All Male Court Agrees: Woman Fired For Being Too Sexy Is OK

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**WarOne**

Well...this is an interesting development here...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/iowa-court-oks-firing-female-worker-irresistibly-attractive-article-1.1226068?localLinksEnabled=false

Horndog bosses in Iowa have a new tool to save their marriages — they can fire employees who are too hot for the workplace.

The state’s all-male Supreme Court ruled 7-0 Friday that an Iowa City dentist legally canned his female assistant because she was “irresistibly attractive” and a threat to his marriage.

The bombshell ruling came after Melissa Nelson sued her boss of 10 years, Dr. James Knight, for discrimination.

The married mother claims she was fired in January 2010 after Knight's wife became jealous of the pair’s relationship, which included harmless text messages between them outside of work.

“I don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think it’s right,” Nelson said on CNN Saturday night. The 32-year-old also said she was stunned to be fired.

“I worked hard, enjoyed my job, and one day it just came to a screeching halt.”

Knight, 53, admitted Nelson was a great worker, but he complained her tight clothing was too much of a distraction.

He even once told Nelson that if his pants were bulging, she would know her outfits were too revealing, the lawsuit said. And he quipped about her irregular sex life, saying it was “like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

The dentist consulted with a local pastor, terminated Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. Knight later admitted to Nelson’s husband that he feared he would eventually try to start an affair.

“These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don’t think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires,” Nelson’s attorney, Paige Fiedler, told the Associated Press. “If (the bosses) get out of hand, then the women can be legally fired for it.”

Nelson said she wouldn’t have been fired if she were a man. In the Saturday interview, she said her work attire was hardly revealing.

“I wore a long-sleeve or short-sleeve T-shirt and I wore scrubs,” Nelson said, adding that she’s “happily married.”

After the ruling from one of but a few testosterone-only panels in the nation, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote that allowing the suit would have stretched the definition of gender discrimination.

Knight’s lawyer, Stuart Cochrane, said the ruling is a home-run for family values.

“While there was really no fault on the part of Mrs. Nelson, it was just as clear the decision to terminate her was not related to the fact that she was a woman,” he told the AP. “The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage.”

**dogma**

Better article.

The termination appears legal. The marriage however, seems on rocky ground.

**feeder**

Unbelievable. Dr. Knight is a pathetic coward.

**Necroshea**

Personally I think that the girl just dressed like a skank and the doctor liked it. However after hearing about it the doctors wife made some threats and got him to fire her.

I still think this is totally wrong. If a worker is dressing inappropriately then there needs to be a notice or warning, and continues infractions would lead to termination. However, how the guy defended himself stating that he was trying as hard as possible not to bang her is disgusting.

Doing it to preserve his marriage? Yeah right. This little event shows how much he values his marriage.

**feeder**

The article said she wore a tshirt and scrubs. Hardly skanky.

On the plus side, the attention this story is getting will probably mean Mrs. Nelson is not unemployed for long.

**Necroshea**

feeder wrote:
The article said she wore a tshirt and scrubs. Hardly skanky.

On the plus side, the attention this story is getting will probably mean Mrs. Nelson is not unemployed for long.

The article says SHE said that's what she was wearing.

“I wore a long-sleeve or short-sleeve T-shirt and I wore scrubs,” Nelson said, adding that she’s “happily married.”

Stating she's happily married but apparently sending text messages to the good doctor (which I'd very much want to see) makes me doubt what she's saying until it's proven that they were in fact totally harmless.

**dogma**

Necroshea wrote:

The article says SHE said that's what she was wearing.

In what portion of the article cited by the OP did Nelson cite her attire as "skanky"?

Necroshea wrote:

Stating she's happily married but apparently sending text messages to the good doctor (which I'd very much want to see) makes me doubt what she's saying until it's proven that they were in fact totally harmless.

I agree, but it is telling that you didn't mention the Good Doctor or his wife.

**Necroshea**

dogma wrote:
Necroshea wrote:

The article says SHE said that's what she was wearing.

In what portion of the article cited by the OP did Nelson cite her attire as "skanky"?

Necroshea wrote:

Stating she's happily married but apparently sending text messages to the good doctor (which I'd very much want to see) makes me doubt what she's saying until it's proven that they were in fact totally harmless.

I agree, but it is telling that you didn't mention the Good Doctor or his wife.

Reread what I typed. I personally feel this to be the case. I've seen too many cases where it's always both parties lying about something instead of either being totally innocent. Is there proof she dressed like a skank in the article? Well, the doctor said she did (who's been rather forthcoming with all sort of other information) and she says she didn't. That's still not proof. However there's not proof that she hasn't been dressing like a skank.

I'm not going to argue this point because that's silly. I'm saying that until I see more information I think both parties are guilty of having a hand in how this situation played out.

**hotsauceman1**

How come we are becoming MORE misogynistic wwith time?
Also, Isnt on of the tenents of the Quran that men cant control their desires, so women have to cover up?

**Steve steveson**

They are making it about the court, as if men are unable to make rational choices when a woman is involved. The problem seems to be the law that basicly lets people fire others for no other reason that the boss being a tosser.

**feeder**

Necroshea wrote:
feeder wrote:
The article said she wore a tshirt and scrubs. Hardly skanky.

On the plus side, the attention this story is getting will probably mean Mrs. Nelson is not unemployed for long.

The article says SHE said that's what she was wearing.

That's a good point.

Necroshea wrote:

Stating she's happily married but apparently sending text messages to the good doctor (which I'd very much want to see) makes me doubt what she's saying until it's proven that they were in fact totally harmless.

I suspect that's true, and that the blame lies somewhere in the middle for any behavior, flirting or otherwise. Doesn't make him any less of a weak-willed coward, though.

**dogma**

Necroshea wrote:
Is there proof she dressed like a skank in the article? Well, the doctor said she did (who's been rather forthcoming with all sort of other information) and she says she didn't.

No, he didn't. You said that.

Necroshea wrote:

Reread what I typed. I personally feel this to be the case.

Your first statement, on which I commented, was factual; not opinionated. Feeling doesn't enter the case in that sense.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Wow, I hope she appeals, because this precedent needs to get curb checked in a hurry.

**Necroshea**

dogma wrote:
Necroshea wrote:
Is there proof she dressed like a skank in the article? Well, the doctor said she did (who's been rather forthcoming with all sort of other information) and she says she didn't.

No, he didn't. You said that.

Ok

Necroshea wrote:

Reread what I typed. I personally feel this to be the case.

Your first statement, on which I commented, was factual; not opinionated. Feeling doesn't enter the case in that sense.

Personally I think that the girl just dressed like a skank and the doctor liked it.

How is this not an opinion.

Why are we even making a discussion about this. Read my first post, ignore the rest if you must. I feel like I'm just repeating myself.

**Ouze**

This was the right ruling to make despite it looking, on it's face, totally awful. The problem was that she chose to bring suit claiming gender discrimination; and not a more suitable grounds. It didn't help that not only did he provably not fire her due to her gender, he replaced her with a different woman.

She chose poorly and lost what I'd consider to be an eminently winnable case with a different strategy. I feel she could have made a compelling argument for quid pro quo sexual harassment instead.

Her boss is still an enormous jerk; please don't take anything I said as any sort of defense of that ass-clown. I only wish he could have also been ruled due for a genital punching of the hardest kind.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wow, I hope she appeals, because this precedent needs to get curb checked in a hurry.

What precedent? Iowa is a At-Will employment state. You have the right to fire any employee for any damn reason you want to short of specific discrimination types. He could have fired here for having feet that were too small, for fingernails painted the wrong color, for having a bumper sticker he didn't like, or any one of a million banal reasons. She claimed he fired her for being a woman; something that was clearly untrue as he has an all-female staff and her replacement was a woman.

Again, he's a huge jerk, but well within his rights under the law in the state in which his business operates.

**timetowaste85**

Tight clothing? I work around dental assistants all day, all the time. Scrubs are very unflattering and typically not tight at all, unless she got them custom made. I work with some girls who have amazing asses, and when they wear scrubs, they're about as seductive as a mule. Fail statement.

I should go on about women's rights too. Those male jurors need to be smacked upside the face. With a rusty barbed wire whip.

edit-obviously my coworkers are more attractive than mules, even in scrubs. But you get the jist of it.

**Cheesecat**

It's hard to tell with just a face but she looks kind of MILFy.

**dogma**

Necroshea wrote:

How is this not an opinion.

You said that Nelson called herself a skank when she plainly did not. You can hold an opinion, but confusing it with fact is irresponsible.

**rubiksnoob**

The major concern here is the fact that there is now a potentially dangerous precedent because her legal representation blew it.

**Necroshea**

dogma wrote:
Necroshea wrote:

How is this not an opinion.

You said that Nelson called herself a skank when she plainly did not. You can hold an opinion, but confusing it with fact is irresponsible.

I don't think this is a case of me confusing anything. I made a post that clearly explained things. I repeated myself and perhaps stated it wrong. You keep trying make this out to be more than it is. You're not dumb. You know what I meant, and still you keep pushing this discussion.

I can edit my old messages if you'd like. If it really means that much to you.

**Mannahnin**

Ouze wrote:
This was the right ruling to make despite it looking, on it's face, totally awful. The problem was that she chose to bring suit claiming gender discrimination; and not a more suitable grounds. It didn't help that not only did he provably not fire her due to her gender, he replaced her with a different woman.

She chose poorly and lost what I'd consider to be an eminently winnable case with a different strategy. I feel she could have made a compelling argument for quid pro quo sexual harassment instead.

Her boss is still an enormous jerk; please don't take anything I said as any sort of defense of that ass-clown. I only wish he could have also been ruled due for a genital punching of the hardest kind.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wow, I hope she appeals, because this precedent needs to get curb checked in a hurry.

What precedent? Iowa is a At-Will employment state. You have the right to fire any employee for any damn reason you want to short of specific discrimination types. He could have fired here for having feet that were too small, for fingernails painted the wrong color, for having a bumper sticker he didn't like, or any one of a million banal reasons. She claimed he fired her for being a woman; something that was clearly untrue as he has an all-female staff and her replacement was a woman.

Again, he's a huge jerk, but well within his rights under the law in the state in which his business operates.

I can't express my thoughts any better than the above. Well written, sir.

**Kovnik Obama**

A) She doesn't really strike me as hot at all.
B) I like how a pastor is viewed as a legitimate legal counsel in certain parts
C) Hopefully, from there on until the end of times, Mr Knight will be known as the most weak-willed little *@*#! in Iowa.

**Ratbarf**

First of all all of you who didn't read Dogma's link you should, it explains things much more clearly than the article in the OP. Basically this was a case of a woman being fired at the behest of of Mr. Knight's wife. Which isn't that unreasonable at all. People being fired because a relative of their boss didn't like them isn't abnormal at all.

Secondly, Dogma's article states that the texts that were shared outside of work were of a personal nature, and once Knight's wife discovered them demanded her termination. That's a totally legit reason.

Thirdly, obviously she would not have been fired if she was a man, because I assume that Dr. Knight isn't a homosexual, and thus wouldn't have had the reaction that he did, nor would his wife.

**Kovnik Obama**

Ratbarf wrote:
Basically this was a case of a woman being fired at the behest of of Mr. Knight's wife. Which isn't that unreasonable at all. People being fired because a relative of their boss didn't like them isn't abnormal at all.

He still acted like a little

Secondly, Dogma's article states that the texts that were shared outside of work were of a personal nature, and once Knight's wife discovered them demanded her termination. That's a totally legit reason.

Still. A. Little.

Thirdly, obviously she would not have been fired if she was a man, because I assume that Dr. Knight isn't a homosexual, and thus wouldn't have had the reaction that he did, nor would his wife.

So now it's a case of discrimination against heterosexual women. Much better.

**chaos0xomega**

I see nothing wrong with this, there is no dangerous precedent being set here, as the same rights would apply in the reverse (female employer with male employee) and as her employer he has the right to terminate her employment as he sees fit just like she has the right to terminate her employment on her own terms. Also keep in mind that most employers have workplace fraternisation policies, dunno if he did but IF he did this would certainly be a breach (or very close to it) and as the boss he has to enforce the rules.

**Ratbarf**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Ratbarf wrote:
Basically this was a case of a woman being fired at the behest of of Mr. Knight's wife. Which isn't that unreasonable at all. People being fired because a relative of their boss didn't like them isn't abnormal at all.

He still acted like a little

Secondly, Dogma's article states that the texts that were shared outside of work were of a personal nature, and once Knight's wife discovered them demanded her termination. That's a totally legit reason.

Still. A. Little.

Thirdly, obviously she would not have been fired if she was a man, because I assume that Dr. Knight isn't a homosexual, and thus wouldn't have had the reaction that he did, nor would his wife.

So now it's a case of discrimination against heterosexual women. Much better.

Sigh, agree to disagree and all that, and it isn't discrimination at all.

**Kovnik Obama**

I wasn't serious for the whole discrimination thing.

It's a clear cut case of ''little @#*! doing something crappy but entirely legal in his jurisdiction''.

**AegisGrimm**

What precedent? Iowa is a At-Will employment state. You have the right to fire any employee for any damn reason you want to short of specific discrimination types. He could have fired here for having feet that were too small, for fingernails painted the wrong color, for having a bumper sticker he didn't like, or any one of a million banal reasons. She claimed he fired her for being a woman; something that was clearly untrue as he has an all-female staff and her replacement was a woman.

That's why At-Will employment sucks. you can be the best employee on earth, but if your bosses' bitchy wife doesn't like you, and he lies about you to side with her, you are screwed.

I hear that he also made comments that were hugely abusive to her, like how she could "tell how good her clothes looked by the bulge in his pants", or asking her about her latest orgasms.

I think it's both parties fault, because they are probably doing some lying, the Doctor is just the much bigger A-hole that gets off on himself and is afraid of losing everything to his wife.

B) I like how a pastor is viewed as a legitimate legal counsel in certain parts

Ugh, don't even get me started on that one...

**Ratbarf**

It's a clear cut case of ''little @#*! doing something crappy but entirely legal in his jurisdiction''.

Maybe it's a case of a difference of opinion on what makes someone a little bleep? Because that guy didn't really do anything wrong. His marriage should be more important than any of his employees, and the potential of financial loss to a divorce should also be placed above pretty much any employee.

B) I like how a pastor is viewed as a legitimate legal counsel in certain parts.

Ugh, don't even get me started on that one...

I highly doubt the pastor was consulted for his legal opinion, but more likely for his services on conflict resolution and what moral course of action should be taken.

**Breotan**

In Washington State, employers don't need a reason to fire an employee. They usually retain employees because the cost of hiring a new employee and the time it takes for them to become proficient in their duties usually outweighs the cost of keeping the current employee. Unless there's some sort of disciplinary issue involved or the employee is contingent staffing, that is.