Can you believe this?

Can you believe this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 2:18:27 PM)
quote: Iowa Supreme Court: OK to fire 'irresistible' worker (CNN) -- Can a boss fire an employee he finds attractive because he and his wife, fairly or not, see her as a threat to their marriage? Yes, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday. "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. An attorney for Melissa Nelson, the fired employee, said the decision was wrong. source Now I have heard everything.

kdsub -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 2:25:16 PM)
At least he gave a reason... here in the Rebublican dominated Sate of Missouri no reason what so ever is necessary for firing employees. Butch

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 2:29:29 PM)
I'm not at all surprised this happened in the country of no job security.

TheHeretic -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 2:39:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now I have heard everything. I don't see what the big deal is. Why is a state supreme court involved to begin with? Obviously she sued, but it should have been thrown out by the first judge it went in front of. He gave her a month of severance, I assume he would have given her an excellent reference to other potential employers. It's his dental office. Let's repeat that a few times. It's his dental office. It's his dental office. It's his dental office. Do I need to do that again for the part where she is his employee? Let's see who is eager to hire the sue-happy dental assistant now.

tj444 -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 2:44:49 PM)
meh.. if your employer tells you your clothes are too tight then wear looser clothes, if your employee wears tight clothing then require employees to wear baggy ugly uniforms.. if your boss/employee starts texting you,.. tell him/her to stop.. especially since you are both doing that not only under the wifeys nose but rubbing her face in it to boot.. If things cant be professional and a solution found, then its always gonna be the lesser needed person that gets canned.. Seriously, how could there be any other outcome?

tazzygirl -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 2:57:53 PM)
http://iowaappeals.com/unfair-termination-does-not-violate-iowa-civil-rights-act/ Today, the Iowa Supreme Court reaffirmed that an unfair termination decision does not violate the Iowa Civil Rights Act so long as the employer does not discriminate “based upon the employee’s protected status.” Nelson v. James H. Knight DDS, P.C. This case came to the Court upon Plaintiff’s appeal of the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the employer. http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20121221/11-1857.pdf IV. Conclusion. As we have indicated above, 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. Interesting reading. I agree with the Court, I see no discrimination based upon protected status.

JeffBC -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 3:15:19 PM)
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.

meatcleaver -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 3:23:44 PM)
Bizarre

tj444 -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 3:29:10 PM)
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? [&:]

Kana -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 3:40:38 PM)
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.

tazzygirl -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 3:45:15 PM)
We had another "too beautiful" case http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/03/too-sexy-for-the-bank-woman-files-lawsuit-claiming-citibank-fired-her-for-being-beautiful/ These chicks need to get over themselves.

tj444 -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 3:51:02 PM)
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!...

TheLilSquaw -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 3:54:47 PM)
In most states employers don't need to state a reason as to why they are firing you. I don't see this as a violation of a law, perhaps poor business practice but nothing more.

MAINEiacMISTRESS -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 3:55:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now I have heard everything. I don't see what the big deal is. Why is a state supreme court involved to begin with? Obviously she sued, but it should have been thrown out by the first judge it went in front of. He gave her a month of severance, I assume he would have given her an excellent reference to other potential employers. It's his dental office. Let's repeat that a few times. It's his dental office. It's his dental office. It's his dental office. Do I need to do that again for the part where she is his employee? Let's see who is eager to hire the sue-happy dental assistant now. HAHAHAHA, OMG, that reminds Me...all throughout My childhood I went to this one dentist who had his office on one side of his home where he lived with his wife and two boys My age. My dentist had a VERRRY pretty assistant, cute, tinkerbell figure, well-tanned, perfect teeth, gorgeous hair, always smiling, everyone liked her. She ended up not only with the dentist, but thereafter always had nice cars and full-length mink coats! Yeah....goddamn RIGHT she was a threat.

JeffBC -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 3:56:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 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? [&:] I stand corrected. I didn't read the links and I was responding under the assumption that she'd done nothing other than "be pretty". But yeah, if she was flirting with him that changes everything in my mind.

Kana -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 5:06:05 PM)
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

Politesub53 -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 5:12:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now I have heard everything. I don't see what the big deal is. Why is a state supreme court involved to begin with? Obviously she sued, but it should have been thrown out by the first judge it went in front of. He gave her a month of severance, I assume he would have given her an excellent reference to other potential employers. It's his dental office. Let's repeat that a few times. It's his dental office. It's his dental office. It's his dental office. Do I need to do that again for the part where she is his employee? Let's see who is eager to hire the sue-happy dental assistant now. Yet again we differ. I cant see any legal reason why a firm can fire someone for this reason. If they are lazy, rude, poor timekeepers, or a myriad of other reasons, then fine. People in employment should have basic protections in law. Incidentally, this is the original reason unions were set up until the crooks and agitators got involved.

Politesub53 -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 5:15:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now I have heard everything. I don't see what the big deal is. Why is a state supreme court involved to begin with? Obviously she sued, but it should have been thrown out by the first judge it went in front of. He gave her a month of severance, I assume he would have given her an excellent reference to other potential employers. It's his dental office. Let's repeat that a few times. It's his dental office. It's his dental office. It's his dental office. Do I need to do that again for the part where she is his employee? Let's see who is eager to hire the sue-happy dental assistant now. Yet again we differ. I cant see any legal reason why a firm can fire someone for this reason. If they are lazy, rude, poor timekeepers, or a myriad of other reasons, then fine. People in employment should have basic protections in law. Incidentally, this is the original reason unions were set up until the crooks and agitators got involved. Opps just read all of the link....... more here than meets the eye.

jlf1961 -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 5:30:13 PM)
FYI, I was referring to the lawsuit, not the reason fired.

TheHeretic -> RE: Can you believe this? (12/22/2012 6:16:00 PM)
Saw the next post. NM

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875