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.

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.

Maybe he should have better informed the pastor that he was only doing this because his wife wanted the woman fired because she was just too desirable for her self important horndog husband to tolerate on a daily basis. It seems he was just fine with her being around!

I was watching Horrible Bosses before I came to work and ended up seeing this. I thought that was a bit funny.

 Ratbarf wrote:
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.

Not abnormal, but stupid. If I tried to fire someone on the basis of "My girlfriend doesn't like her." my boss would almost certainly fire me. Granted this situation is more complicated because the boss's wife actually works with the boss and the former employee, and the boss is the boss. No manager in any company in the world would be able to justify to a higher-up firing someone because his wife, who also worked there, said so.

To reiterate Ouze's point: it is legally fine, but morally dicey.

 Ratbarf wrote:

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.

This is the exact quote:

Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight's wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

To me this story reads as a jealous wife lashing out regarding her husband's employ of many, most likely younger and more attractive, women. Fuse that with an at-will state, and a terrible legal argument, and what you get is a legally justifiable, but morally dodgy situation.

 Ratbarf wrote:

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.

That raises a whole ton of issues regarding gender identity that escape the purpose of this thread.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Ouze wrote: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.

This is why I think she should have gone for quid pro quo harassment and alleged he fired her because she did not sleep with him. Depending on what was in the texts of course, I think this would have been a better shot. Maybe hostile work environment depending on how often he was saying stuff like the bulge in his pants.

Now that we're discussing At-will employment, I agree with you - At-will does suck. The "balance" is that an employee can walk away at any time for any reason but that does not a balance of power make; the relationship between an employer and an employee is never on equal footing especially considering the power they hold over unemployment. I don't know exactly how to improve the situation - I think I'd prefer a system more like the UK but I haven't studied this extensively and in the US we'd never go for it anyway because socialism.

This kind of thinking is the same as when people blame the woman almost entirely for an affair, had one happened. Because as we know, men are enslaved to the wiles of these attractive she-devils that render men incapable of making independent decisions. It's the man who is the victim here, if only the evil woman had kept to herself, etc etc.

Wow...Just wow. This is really pathetic.

The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

 Easy E wrote:
The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

Well of course, anything else would be pandering to Obama's hordes of muslim communists.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
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.

The women on Grey's Anatomy have a whole costume department to custom cut their scrubs to make them still have buts and boobs.

But look at any other show where people area actually wearing real scrubs (like the show Scrubs as an example) or "My Sister's Keeper". The only purpose of scrubs is to keep fecal matter, blood, and vomit off your body and not to make you look good.

 Easy E wrote:
The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

Absolutely. It's a God-given right in this country to get a job, and then be free to camp out in it for as long as you like no matter what.

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

Absolutely. It's a God-given right in this country to get a job, and then be free to camp out in it for as long as you like no matter what.

The same way that it's a God-given right for employers to have complete control over their employees, right? If they don't like it, they can just leave and bootstrap themselves into a new job!

I don't understand, was she bad at her job?
There has to be a better reason for her discharge other than "cuz she's hawt."

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I don't understand, was she bad at her job?
There has to be a better reason for her discharge other than "cuz she's hawt."

Unfortunately not in many places in the USA.

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

Absolutely. It's a God-given right in this country to get a job, and then be free to camp out in it for as long as you like no matter what.

As long as you do the job and don't have a performance issue.... why not?

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The real story is how odious At-Will employment really can be. This time, she was fired because her boss (and his wife) couldn't handle the fact that she was attractive. Next, maybe she can get fired for being a Christian other than the bosses denomination of Christianity, not flossing, or for not laughing at the bosses jokes.

You can have special skills, and work hard; and still get fired for something that has very little to do with your work performance. At-Will employment is a bigger joke than Right-to-Work.

At least she got 1 month severance.

Absolutely. It's a God-given right in this country to get a job, and then be free to camp out in it for as long as you like no matter what.

How is criticising employer powers to sack people any time for pretty much no reason at all, equivalent to giving employees a 'god-given right to a job' which they can sit in forever regardless of their behaviour?

Oh wait, it isn't. You're just being intellectually dishonest and utterly misrepresenting what someone else said. Try again.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
How is criticising employer powers to sack people any time for pretty much no reason at all, equivalent to giving employees a 'god-given right to a job' which they can sit in forever regardless of their behaviour?

Oh wait, it isn't. You're just being intellectually dishonest and utterly misrepresenting what someone else said. Try again.

Not at all, comrade. I'm completely with you in siding with the downtrodden proletariat. If someone starts up a business that they solely own, I see no reason at all why they should be able to run it how they see fit within the letter of the law.

 Seaward wrote:
If someone starts up a business that they solely own, I see no reason at all why they should be able to run it how they see fit within the letter of the law.

Workhouses, child labour, slaves, beating workers, etc... they all used to be legal. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Workhouses, child labour, slaves, beating workers, etc... they all used to be legal. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

That's very true.

Let me ask you this, though: if you start your own business, do you believe the government should be in charge of making decisions about your workforce?

 Seaward wrote:
Let me ask you this, though: if you start your own business, do you believe the government should be in charge of making decisions about your workforce?

If I had my own company, I would want the government to support fair treatment of workers with fair protection of employers. That is a far cry from the laws that made the situation in the OP possible, and a far cry from what you seem to think employment laws are like where there are at least some protections for workers.

The people who sit in a job doing sod all while everyone else carries them are there because of poor managers not adequately policing them rather than because of laws "forcing companies to keep them on".

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If I had my own company, I would want the government to support fair treatment of workers with fair protection of employers. That is a far cry from the laws that made the situation in the OP possible, and a far cry from what you seem to think employment laws are like where there are at least some protections for workers.

The people who sit in a job doing sod all while everyone else carries them are there because of poor managers not adequately policing them rather than because of laws "forcing companies to keep them on".

That wasn't my question.

So, as you run your hypothetical business, if you thought you could attract better employees, but were being forced to keep mediocre ones, you'd be fine with that?

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If I had my own company, I would want the government to support fair treatment of workers with fair protection of employers. That is a far cry from the laws that made the situation in the OP possible, and a far cry from what you seem to think employment laws are like where there are at least some protections for workers.

The people who sit in a job doing sod all while everyone else carries them are there because of poor managers not adequately policing them rather than because of laws "forcing companies to keep them on".

That wasn't my question.

So, as you run your hypothetical business, if you thought you could attract better employees, but were being forced to keep mediocre ones, you'd be fine with that?

There's always a way for an employer to fire someone regardless of laws (Except in extreme cases)

 purplefood wrote:
There's always a way for an employer to fire someone regardless of laws (Except in extreme cases)

The prevailing opinion around here seems to be that there shouldn't be.

Feigned outrage and indignation!
Workers of the world unite!
#shellfindanewjob

 AustonT wrote:
Feigned outrage and indignation!
Workers of the world unite!
#shellfindanewjob

Little Red Oral Hygiene Book! Little Red Oral Hygiene Book!

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Workhouses, child labour, slaves, beating workers, etc... they all used to be legal. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

That's very true.

Let me ask you this, though: if you start your own business, do you believe the government should be in charge of making decisions about your workforce?

Just because you start a business doesn't mean you can behave however you like towards people, customers or employees. If a worker is unsatisfactory in the UK you have to give them a verbal then written warning to improve conduct before sacking. You don't get to sack them on the spot for anything less than gross misconduct (like theft) and you don't get to sack them because your wife thinks they are too attractive.

When you start a business you often receive grants and tax breaks and other benefits to help you along. You are expected to comply with a set if laws for things like fair trading and discrimination. Just because you own a restaurant doesn't mean you can refuse custom to all black people for example. Just because something is 'yours' dies not mean you can use it however you like. You own things within wider society which has values and standards to uphold for the wider good. And that includes preventing people who own businesses sacking people on an unfair whim rather than due to demonstrated negligence. You also owe your employees things like a safe and healthy working environment.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Just because you start a business doesn't mean you can behave however you like towards people, customers or employees. If a worker is unsatisfactory in the UK you have to give them a verbal then written warning to improve conduct before sacking. You don't get to sack them on the spot for anything less than gross misconduct (like theft) and you don't get to sack them because your wife thinks they are too attractive.

When you start a business you often receive grants and tax breaks and other benefits to help you along. You are expected to comply with a set if laws for things like fair trading and discrimination. Just because you own a restaurant doesn't mean you can refuse custom to all black people for example. Just because something is 'yours' dies not mean you can use it however you like. You own things within wider society which has values and standards to uphold for the wider good. And that includes preventing people who own businesses sacking people on an unfair whim rather than due to demonstrated negligence. You also owe your employees things like a safe and healthy working environment.

Yeah...not how it works in the US, thankfully.

 Seaward wrote:
Let me ask you this, though: if you start your own business, do you believe the government should be in charge of making decisions about your workforce?

Your posts in this thread are, seriously, a monument to intentional obtusity and intellectual dishonesty. I wish you'd try and participate honestly in the discussion or not at all, instead of just essentially crapping nonsense in the thread.

If I started my own business, I'd accept that as a society I already accept a great deal of the government making decisions about how I run my business, such as the fact I can't hire 4 year olds to work in my salt mine, that I have to pay into workman's comp in case one of them gets injured, that I must pay them a minimum wage and overtime (where applicable); etc etc.

Seriously, pretending there is some libertarian fantasy where you built a business all on your own with no help from anyone and have the right to run it as your own private serfdom as sole king doesn't exist in any venue in the world other then the pretend one you make up in your head.

If you own your own business, is it ok to discriminate based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation? These things almost never have any bearing upon your ability to work in job. Is it unacceptable for the government to 'interfere' in your business if you say, sacked someone not for anything related to your job but because they had an interracial marriage? Where do you draw the line? Or should employers be allowed to sack people at any time for anything at all and suffer no consequences for massive disruption it causes to that persons life? Employers have some duty of care to their employees. The worrying thing is that you're so proud of all this saying how thankful you are that it isn't like the UK. Maybe these attitudes and others are the reasons for some problems in the US including the way that a massive gulf is opening between the majority of people and a tiny percentage owning most of the wealth, and this being enthusiastically supported, because opposing this is the great evil that is socialism. Sad.

 Ouze wrote:
Your posts in this thread are, seriously, a monument to intentional obtusity and intellectual dishonesty.

This is going to become hilariously ironic in a second.

Seriously, pretending there is some libertarian fantasy where you built a business all on your own with no help from anyone and have the right to run it as your own private serfdom as sole king doesn't exist in any venue in the world other then the pretend one you make up in your head.

There it is!

You want a law against people being fired for being attractive, I'd start lobbying your congressman. Right now, "attractive individual" is not a protected class, so it's a perfectly legitimate reason to fire someone. You disagree with it on a moral level, I'd take your oral care dollar elsewhere, but the faux outrage and the sheer blind love of government that suggests you really want someone other than the guy at the top of a 27-person chain making the call on how he runs his business is...well, it's hilarious, but it's also almost certain to change once you start getting a little work/life experience under your belt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
If you own your own business, is it ok to discriminate based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation?

Not in the US, no.

These things almost never have any bearing upon your ability to work in job. Is it unacceptable for the government to 'interfere' in your business if you say, sacked someone not for anything related to your job but because they had an interracial marriage? Where do you draw the line? Or should employers be allowed to sack people at any time for anything at all and suffer no consequences for massive disruption it causes to that persons life? Employers have some duty of care to their employees. The worrying thing is that you're so proud of all this saying how thankful you are that it isn't like the UK. Maybe these attitudes and others are the reasons for some problems in the US including the way that a massive gulf is opening between the majority of people and a tiny percentage owning most of the wealth, and this being enthusiastically supported, because opposing this is the great evil that is socialism. Sad.

In my opinion, an employer should be able to fire an employee for whatever he or she chooses to fire said employee for. Bleeding heart nonsense about the disruption of the terminated employee's life is covered by the fact that, if not fired for cause, they'll be getting unemployment benefits while out of work. Unless you're a non-profit, your job as a business is to make money, not run a shelter. Companies that want top talent go out of their way to make their employees' lives better. If you want to work in that sort of environment, best equip yourself with the skills to make you attractive to that kind of recruiter. Even then, sometimes things don't work out. We had to fire a guy essentially for political cover a couple months ago, and our BD staff's often a revolving door. Such is life.

 Seaward wrote:

...and the sheer blind love of government that suggests you really want someone other than the guy at the top of a 27-person chain making the call on how he runs his business is...well, it's hilarious, but it's also almost certain to change once you start getting a little work/life experience under your belt.

Ah, the "You only disagree with me because you're young and impressionable!" argument. Always the best way of supporting a contentious position.

 Seaward wrote:

In my opinion, an employer should be able to fire an employee for whatever he or she chooses to fire said employee for. Bleeding heart nonsense about the disruption of the terminated employee's life is covered by the fact that, if not fired for cause, they'll be getting unemployment benefits while out of work.

So you trust government to regulate who can receive severance, but allowing them to regulate who can be severed is over the line?