woman. He sounds like a real paragon of religious hypocrisy if ever there was one.

 

I wonder how his new assistant (presuming he found one) feels about being sufficiently unattractive to be allowed to work there. Or how his female patients and their husbands/families feel about the bulging trousers comment.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Taramere

[road]

Some people choose/want to see this case as sexual haressment or discrimination.

 

Get glasses or some eye wash.

 

This is a story with 4 main charcters. BW, WH, OW, OWH.

 

For those that are fogged up I will be your light house/fog horn an guide you to what kind a story this is.

 

There communication was no longer business appropriate.

 

The BW saw this and put her foot down because she saw this relationship had changed from a work relationship to a EMOTIONAL AFFAIR.

 

And if this is one's first time on an infidelity site, never been involved as a BS or WS. Those are the one's that would mistakenly call this a sexual haressment or discrimination.

 

Those that are knowledgeable about EA's and PA's will see right through the fog claim of sexual haressment or discrimination.

 

This was an EA between the Dent./WH and Dental Assist./OW.

 

The only course of action was for NC between the affair partners.

 

The BW was smart enough to see this.

 

The OWH, whatever his reasons was not swayed by the Dentist saying that eventually he saw this EA becoming a PA. This OWH wanted his WW to still work with her EA partner.

 

Look up certifiable and BH in the dictionary and you will see this man's photo.

[Taramere]

Some people choose/want to see this case as sexual haressment or discrimination.

 

Get glasses or some eye wash.

 

This is a story with 4 main charcters. BW, WH, OW, OWH.

 

For those that are fogged up I will be your light house/fog horn an guide you to what kind a story this is.

 

There communication was no longer business appropriate.

 

Note that the sexualised texts were coming from him. She ignored questions such as "how often do you orgasm?" That doesn't sound, to me, like a woman who's encouraging sexual advances - and even the court seems to concede that she wasn't encouraging him.

 

This came to a head because his wife found out about the texts. Not because he suddenly had a fit of conscience and sat down to tell her that he had a crush on his assistant. She decided that the way to deal with her husband's roving eye/infatuation was to demand that his assistant be sacked.

 

If she has similar worries about his attractive female patients, she can probably rest assured now that her husband will now find himself fired by a whole lot of patients who'd rather have their cavities inspected by somebody with a tad more self control. Karma has a way of sorting these situations out, in the absence of the law encouraging people to behave fairly and decently.

[dreamingoftigers]

patients who'd rather have their cavities inspected by somebody with a tad more self control.

 

That's perfect

[Taramere]

patients who'd rather have their cavities inspected by somebody with a tad more self control.

 

That's perfect

 

Looking at it again, I see she was a hygienist not his nurse/assistant. So it's not even as though the two of them had to work in close proximity, in the way that a dentist does with his assistant, all day every day.

 

My father worked as a dentist before he retired, and while he had an assistant she certainly didn't double as a hygienist. Dental nurses (here at least) don't need to be qualified. I used to sometimes cover for his assistant when I was in my mid teens. It wasn't tremendously difficult. A hygienist would need a lot more training. The hygienist I see has her own surgery and also her own nurse.

[Taramere]

Fortunately for the assistant's marriage, there was no transcript of every text they exchanged. You could have:

 

DENTIST: That shirt you wore today was tight.

ASSISTANT: That's not fair.

 

OR

 

DENTIST: That shirt you wore today was tight.

ASSISTANT: That's not fair! ;D

 

aaaah, the "innocent" beginnings of . . . an affair.

 

Bit speculative, isn't it? Do you know these people?

[Taramere]

I don't need to know them. It's a matter of public record (and I don't mean a CNN article ).

 

He texted her shirt was too tight.

She responded that it wasn't fair.

 

There's no mention of her following up the comment with a flirtatious emoticon. That was your addition. Anyway, I note this is in the infidelity section. I'm interested in this case from the legal perspective and not from that whole BW v OW perspective. God forbid I get caught up in that dynamic at any time of the year but especially not at Christmas.

[OpenBook]

Quoted directly from the official ruling (pg. 4-5) (bold emphasis mine):

 

"Nelson’s husband Steve phoned Dr. Knight after getting the news of his wife’s firing. Dr. Knight initially refused to talk to Steve Nelson, but later called back and invited him to meet at the office later that same evening. Once again, the pastor was present. In the meeting, Dr. Knight told Steve Nelson that Melissa Nelson had not done anything wrong or inappropriate and that she was the best dental assistant he ever had. However, Dr. Knight said he was worried he was getting too personally attached to her. Dr. Knight told Steve Nelson that nothing was going on but that he feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her."

 

And later on down (pg. 6) it explains Iowa law regarding sex discrimination:

 

"Generally, an employer engages in unlawful sex discrimination when the employer takes adverse employment action against an employee and sex is a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. See Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 861 (Iowa 2001)."

 

Looks like a blatant violation of the law to me.

[road]

Dr. Knight told Steve Nelson that nothing was going on but that he feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her."

 

And later on down (pg. 6) it explains Iowa law regarding sex discrimination:

 

"Generally, an employer engages in unlawful sex discrimination when the employer takes adverse employment action against an employee and sex is a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. See Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 861 (Iowa 2001)."

 

Looks like a blatant violation of the law to me.

 

 

The intentent of the law was to protect from being discriminated if the employee did not put out.

 

This story was not about the employee having to put out or else.

 

This story was about a BW nipping an EA in the bud.

[Pompom]

The scum of the earth who puts a good woman out of work because he can't keep it in his pants. And does it matter if she "relented"? He initiated it. He was the one with the loyalty issues.

 

As for "If I were his wife" - I don't know. On one hand, justice is a core value of mine. On the other hand, I'm very jealous. I think I'd go with my conscience for the sake of good sleep and karma, but I would be very tempted to have my man fire her - knowing full well it isn't right.

[BUENG1]

Quoted directly from the official ruling (pg. 4-5) (bold emphasis mine):

 

"Nelson’s husband Steve phoned Dr. Knight after getting the news of his wife’s firing. Dr. Knight initially refused to talk to Steve Nelson, but later called back and invited him to meet at the office later that same evening. Once again, the pastor was present. In the meeting, Dr. Knight told Steve Nelson that Melissa Nelson had not done anything wrong or inappropriate and that she was the best dental assistant he ever had. However, Dr. Knight said he was worried he was getting too personally attached to her. Dr. Knight told Steve Nelson that nothing was going on but that he feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her."

 

And later on down (pg. 6) it explains Iowa law regarding sex discrimination:

 

"Generally, an employer engages in unlawful sex discrimination when the employer takes adverse employment action against an employee and sex is a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. See Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 861 (Iowa 2001)."

 

Looks like a blatant violation of the law to me.

 

Well it looks like the court disagreed.