Court Upholds "too attractive" firing

[Imoutgoodbye]

Wondered if anybody had seen or read about this in the last month:

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/273-40/15288-dental-nurse-sacked-for-being-irresistible

[Tantangel]

Very interesting. I'm surprised she lost, though the fact she didn't say his advances weren't wanted is probably the big thing that got her more so than everything else. The Church though should not have played a part in the decision making at all, as the guy should have known better. But to each their own.

[jibber]

Ridiculous judgment. She should appeal.

PS: I hate the other articles on that website. Yeech.

[inscribed]

So a private dental office fired someone who worked for him. Nothing to see here...

[Pali]

Heard about it. Always fun when an all-male group decides things related to women's issues.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Ridiculous judgment. She should appeal.

PS: I hate the other articles on that website. Yeech.

I didn't look at the others. I was googling it trying to find one with some of the more outlandish direct quotes from the court documents.

[Grim_Reefer]

Its his practice, he can fire whoever the hell he wants for whatever reason he wants.

[egreir]

Was the guy a doucher? Definitely.

Did he break the law? Not really.

Do I still want to break his kneecaps? Yeah.

Does this show yet another flaw in our judicial and legislative systems? I vote yes.

[inscribed]

Does this show yet another flaw in our judicial and legislative systems? I vote yes.

The legal system isn't there to punish people who are mean to you or force people to behave how you think they should behave. It's there to hand down judgments when rights are violated. No rights were violated here.

[egreir]

Her federal rights protecting her against what were (I assume) unwanted sexual advances, conduct, and questioning in the workplace were definitely violated. Being fired didn't violate them, his conduct beforehand did.

[Mali]

Actually I think she has a pretty good sexual harassment case that will move when she finds the right counsel.

[L-A]

Another case of a business owner making everyone else pay for their mistakes and/or lack judgement and self control. I'd have to hope Mali is correct - an appeal with the correct counsel will get the wheels on this.

Perhaps Ms Nelson should take out some adverts locally to publicise the ruling and make current (and future) customers of the practice aware of the behavior of the owner. I am quite certain that the 'right' counsel would also claim this somehow violates Mr Knight's rights, however, that would be a matter for the courts (and Mr Knight's chequebook's ability to retain such counsel) to decide....

L-A

[inscribed]

This link is a little less biased: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252135/Melissa-Nelson-Judges-married-dentist-fired-aide-said-irresistibly-attractive.html

He said the decision was in line with state and federal court rulings that found workers can be fired for relationships that cause jealousy and tension within a business owner's family. One such case from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a business owner's firing of a valued employee who was seen by his wife as a threat to their marriage. In that case, the fired employee had engaged in flirtatious conduct.

Mansfield said allowing Nelson's lawsuit would stretch the definition of discrimination to allow anyone fired over a relationship to file a claim arguing they would not have been fired but for their gender.

...

'I don't view this as a decision that was either pro-women or opposed to women rights at all. In my view, this was a decision that followed the appropriate case law.'

There is probably more to the story than we'll hear about, and I doubt the claim that she is a complete victim in all of this. The press surrounding the incident will no doubt cause some harm to the dentist's practice, so she may achieve some revenge out of this, but the court system isn't the place for it.

[Pali]

Ah, so absurd rulings along these lines go way back it seems. Thanks for the info.

[Enethier]

It's not really absurd. Had she been male, and the employer held leanings towards that lifestyle, then it would still have been for the same reasoning. So gender alone is not the issue at hand. It is really easy to chalk something up as sexual discrimination. However, the case brought against the court is that she was fired because she was female, not that any sexual misconduct had taken place. It is important to differentiate that.

[Pali]

I'd love to see a case where an all-heterosexual male court backs the right of a gay male employer firing a heterosexual man for being too buff.

[Enethier]

It's that kind of talk that is actually detrimental to a conversation. Here you are, accusing people of a bias for no other reason than their sexual preference. Ironic that you're using a hypothetical case of heterosexual judges presiding over a similar case and judging differently based on the sexual preference of the parties involved. It's preposterous, and bringing nothing but hate to a conversation that is worth having, even if the judges are right in the legal sense.

It is rather silly to suggest that he fired her for being female. Did he fire any other females? No? Then surely, it must not be a prejudice or unlawful discrimination. See, that would actually be discrimination. As a society, though, we like to toe so delicately around anything even remotely suggesting a somewhat possible (but not really) instance of misconduct. It's strange, because as a country with it's legal roots in "innocent until proven guilty" we seem to have a problem with what that actually means. It's really not hard, it means exactly what it says. We as people, though, have this notion in our head that our levels of morality bear more importance in a court than legality, and that it is, and always should be, "Guilty until proven innocent, and then still guilty because it's clear that they are."

That's dumb. I don't want to say that you're dumb for contributing to that, but that's kind of how I feel. You say that it is not a legitimate ruling because it was an all-male panel of judges. So now on top of accusing the boss, you're accusing the judges? When will your accusations stop, when your fairy tale world, the one where legality is completely dependent on your specific views on morality, becomes the world we live in?

You're sitting here reading a news article with a bias and touting the idea that because of that article, you are more fit to judge a situation than seven people who have not only attended law school, passed the BAR exam, served as district level attorneys and judges, and clawed their way up the judicial ladder to be state supreme court judges. It's absurd.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Right. So suddenly, we have to assume the dentist is innocent because he's being tried in a court of law, but because he has the money to own a business and employees, he has the right to make her guilty before innocent because of her DNA.

This is purely an example of white privileged male dominated hegemony. Maybe the citizens of Iowa should put those Second Amendment rights to use. We the people, baby, we the people, not the select few rich elitist pricks.

[Enethier]

No, Valek. Innocent until proven guilty is a concept of our judicial system regardless of gender. Remember, she is not on trial, and not being accused of anything illegal. He is and was, though. Until proven guilty in a court of law, he is innocent. That is how our system works. It is well within your rights to proclaim your distaste for him as a person. I think the guy's an awful human being. Being an awful human being, however, is not illegal. That is what is in question here: Is what he did illegal? The answer is unfortunately no.

[Imoutgoodbye]

He put her on trial by society (I know, I keep being told this doesn't exist, but it does based on the fact alone that we are able to sue for libel, slander, and character defamation) and was the sole judge, jury, and executioner. This man took away her ability to help provide for her family (I'm fully aware that the money is mostly his) and all because he was afraid he was going to stick his hand in the cookie jar.

I'm fairly positive there are multiple court cases that set precedent for this man's behavior as self-destructive. EDIT: He also needs help, not a pass out of a courtroom saying his behavior is okay.

Also, if you'were wondering what causes someone to be so crazy,

[Enethier]

I'm sorry, I was not aware that being fired meant you couldn't get another job. If she's good at her job, it really won't be a problem. "I see here on your record that you were fired by your last employer after 10 years, because he felt you were attractive, and that his marriage was threatened. Sorry, we can't hire you because of that. Your credentials are impressive, but I'm a little shaky about your commitment." ... Yeah, no. Not gonna go down like that. We both know that.

Look. I've been fired before, can't be the only one here that's been fired despite job proficiency. It sucks, but it's not the end of the world. Yo make her sound helpless.

The man does need help, and a stronger set of morals, but that was not the case brought to the court. Again, the court only handles legality. It only handles cases. It is not the job of the court to dictate how somebody acts, so long as they do not act unlawfully. And that's just it. While acting like an asshat, he did not act unlawfully, as guided by state and federal law.

[Imoutgoodbye]

I haven't said anything about his morals, merely alluded to his lack of empathy and inability to treat someone as something other than an object for his desires. You're right about people being fired for things other than lack of job proficiency. Firing anyone for something other than a breach of work ethic should be illegal. That label associated with her, the one the court upheld that labels her as a temptress, is one that will follow her. She won't ever get rid of it. That is the defamation of character. The judiciary system is meant to interpret the law. Interpretation is the base for settling disputes in individual cases. The judiciary does not make the law. It does not enforce the law. It interprets the law, which is why lawyers argue cases. This is what makes it a social construct. This is why it should be filtering social behaviors like this man's to create an equality for "we the people" not "we the people with money who own employees right's."

[Pali]

*blink* Okay... I think I've made a bit of a communications failure here, due to first posting from work and later drunk - and I'm still drunk, but in less of a sarcastic smartass mood, so we'll see how this goes.

"Absurd rulings" - bad, bad phrasing on my part. The rulings fit the law and legal precedent - I get that. The law is one of the things I find absurd here - I think employees should have legal protection from being fired for such arbitrary and fickle reasons. I do not think that employees should be at risk of losing their jobs because their employers decide they are so dead sexy that the employer just can't help himself. Every bit of wrong, every failure of character in a situation like this is the fault of the employer, and yet it is the employee who suffers for it.

I also have to disagree on another point - I think this issue has a great deal to do with gender. At the very least, I think it is reflective of a remaining power imbalance between men and women in American society. My previous post was sarcastic, but I do not have the faith in the impartiality of judges that you seem to. My own state's supreme court has been a partisan mess for some time now, and I've got about as much trust in an all-male panel's understanding of women's issues as I do an all-liberal panel's understanding of an oil company's point of view. I admit I've not seen real numbers on this, but I'd be utterly astounded if this kind of thing does not almost always happen with the employer being male and the employee being female - and a situation that impacts women on a much vaster scale than men I certainly consider to be a gender issue, just as I view a lot of our drug laws as highly racial issues.

Now, let me be clear. Am I accusing these judges of making a sexist ruling? No. I think the judges did what judges usually do - they followed precedent. I think this because this is what has been the story in the numerous reports I've seen on this topic. But do I think that the law and legal history seems to be supporting employers over employees, on an issue that disproportionately negatively affects women compared to men? Yes. Do I find it absurd that we apparently have law in place that allows men to fire women because the man is worried he can't keep his fly zipped around her? Yes. Do I phrase that last question with rigid gender roles intentionally? Yes - because as far as I can tell that's how the power imbalance still usually happens.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Seemed appropriate. Maybe I just thought it was funny.

[inscribed]

Pali I completely disagree that there should be legal protection against being fired. She was paid to do a job, and both sides honored their end of the contract. The dentist decided he no longer wanted to pay her for her services (no pun intended). That is his right. No one can be forced into a contract in a free society. She sued him, but was unable to show any discrimination, blackmail, or other illegal activity in his act. Sure, the guy is a jackass, but that in and of itself does not entitle her to employment or money from him.

She should of taken action the first moment he began unwanted advance, either through confronting him in a civilized manner and making her opinions clear, recording retaliatory behavior, or finding other work from the beginning. However, since we will likely never know the full story, I am wary to lend her any sympathy for her situation, and I seriously doubt she had no role in encouraging his behavior. That's a matter of speculation though.