Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Dental Assistant Fired for being "Irresistible"


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
45 replies to this topic

#37 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,321
  • Reputation: 5,871
HUDDLER

Posted 26 December 2012 - 09:08 PM

I think the Supreme court in that state ruled that it was ok she be fired already.


If so, I am amazed.



#38 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,846
  • Reputation: 1,430
HUDDLER

Posted 26 December 2012 - 10:34 PM

Numerous pics of the victim were all over the web and on television. I was far from the first to show her picture..


this is entirely irrelevant

Personally, I thought it was ridiculous about what happened to that woman. It speaks volumes on the attitude of her ex boss as well as his wife and his pastor. (yes, the wife demanded that the woman be fired, per the article)


whining about the ex wife and calling her ugly is a pretty interesting way to look at blatant misogyny

You do seem to enjoy hearing yourself talk quite a bit. And you called me bad names. I hope you feel better


sorry for calling a dumb motherfuger "a dumb motherfuger", i'll try to be nicer to victim blaming dipshits next time

#39 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,846
  • Reputation: 1,430
HUDDLER

Posted 26 December 2012 - 10:36 PM

If so, I am amazed.


you're amazed by at-will employment?

she was replaced with another woman, negating a gender discrimination claim. under the eyes of the law, he was free to terminate. this is republican utopia.

#40 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,152
  • Reputation: 2,341
HUDDLER

Posted 27 December 2012 - 12:50 AM

If so, I am amazed.


An Iowa dentist was within his legal rights when he fired a longtime employee he found to be “irresistible” and a threat to his marriage, the State Supreme Court unanimously ruled.
The seven justices, all male, affirmed on Friday a lower court’s decision in favor of Dr. James Knight, who terminated Melissa Nelson after employing her for 10 and a half years as a dental assistant.
“We do think the Iowa Supreme Court got it completely right,” said Stuart Cochrane, an attorney for James Knight. “Our position has always been Mrs. Nelson was never terminated because of her gender, she was terminated because of concerns her behavior was not appropriate in the workplace. She’s an attractive lady. Dr. Knight found her behavior and dress to be inappropriate.”


http://abcnews.go.co...s-can-be-fired/

Be amazed...

#41 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 23,787
  • Reputation: 20,005
SUPPORTER

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:02 AM

wow.

#42 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,321
  • Reputation: 5,871
HUDDLER

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:04 AM

you're amazed by at-will employment?

she was replaced with another woman, negating a gender discrimination claim. under the eyes of the law, he was free to terminate. this is republican utopia.


I am amazed that his reason for firing her was directly tied to her gender. It was not performance based, but was die to her being an attractive woman.

Blatant discrimination in my book....even though he replaced with another woman.

Given how liberal our courts views are in discrimination claims, I am surprised that there was no compensation.

#43 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,321
  • Reputation: 5,871
HUDDLER

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:06 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/state-supreme-court-rules-irresistible-employees-can-be-fired/

Be amazed...


I was unaware that the claims were based on behavior and questionable dress. I thought it was solely based on her being attractive.



#44 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,152
  • Reputation: 2,341
HUDDLER

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:19 AM

I was unaware that the claims were based on behavior and questionable dress. I thought it was solely based on her being attractive.


The behaviors described are her being too attracted and wearing tight clothing and not loudly objecting to texts/etc she got from her boss (just not responding). There is no claim by anyone involved that she was asked to wear different clothing.

The only description we have of her "questionable" behaviors are as follows:

The two never had a sexual relationship or sought one, according to court documents, however in the final year and a half of Nelson’s employment, Knight began to make comments about her clothing being too tight or distracting.
“Dr. Knight acknowledges he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing,” the justices wrote.

Six months before Nelson was fired, she and her boss began exchanging text messages about work and personal matters, such as updates about each of their children’s activities, the justices wrote.

The messages were mostly mundane, but Nelson recalled one text she received from her boss asking “how often she experienced an orgasm.”

Nelson did not respond to the text and never indicated that she was uncomfortable with Knight’s question, according to court documents.


I do not know what she did wrong here. If the dentist really wanted her to wear something different I think it could have been phrased differently.

She was fired because the pastor and wife told the dentist to do it so he didn't cheat... as if she would have cheated on her husband? Nice assumptions...

#45 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 34,975
  • Reputation: 9,076
HUDDLER

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:31 AM

Clearly the dentist was in the wrong. If he knew he was attracted to her, he should have made every effort to not work directly with her. This wasn't her problem, it was his. If he found that he just couldn't control himself... which is highly unlikely, he should have discussed it with her, with his wife present (not sure what the pastor had to do with it) and at worst, asked her to resign and given her way more than one months severance and helped her find another job with another dentist.

There was no reason to fire her unless she was intentionally coming on to him and he had asked her at least twice to stop, which doesn't appear to be the case.

#46 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,128
  • Reputation: 1,528
HUDDLER

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:39 PM

Clearly the dentist was in the wrong. If he knew he was attracted to her, he should have made every effort to not work directly with her. This wasn't her problem, it was his. If he found that he just couldn't control himself... which is highly unlikely, he should have discussed it with her, with his wife present (not sure what the pastor had to do with it) and at worst, asked her to resign and given her way more than one months severance and helped her find another job with another dentist.

There was no reason to fire her unless she was intentionally coming on to him and he had asked her at least twice to stop, which doesn't appear to be the case.



On the surface, it would definitely appear that he is wrong. But we only know what was reported, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time the media left out pertinent information, if indeed they did. It could also be true that the Iowa legislature needs to make a few changes to the law.

Sounds to me like she might have a good case for a sexual harrassment lawsuit, but that depends on what the law in that state says.