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

[JamesM]

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.

 

 

And that is why this assistant after almost ten years was finally fired. Perhaps the husband was told her or me, so he chose. It seems that the dentist became infatuated and decided to pursue her. Whether the assistant reciprocated the feelings..we don't really know.

 

I would think that after this long, the wife may have become friends with the assistant, too.

 

And then the question becomes...will he need to fire every woman he find sexy? Can he control himself? So only ugly women need apply?

[woinlove]

And that is why this assistant after almost ten years was finally fired. Perhaps the husband was told her or me, so he chose. It seems that the dentist became infatuated and decided to pursue her. Whether the assistant reciprocated the feelings..we don't really know.

 

I would think that after this long, the wife may have become friends with the assistant, too.

 

And then the question becomes...will he need to fire every woman he find sexy? Can he control himself? So only ugly women need apply?

 

That depends on what he has learned. If he learned not to text about personal and sexual matters with an employee and to keep the relationship work related, as these two apparently did for 8 or more years, then he may be fine. If he didn't learn that, then this type of scenario may be repeated.

 

It often doesn't even matter so much what the other person looks like, if one is getting his or her ego stroked.

[JamesM]

 

It often doesn't even matter so much what the other person looks like, if one is getting his or her ego stroked.

 

Truth.

 

I wonder how much publicity this case would have gotten if the assistant was not a beautiful blonde? Perhaps a frumpy overweight girl woman with glasses who was fired because the dentist was afraid of her sexiness? Maybe he found her attractive but the general public did not...would a lawyer have taken up her case?

[Spark1111]

Truth.

 

I wonder how much publicity this case would have gotten if the assistant was not a beautiful blonde? Perhaps a frumpy overweight girl woman with glasses who was fired because the dentist was afraid of her sexiness? Maybe he found her attractive but the general public did not...would a lawyer have taken up her case?

 

She never complained! She never filed harrassment with the EEOC. She never said stop it, or you are inappropriate or ANYTHING about his comments.

 

She could have won on sexual harrassment, but since there were no complaints to anyone about his behavior, she seemingly did not feel harrassed!

 

She sued for gender discrimination, claiming had she been a man, she would not have been fired. Her claims were weak, and she lost, as he only hires women assistants.

 

Was it fair? No. But in right to work states, yes, you can be fired if your consensual relationship (remember, she never complained?) interferes with a principal's marriage, even as a perceived threat.

 

It's not gender based. Gender based is we only hire men (and a woman has the highest test scores) or, we ONLY hire women, and a man is the most qualified candidate.

[SidLyon]

"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)."

 

Well it looks like the court disagreed.

 

I think the word "gender" is meant here, as the motivating factor, not the prospect or otherwise of getting to have the act of sex with the person. Perhaps a US lawyer can clarify?

[Spark1111]

"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)."

 

 

 

I think the word "gender" is meant here, as the motivating factor, not the prospect or otherwise of getting to have the act of sex with the person. Perhaps a US lawyer can clarify?

 

That's correct! Gender is what is meant, not sex as in sex act. had she complained to anyone regarding sexual harassment, she would have had a better case because he WAS inappropriate. orgasms? OMG!

 

But she did not object to him or anyone else. The court had to conclude....if it wasn't mutual, well, she didn't mind it at all. Sexual harassment could not be proven.

[woinlove]

Something seems off with the dental assistant, Nelson. In her latest interview she says the firing came completely out of the blue and that nothing had changed in her relationship with the dentist, which she said was similar to the relationship she had with his family. This seems to be in contradiction to the court records, including statements which were undisputed in those records.

 

I think as one lawyer said, we don't know the whole story, and if we did, our reaction might be different. The media is going with a story line that sells papers, but it doesn't mean that story line is valid.

Edited December 27, 2012 by woinlove

[Lostinlife4now]

The whole case and lawsuit is a waste of TIME and MONEY!

 

Pulease....

 

There are MORE important issues in this country right now, rather than a Man who can't control himself.

[road]

"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)."

 

 

 

I think the word "gender" is meant here, as the motivating factor, not the prospect or otherwise of getting to have the act of sex with the person. Perhaps a US lawyer can clarify?

 

 

I am not a lawyer. Though I grew up as these laws were put into place. The intent of the laws was to protect women from fearing that they would lose their job if they did not have sex with a boss.

 

That refusing to have sex the women could get fired, demoted, no raise, no promotion. These laws were to stop this abuse.

 

As time moved on these laws were then interpreted to cover men that had a female boss that wanted to play the F me or I will fire you game. Reverse discrimination.

 

In this case there was no F me or I will fire you.

 

This boss had the right to fire her. If I remember this was in a right work state meaning that anyone can be terminated without reason.

 

This boss sat the woman down, and the husband, gave one month severance pay, told them the truth. Big mistake. Just should of terminated her at the end of the pay period.

 

For doing the right thing his employee sues him in court. This makes me think she was flirting back to entrap the boss in a sexual harassment suit. The boss ruined those plans by stopping in time and discharging her.