quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana
1-Maybe he should have exercised better judgement and not hired her in the first place
2-Most states are hire at will/fire at will. He really didn't need to justify why.
3-If I lived there,I wouldn't go to his office. I'm all for hottie hygenists.

well,.. she worked there for 10 years.. obviously the first 8 or 9 years it wasnt a serious problem.. only when things started getting..umm.. hot..

She was just as much at fault, if you value your job, a reasonable person would not dress in a way your employer would prefer you not dress and ffs, dont start texting with the guy!...

What she shoulda done is called a lawyer and filed a sexual harassment cause when he told her the lump in his pants was caused by her attire and bod.
That sounds pretty open and shut to moi

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
"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," Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote for the all-male high court.

Such firings may not be fair, but they do not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the decision read, siding with a lower court.

quote:

ORIGINAL: metamorfosis

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
"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," Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote for the all-male high court.

Such firings may not be fair, but they do not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the decision read, siding with a lower court.

Most job's I've had are employment at will. Meaning, you can get fired for any reason, except those specifically protected by law.

Pam

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
"the employee as an irresistible attraction"

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I agree with the Court, I see no discrimination based upon protected status.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I agree with the Court, I see no discrimination based upon protected status.

That's the story in a nut shell: discrimination is legal in this country, as long as you don't discriminate against certain specific classes of individuals for certain specific reasons. If this was a truly decent society, discrimination for 'causes which are no culpable fault of the discriminated' would be flat-out illegal. Period.
[sm=doh.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I agree with the Court, I see no discrimination based upon protected status.

That's how I read it also. My other thoughts were:

A) Wow... this guy has branded himself as having incredibly poor self control and being unable to view women as humans. I can't believe he chose to do that over any of his other possible recourse but hey, it's his life. I'm just so glad I'm not him. It's hard to imagine how any woman in his life could respect him... or any male.

B) I'm not very comfortable with the idea of "too beautiful to work here" so I'd want to give that some thought if I were suddenly elected emperor.

he really didnt have much choice.. it had gone too far.. the wifey found out about the texting & the wifey also works with her hubby, and him & his wife went to their pastor for advice, the pastor told him to can her.. so thats what he did.. I am sure in part to keep peace at home, not just cuz he has poor self control..

And for the employee, if you play with fire.. which she willingly did & that was her choice.. she got burned.. What I wonder is, what did the employee's hubby think about it all? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I got the impression she wasnt willing either. She just didnt make a big deal out of it. But from what I read, when he got a bit too personal with questions, she simply didnt answer.