Mark D. White takes the Iowa Supreme Court to task for furthering the myth that men can’t control themselves around attractive women.
***
According to a news report quickly making its way around the internet, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a male dentist did not violate employment discrimination law when he fired a female assistant because she represented an “irresistible attraction” that threatened his marriage.
The legality behind the case is fairly straightforward, and hardly the most interesting aspect of the story. The assistant alleged gender-based discrimination only, but since all of the assistants in the dentist’s office are female, it’s difficult to argue that the dentist fired the assistant in question because she was a woman. The opinion contains a brief but insightful discussion of similar precedents, including a federal appeals court case, that came to similar conclusions. But the case itself raises some interesting questions about how we think about men and women in the workplace.
The assistant did not claim sexual harassment on the part of the dentist, but it seems she clearly could have. According to the opinion:
Dr. Knight acknowledges he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing. On another occasion, Dr. Knight texted Nelson saying the shirt she had worn that day was too tight. After Nelson responded that she did not think he was being fair, Dr. Knight replied that it was a good thing Nelson did not wear tight pants too because then he would get it coming and going. Dr. Knight also recalls that after Nelson allegedly made a statement regarding infrequency in her sex life, he responded to her, “[T]hat’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.” Nelson recalls that Dr. Knight once texted her to ask how often she experienced an orgasm. Nelson did not answer the text. However, Nelson does not remember ever telling Dr. Knight not to text her or telling him that she was offended. (Opinion, p. 3)
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
As the judges write, “the issue before us is not whether a jury could find that Dr. Knight treated Nelson badly” (p.15). Obviously the dentist acted improperly towards her—and the court is not the only body enabling that.
According to the opinion, the firing was instigated by the dentist’s wife, who was concerned about the dentist’s friendship with his assistant, including frequent texts, as well as how the assistant dressed in the office and how she behaved toward the wife. After consulting their pastor, the dentist and his wife agreed to let the assistant go. Was it natural for the wife to be concerned? No doubt. But rather than ask her husband to grow up, she asked him to fire the assistant.
It is the broader message sent by this case, not the legal intricacies, that has people fired up, and justifiably so. Male employers who are attracted to their female subordinates—which in itself is not blameworthy—no longer have to control themselves, but rather can rather dismiss the source of the “distraction” when it becomes “too much” to handle. Women are now responsible for making sure they don’t “arouse” their bosses, rather than the bosses needing to treat their female subordinates with respect as equals. This is like Mad Men with Novocain! And this doesn’t reflect well on the wife either: rather than asking (or demanding) her husband be a professional employer and faithful husband, she chooses to eliminate the “threat” to her marriage. The fact that she sees this threat as the assistant, not her husband who can’t control his impulses, reminds us that these outdated attitudes are present not just among men.
We can’t blame the Iowa Supreme Court for deciding the case on the narrow grounds in which it was presented to them, but it would have been helpful if they had used this opportunity to send a stronger message condemning the problematic behavior of the dentist and his wife toward the assistant. As it stands, this case only reinforces the message that men shouldn’t have to control themselves around attractive women and can instead shift the responsibility for this on women themselves—and we hear that enough without it being echoed by a state supreme court.
This guy has too small a business to have an HR department which would prescribe “professional” clothing without being excessively personal about it.
Thing is, for guys, “professional” could mean no jeans, add a dress shirt. For women, with so many variables in styles, more detail is necessary, or prescribe a uni.
Given the facts–him, her, the wife–this was the right decision. Unless there were some kind of mind-fixing thing, which there isn’t, the friction would continue. Better for all, conceding at least two of them could do better in the maturity department. But you work with what you have.
So remind me what century we are living in?
I have been harassed while wearing a long white coat (no cleavage issues at all)…I’m sure I would get harassed wearing a long black robe (like the judges)….the real issue is misogyny….or the dentist in question….
What if the dentist was secretly gay and the target of attraction was a hot guy…should he fire the attractive guy because he is secretly attracted to him?
How is it misogyny when he has a staff full of women and none of the others were fired? Ladies, when a man doesn’t get along with you in particular, IT IS NOT MISOGYNY. If the dentist had a third wheel male employee that was causing ruckus for a marriage, the same result would probably happen. This has nothing to do with her gender but all to do with her and him and his wife. Nor does it say she was harassed. If the same thing happened with a guy, yes, fire the guy n save your marriage. The dentist,… Read more »
The question before the court was not whether the dentist should fire the object of his attraction, but whether doing so at the jealous wife’s behest constituted gender discrimination. They concluded that it did not, which I agree with. If you presume that the wife would have been jealous to discover a secret gay crush and demand a male assistant be fired, then my guess is he would have done the same thing, which supports the idea that this firing was over jealousy and marital peace, not gender. According to the Opinion, this dentist’s entire staff is women, and he… Read more »
It sounds to me like they had some sort of flirty relationship. The wife didn’t like it. He fired her to just be rid of the workplace issue and to appease his wife. Iowa is an at-will employment state. He can fire her for pretty much anything he wants. He was an idiot for saying that it was for being irresistible because that makes it seem borderline discriminatory.
If a man was terminated for the same reason, the same judges would rule the same way.
It’s an “at will” state and as someone said, people can be terminated for the dumbest reasons
She could have files sexual harassment prior to this (as many women do) … he simply beat her to the punch. With the millions who are still unemployed/under employed, this is nothing in the big scheme.
I really feel like we have only had a small piece of the story with this one. It’s usually a leap for me to go from talking to my boss at work to texting stuff of a personal nature to him at home during off work hours. And where I am it’s not unusual for supervisors and employees to socialize together and still that would be universally frowned upon. When I started working with people in direct care one of the big things that was pounded into us was dress appropriately. You’ll be bending over people (similar to hygienist) and… Read more »
Now hold on a minute, here, I see a lot of knees jerking. I present you two scenarios based on the facts laid out in the Supreme Court opinion and ask you, which seems more likely? Scenario #1: Dr. Knight is a puerile jerk who can really only think with his penis, who waged a campaign of sexual harassment against his innocent employee, consisting of a handful of questionable statements, which she curiously did not object to at the time. His wife is a jealous shrew who saw her husband pushing inappropriate interest on one particular female employee (out of… Read more »
Let’s look at scenario #2. I still don’t get why he hadn’t moved past that she’s got a great body thing. Couldn’t he have just told his wife that it went too far and he’ll knock it off? You’d think he would have gone to his assistant and said my wife found our texts, we need to knock it off. It took him a while to come to the decision to let her go so you almost have to wonder why they couldn’t work it out. I’m not sure what to make of the month severance. He either knew what… Read more »
Read the opinion. The sexual comments were incidental to the firing, and even then, only a small handful of such comments in over 10 years of working together.
I’m wondering why he never got over it. I know she didn’t dissuade it, but still after a while you get used to it and you get to know people and hopefully start caring about them. There’s a woman I’ve gone to school with and I work with. I’ve had the biggest crush on her for the past 2 or so years. She’s beautiful and gorgeous (she actually runs marathons), but she’s also feisty, independent, smart, ambitious, funny, and articulate. My heart broke when I learned she found a boyfriend, but she’s my friend and I’m happy she found someone… Read more »
Can we all agree that it’s easier to maintain a professional relationship with someone you are not attracted to?
The article is correct about the Dentist being immature & unprofessional. And the wife, who worked in the office shared those traits. But as a legal matter this case is not about discrimination against a protected class. The underlying facts are unusual only in that most discrimination cases involve an employee claiming discrimination while the employer alleges deficiencies in performance. Here it is acknowledged that Ms. Nelson was proficient at her job. The reality is that employers discriminate constantly in their decision-making, basing decisions on personality, intelligence, and appearance (among other factors). The law must necessarily be narrow in these… Read more »
One of my friends said it best (I think) yesterday after reading about this. She said that Employment Non-discrimination laws should read to the effect that if a person if denied/fired from a job for any trait (gender, sex, religion, race ect) that does not influence their ability to do that job, it should qualify as discrimination.
There is a difference between discrimination and wrongful termination. If I was fired for whistle blowing or union organizing, that would be wrongful termination, but I don’t think that falls under the discrimination laws. I think the employer treated her unfairly and maybe there should be a modification in the law for unfair termination.
I agree with the title of the article. I think we should expect more from men in how we handle our attraction to women. I don’t think it’s unreasonable, however, to ask women to be considerate of that attraction as well, though.
So should the same go for men?
Please, then – no tight shirts, tight pants, skinny jeans, shirts unbuttoned below the first button (or all the way up? what do you think?). Personally, I have a thing for guys with glasses and high intellect. Please, if anyone is applying to work under my command, understand that glasses and a high intellect will disqualify you from this job. Okay? Because I think it’s hot. And I can’t control myself.
It’s so rude when smart guys wear glasses and skinny jeans. It really distracts me. So inconsiderate.
Stating for the record that I actually *can* control myself, even around men wearing glasses.
It was a little thought experiment to try on for size.
I don’t know, are they wearing glasses because wearing glasses will make you more likely to hire and promote them? Are they wearing glasses because you’ll give them better reviews for the same work they would have done if they weren’t wearing glasses?
Are they wearing skinny jeans so they can get advantages over the guy not wearing skinny jeans?
Do you have a right to say, as an employer, “I don’t think skinny jeans are appropriate workplace attire”?
If your job requires high levels of concentration, sure, change the uniform policy or make them wear a uniform even. If it’s a less intense job then the clothing can also be more relaxed. We should unnecessarily distract people from their work. Having your tits half out, or your chest/abs for the guys is pretty distracting to many people. Is there a need to dress so sexy at work anyway? What you wear affects other people, some seem to fail to grasp this. And are they wearing glasses because they’re trying to attract someone sexually? Tight jeans I’ll give you… Read more »
Well, that was easy. So women shouldn’t have to dial it back. We should police the men? See the DoJ’s “dear colleague” letter to colleges demanding they drop due process. That’s policing. Even unconstitutional policing. But the fact is that young men will, some of them, do things they shouldn’t. Until that stops, women have a choice. Which everybody knows. And the women I refer to made that choice. Also, not talking about rape. Now, if a guy in fantastic shape, good tan, body hair or not according to local fashion, showed up for work in tight jeans and a… Read more »
I think the reason you see this is that women don’t in general believe that there is a realistic likelihood that a man can dress in a manner provocatively enough to distract them. They feel comfortable with saying that women should be able to dress as they want and feel justified by saying that a man in the same situation should be treated the same as they don’t envision that as a likely scenario. That’s not the only way men can dress though. When I wore my taekwondo jacket, I made a lot of people nervous especially when I wore… Read more »
No one has yet addressed the elephant in the room…the deeper issue of what is drivings the wife’s jealousy of her husband’s assistant. Why, instead of addressing the issues at the heart of their marital issues, does she instead lash out at the external manifestations of these failures? It’s unfortunate the assistant was caught in the crosshairs off a marriage heading south but shame on a few people here: The pastor for not encouraging thoughtful introspection, the wife for not owning her own insecurities and allowing her own sense of self & her marriage to be threatened by another woman,… Read more »
If your husband developed an obvious crush on your nanny, would you find a new nanny? Because I’ve heard of that happening all the time.
Here’s the thing – if I’m fulfilling my role properly as a wife and there aren’t any underlying issues, that wouldn’t happen. Partners stray because there are issues –either with themselves or within the relationship. Not because they are suddenly attracted to someone else – desire to look elsewhere is a symptom of deeper failures within the relationship and that’s what must be examined and blamed, not the external attraction.
I disagree, I think people can stray simply because someone more appealing comes along. I don’t think it necessarily reflects issues in the relationship. I kind of feel sorry for the wife here, maybe the husband has a pattern of developing crushes on other women, but she’s stuck with him because of the kids or whatever. So what is she going to do, turn a blind eye to it? Of course it’s also possible she’s a jealous shrew, I’m just speculating.
Then we’re at an impasse it seems because frankly, if you’re happy with what you have, anything that comes along won’t be more appealing.
And this doesn’t reflect well on the wife either: rather than asking (or demanding) her husband be a professional employer and faithful husband, she chooses to eliminate the “threat” to her marriage. The fact that she sees this threat as the assistant, not her husband who can’t control his impulses, reminds us that these outdated attitudes are present not just among men. [Emphasis added.] I think the emphasized part is an understatement. It’s more than a poor reflection on the wife, since she was not just a bystander in the decision, but the driving force behind it. If there’s gender… Read more »
The wife may be as much of an asswipe as the husband, but he was the employer, so has the responsibility to be a responsible employer.
I think it’s safe to stipulate the best solution would have been to avoid any problem in the first place, by not harrassing the assistant, including sending texts that his wife would discover and object to. We can agree on that, right? Next best, in my opinion, would be for the dentist to acknowledge he’d crossed a line when the assistant or his wife raised objections, apologize, and change his behavior. That didn’t happen. We don’t know much (from this account) about the particulars of who objected when and so on, but it appears that the end result of this… Read more »
I think this discussion exposes a double-standard in progressive thought. Usually, when the victim of discrimination is a member of a class that holds a great deal of privilege, there are efforts made to hide the discrimination. I have read arguments (by editors of this site, no less) that it’s not “racism” when the victim is white, and that there’s really no such thing as “misandry.” Yet here we have an interesting case because the supposed victim was simultaneously privileged and yet also a member of a designated “underprivileged group.” Study after study, across decades of research, has shown that… Read more »
That should be “both” not “butch,” sorry for the auto-correct.
“tudy after study, across decades of research, has shown that more attractive people get hired more often, receive better performance reviews for the same work product, and are promoted more often and more quickly than their homely counterparts. There is no denying the privilege of being attractive.” This. It’s entirely BS for women to attempt to capitalize on that privilege as much as possible, and then turn around and scream “IT ISN’T ABOUT MEN!”. Especially when the same person saying that the way women dress has nothing to do with men being attracted to her then posits “Maybe she is… Read more »
There have been one or two reports of such firing–in a bank, iirc–for the reason of being too attractive and not dialing it back in dress. I don’t think any one male in the office in question was being distracted. Women make a choice when they look at the closet. My wife and my sister and I had high school and college friends who chose to dial it back in college, because it would make their day go a little easier. And who wants to fuss about appearance at an eight o’clock class in January in a Big Ten school?… Read more »
“It would make their day go a little easier.” Why? Cause men can’t help it? They sure as shit can. And if they can’t, why not police them instead of what the women wear? We don’t know what this assistant was wearing, and frankly it doesn’t matter. He was harassing her and his wife blamed the assistant for the issue rather than taking him to task about his treatment of employees. Backwards all the way round. If I had a male employee and harassed him, called him out for his jeans or whatever and my husband blamed the man for… Read more »
Do you think the fact that wearing a tight shirt made her more attractive to men had anything to do with her decision to wear it?
In most cases, I’d call bullshit on that kind of remark. Sounds eerily similar to the “she was asking for it” argument, though I’m sure you weren’t trying to imply that. Women enjoy feeling pretty and fashionable; there’s nothing wrong with that. Though the fact that, even when she was being blatantly harassed, she chose not to discourage him suggests to me that she might have enjoyed the attention a bit. She should have reported him the moment he started sending those texts. In these kinds of situations, both parties need to be adult about it. Dr. Knight should have… Read more »
I agree both parties should be adult about it. The adult thing for him to do is maintain a strictly professional relationship, and, if he thinks the clothes she’s wearing are too tight or revealing to be considered appropriate workplace attire, respectfully ask her to wear more appropriate clothing.
“Though the fact that, even when she was being blatantly harassed, she chose not to discourage him suggests to me that she might have enjoyed the attention a bit.”
But, see, this idea is in total opposition to Joanna’s claim that “IT’S NOT ABOUT HIM.”
If she’s doing it because she enjoys getting attention from him, then it very much is about him, isn’t it?
“Though the fact that, even when she was being blatantly harassed, she chose not to discourage him suggests to me that she might have enjoyed the attention a bit.”
If that is true, how can it also be true that the way she dressed had nothing to do with him?
Sorry for the double comment. My first was in moderation for a while – I assumed that it hadn’t passed moderation and decided to alter it to be more appropriate.
I made my comment before Joanna. I wasn’t trying to prove her right. Like I said: in this particular case, considering the information I’ve been given, I’m inclined to believe that the woman in question might have enjoyed the attention.
But please keep in mind that dressing in clothes that can be seen as provocative does not give a man the right to do or say whatever he wants.
I made my comment before Joanna. I wasn’t trying to prove her right or wrong. Though I would be inclined to agree with her if the article stated that the woman made an effort to defend her choice of clothing/ reported the doctor’s behavior. But like I said: the fact that she chose to do nothing suggests to me that she probably recognized how provocative her clothing was and just didn’t care. Maybe even enjoying the attention (though we shouldn’t assume). Keep in mind that just because a woman wears clothing that can be seen as provocative, a man is… Read more »
Haha now I’m double-commenting. Second comment is better-worded, though.
“Keep in mind that just because a woman wears clothing that can be seen as provocative, a man is not allowed to do whatever he wants. As long as the clothing is deemed work-appropriate by the people who regulate the dress code, the woman should not automatically be antagonized.”
I agree, I never defended him harassing her. In fact, I’ve been saying “If he thought her clothing was inappropriate, he should have respectfully asked her to wear more appropriate work attire.” That would have been the mature, adult way to handle it.
That wasn’t exactly what I was getting at. Rather, I should have said “just because a women wears clothing that can be seen as provocative, a man does not have the right to harass her or make ridiculous blanket -statements about women and their motives for fashion choices as a whole.”
Don’t antagonize all of women and their clothing choices just because your ex girlfriend or sister or coworker fits a stereotype. It’s tough to understand women. I empathize. But have some respect. We’re not all as bad as you want us to be.
This is a funny thing that I hear people say. There are any number of reasons that a woman might wear a tight shirt. Just like there are any number of reasons a man might wear his second shirt button open. I know lots of those men. I don’t think it’s for women to be so overwhelmed by them that they can’t work and then the man gets fired. Here are some reasons: Maybe her husband likes the shirts and thinks it’s awesome when she wears them, maybe she feels like she looks better in them and wants to look… Read more »
Sure, it’s not about men. Being an attractive woman is never about the benefits and advantages you get from men. Tell us again about that time a male judge let you out of a traffic ticket when you “smiled sweetly” at him?
Okay, now you just sound bitter.
Because I’m expected to believe that somehow, even though being attractive results in a laundry list of perks and amenities, someone dressing in a way that makes them as attractive as possible has *nothing* to do with said perks and amenities?
Yes. I’m going to let you in on a secret: girl’s love their bodies just as much as men do. No, really. If there were zero men on this earth, I’d still wear heels and dresses. Why? Because I feel fantastic in them. To be frank, it’s pretty insulting and more than a little conceited to assume that a woman’s attractiveness only has value in the eyes of a straight male. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that there aren’t women who take pleasure in flaunting their assets to play around with men. It happens. But more often than… Read more »
So there’s no connection between you dressing sexy and the fact that dressing sexy might get you a cab a little quicker, or someone might hold an elevator door a little longer, or someone might buy you a drink or offer to help you carry something or treat you to a meal or do you some other kind of favor? It has *nothing* to do with how other people treat you? I simply find that hard to believe, in the same way I find it hard to believe that guys hit the gym or drive flashy sports cars with no… Read more »
How is that so hard to understand? You must be surrounded by superficial women or just don’t get to know enough of them to believe that their choice of clothing is made based on how many unfair benefits they can get for it. But let me make a distinction here. I do care how others treat me and dress accordingly to make sure I’m not seen as someone I’m not. But I never use it with the intent to manipulate and get what I want unfairly. I’m pretty sure that a great number of people (shall I say most people)… Read more »
“Or are you misogynic? It’s okay if you are.”
Awwww, how cute! You decided to passive-aggressively call me a misogynist by framing the accusation as a question! And then you gave me a big pat on the head and condescendingly told me it’s okay if I am! Gee whiz, thanks!
And with that, I am done with you.
Drew, your reply made me laugh.
@ Kimberly “Or are you misogynic? It’s okay if you are.” It’s a bit off topic, but I’ve wondered about this. Many MRAs hold feminists to the standard of perfection. I’ve been guilty of that. People aren’t perfect so that standard is unfair. I’ve been thinking about how some of my behaviors have supported the gender norms I know aren’t good. I know media images have given girls unreasonable expectations of how they should look and it’s harmful. It’s given boys and men unreasonable expectations of how women should look also. I’m probably already indoctrinated as I prefer conventionally attractive… Read more »
Personally, I love to feel pretty. It doesn’t matter who it’s for often. When I’m wearing heels, nice clothes, having a good hair day, and makeup…I feel like I can take on the world. I walk taller, prouder, and feel more uplifted. I feel like shit when I feel ugly and MY work suffers. I’m more productive when I feel beautiful. Sure, sometimes I’m trying to get the attention of a man, but don’t always assume that that man is YOU or that it gives you free reign to harass.
@Aya, do you wear your cleavage out and increase your sexual attraction greatly in areas which require a lot of focus? DO you complain when men look at you (or women)? Dress as beautiful as you want but in some settings it’s inappropriate as it’s a distraction. Looking like a supermodel dressed to the nines whilst everyone else at work is in casual wear is also a bit strange:P. I think they should just set a uniform if it bothers them that much. And of course, don’t’ harass but there’s no indication he harassed her at work that I see… Read more »
I will say for the record that if I am ever dressed “sexy” (which for me would mean cutoffs and a tank with a bikini top), and someone bought me a drink (or for me, a coffee) or offered to carry something for me, I’d say “no”. I don’t have guys carry things for me unless they are employees of stores and that’s their job. I don’t take cabs, because I live in a suburb of Los Angeles, so that doesn’t count. I take care of my own shit and I don’t get freebies. When the judge let me off… Read more »
I certainly didn’t mean to say that getting something is the only reason women ever dress sexy or pretty. But it just seems as ridiculous, to me, to say that a) attractive people get privilege in our society, b) people dress in ways that make them more attractive, but c) them dressing in ways that make them more attractive has *nothing* to do with that privilege. And of course men do it too. Its just less often with clothing and more with things like power and wealth. Like I said before, I don’t believe that guys buy sports cars *just*… Read more »
“Maybe she is single and wants to meet a guy and thinks that a tight shirt might do that for her.”
Because it’s appropriate to try to be picking up guys at work? Because that screams professionalism?
This is in response to your latest comment in response to me. Believe it or not, that was a sincere question. Many men ARE misogynic and it taints their judgement. I can see how that seemed like I was being condescending and in retrospect I should have worded that differently, but I was only trying to get an understanding of where you’re coming from. I really want to apologize since I recognize how condescending that sounded. But it seems now that you’re probably too heated to argue rationally and now everything I say will be of no consequence. It’s really… Read more »
Many women are misandrist too, tainting their judgment, he could easily claim the same for you and thus both your views overlook each others gender. Loving how your breasts look is fine, but showing them WILL mean people will look, get distracted, etc. We live in a culture which covers them for the most part and there’s probably a lot of biological instinct at play governing the sexual response to breasts in most men for instance (and some women). Some people like how they look nude but going outside naked isn’t seen as appropriate by society especially in most workplaces.… Read more »
I totally Agree. Did I say otherwise?
Possibilities time. You’ve been to a dentist recently right? The assistant sits across the chair so it’s basically Dentist patient dental assistant/technician facing like this > | <. Because the patient is around chest height when in a seat this dentist's view will include part of her chest for quite some time most likely. Having a revealing top can be very distracting in such circumstances since a lot of sexual attraction is automatic and not consciously controllable (otherwise we could change gay people straight). Do you understand how fucking annoying it is to have instinct make you want to look… Read more »
If you wear cutoff’s and a bikini to work in a professional setting where it’s not common nor expected then yes he has a right to be offended, he is the boss, he sets the rules for what you wear. Not to mention the sheer level of distraction that an attractive person in a bikini would draw from another person who is attracted to them. Being on the street/at beach wearing that is one thing, but in a place of business and especially one that requires absolute concentration it’s a terrible thing to do. I’d want my dentist 100% focused… Read more »
She can wear whatever she wants.
I find it so amusing when feminists complain about unwanted male attention on the one hand, but also have no problem with women dressing as sexy as they want.
If you’re going to wear a revealing outfit, expect your average heterosexual male to be turned on by it, maybe even ogle you a bit. You have every right to wear it, but you do not have the right to police (non-criminal) male reactions to it.
Julie, Drew, Kimberly: Read this as if I’m saying it with a resigned sigh: Read the damn opinion. It’s right there in plain, black and white letters: The real issue was that Dr. Knight and Ms. Nelson were carrying on some sort of non-work relationship outside of work, one that Ms. Nelson participated in as a co-equal party, one in which she felt comfortable discussing her sex life with him, and one that both Dr. and Ms. Knight feared might turn into an affair. Ms. Nelson did not allege harassment at the time, nor later in court. The incidents involving… Read more »
Here’s the link to the Opinion, approx. 16 pages (PDF version): http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20121221/11-1857.pdf I just read it, and I think the feminist blogosphere version of what it said is very different from what it actually said. It has nothing to do with what’s expected of men, or whether it’s okay to fire a woman for being “too attractive”. Firing someone because a jealous spouse forces a choice between an employee and the marriage does not count as gender discrimination, in either this case, or in the many cases the court cited in support of their reasoning. If you read the opinion… Read more »
I haven ‘t read the opinion but if you are an at will employee, you can be fired for a dumb reason or no reason, or even a discriminatory reason as long as it is not an UNLAWFUL discriminatory reason. The boss in this case was apparently not discriminating against women in general, he was discriminating against one woman who he felt was a distraction in the workplace because of her attractiveness. He sounds like a cad, but there is no law that protects attractive people from discrimination. In fact its generally unattractive women who suffer the most discrimination in… Read more »
I think about the same as what you say here Sarah. Technically speaking I don’t think she was fired for a discriminatory reason. That being said this dentist is a jerk for what he did and if the woman in question protested or tried to urge his patients to take their dental needs elsewhere (and try to urge the remaining female employees to leave, if they can) I’d be all for it.