What do you think of this? (Iowa Supreme Court ruling)...

[Joker]

I think this is nuts, but wondered what other hive members might think.

 

The story is about a dentist who fired his assistant of 10 years because he feared he might want an affair with her. The Iowa Supreme Court said it was ok. What are your thoughts?

[TranquilMind]

I think this is nuts, but wondered what other hive members might think.

 

The story is about a dentist who fired his assistant of 10 years because he feared he might want an affair with her. The Iowa Supreme Court said it was ok. What are your thoughts?

 

I haven't read it yet, but it really isn't surprising, as most states are employment-at-will states. You can be fired for any reason whatsoever, except for the federally protected ones.

[Amy in NH]

I think he couldn't quit his job to get away from her because it's his business. What else could he do?

[Joker]

 

I haven't read it yet, but it really isn't surprising, as most states are employment-at-will states. You can be fired for any reason whatsoever, except for the federally protected ones.

 

I'm floored at the idea that they didn't see this as gender discrimination, though. My understanding is that at-will employment does not mean they can terminate employment if its due to gender, race, etc.

[Joker]

I think he couldn't quit his job to get away from her because it's his business. What else could he do?

 

Keep his relationship professional as he had done for the previous 10 years? I'm stunned that men all over Iowa can now fire female employees and just claim they were attracted to them. I feel it's just so very wrong.

[TranquilMind]

I'm floored at the idea that they didn't see this as gender discrimination, though. My understanding is that at-will employment does not mean they can terminate employment if its due to gender, race, etc.

 

Once, I think this would have been a valid argument. Since there is so much sexual flipping and meandering today, I think the company can make a fair argument that he could have fired anyone in whom he was interested, male or female.

 

Negative result of the legitimized sexual expansion of options.

[Amy in NH]

I'm floored at the idea that they didn't see this as gender discrimination, though. My understanding is that at-will employment does not mean they can terminate employment if its due to gender, race, etc.

 

Why is it gender discrimination? It couldn't happen if it were a gay employer with feelings for a same-sex employee?

[Amy in NH]

 

Keep his relationship professional as he had done for the previous 10 years?

 

[snip]

 

But that's the problem. He wasn't able to do that. He had obviously developed feelings for/an attraction to this employee. He knew he shouldn't, but it happened anyway. He didn't want to compromise his marriage, or hers. Given all of his available options in this situation, I think he did the right thing.

 

It's kind of like asking an alcoholic to work at a bar serving drinks - just maintain your professional relationship and don't mind the alcohol to which you are addicted... human nature isn't that simple.

[Joker]

I actually would be just as upset if he fired a male employee because he was attracted to them. So, if it's not gender discrimination it's still something that shouldn't be legal. It's ridiculous you can be fired because your employer has developed feelings for you. That's on them, not you, and you shouldn't lose your job over it. I'm just disgusted.

[Amy in NH]

I actually would be just as upset if he fired a male employee because he was attracted to them. So, if it's not gender discrimination it's still something that shouldn't be legal. It's ridiculous you can be fired because your employer has developed feelings for you. That's on them, not you, and you shouldn't lose your job over it. I'm just disgusted.

 

So, instead he should have continued acting out until she cried "sexual harassment" and sued him, or caved and ruined both their marriages in an affair? What realistic thing do you think he should have done instead?

[Joker]

I think he should have sucked it up and owned his feelings without making an innocent woman a victim. She lost her job because he couldn't control himself. Also, why do you assume he could have ruined two marriages with an affair. She has never said she was attracted to him or would have jeopordized her own marriage. I hate the precedent this sets with allowing people to be terminated due to an authority figure having feelings toward them. Do you not see how people could seriously abuse this?

[StephanieZ]

In at at-will employment state, an employer may fire anyone at anytime, so long as it is not explicitly for a protected-class. Protected class is very narrowly defined federally, although a few states have expanded it. Unless the reason one is being fired is just because they are female (i.e., NO females are hired/kept) or a race/ethnicity (again, simply because of their ethnicity/race) or religion, etc., then you can fire anyone at any time. You can be fired if your employer dislikes your hairstyle or because you aren't willing to work when/how the employer wishes, etc. ANY reason. In fact, most employment lawyers would advise employers to simply give NO reason. However, if you don't give a good reason with backed-up paperwork, etc, then the employer is often on-the-hook for unemployment claims. So, if they have a good reason (performance based and/or attitude, etc) that would defend against unemployment claims, they will often give the reasons. But, if they have no good reason, then they are smart to simply say, "Thanks, but no thanks. Here's your final paycheck. Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

 

I agree that as a business owner and husband, the employer made a rational decision to fire the temptation. He likely had little/no choice in the matter. If I were the wife in that picture, the temptation would have been fired immediately, no doubt. People are not machines. They work together and have to deal with human emotions at the same time. If you were the wife in this situation, what would you have wanted done? And, FWIW, a month's severance isn't stingy in the small business world. It is unusually generous. She should have also been eligible to get unemployment insurance compensation. And, in the free market, to get a new job.

 

FWIW, I think the best take home lesson would be that the employee should have sought a different job at the first sign that her boss was hot for her. Presumably the situation occured over a long period of time, and she could have looked for a good position during that time. It's a free market, and if she is good at what she does, there should have been other options.. She should have moved on, as obviously her boss can't move on since he owns the business.

[Χά�ων]

Behavior is a choice. He can choose to behave professionally and seek therapy to help him deal with his feelings.

[Joker]

I guess I'm just weird in that if I found out someone was a temptation for my husband I would be upset with dh, not with the woman. I would take it up with dh and I honestly can't imagine telling him to fire someone because he's an arse. I would realize we had things to work on and I would tell him to quit texting and only deal with her in the office. I honestly don't know if there is anything anyone could say that would make me be ok with the ruling, so maybe I'll just let this go.

[Amy in NH]

I think you have an unrealistic view of human nature.

 

I think the wife was upset with her husband, not the woman in the office (unless she was in some way leading him on).

 

The employee's choices were to:

1. ignore the employer's behavior (which was likely to escalate given his attraction to her),

2. get fed up and sue him for sexual harassment,

3. have an affair that ruins both of their marriages, or

4. leave and find another job.

 

She should have done #4 on her own. He forced her to.

[Joker]

I can't believe you're blaming the woman for not moving on sooner. The person with the feelings, the employer, should have worked out his own feelings. She shouldn't be held responsible because he had an unhappy life/marriage and was looking for something to spice it up. I think she, in the end, was standing up for what she knew was right. My dh works with women and doesn't get involved like this guy. If he started having feelings for one of his employees, that would be on us, not on her. I sit here looking at my own two dds and hope we fix carp like this so they don't face it in their future. I don't thing that's an unrealistic view of human nature, but it's obviously an unrealistic view of fairness.

[nmoira]

I think you have an unrealistic view of human nature.

 

I think the wife was upset with her husband, not the woman in the office (unless she was in some way leading him on).

 

The employee's choices were to:

1. ignore the employer's behavior (which was likely to escalate given his attraction to her),

2. get fed up and sue him for sexual harassment,

3. have an affair that ruins both of their marriages, or

4. leave and find another job.

 

She should have done #4 on her own. He forced her to.

 

Or *he* could have curbed his unprofessional behavior, realized that texting her in such circumstances was entirely inappropriate, chosen to be honest with everyone, offered to help the employee find another job with stellar references, and given her a reasonable (though not exorbitant) severance package for an employee of ten years, and set up counseling sessions with his wife.

 

ETA: He apparently did give her one month's severance.

[Joker]

So, if he's able to call a woman into his office and fire her because she turns him on, is he then able to call a woman into his office and fire her because she disgusts him? Both make him uncomfortable, so why should only the first allow her to be fired?

[Lawana]

In an ideal world, we would all have perfect control over our emotions, actions and impulses. Have you (OP) never struggled with something to the extent that you weren't sure what the outcome would be? Sexual attraction, food, alcohol, quick temper, biting tongue, to name just a few? If not, consider yourself an extremely lucky person. In my experience, most people do face such situations at some time in their lives. Perhaps you yourself have had good experience with finding help for such an issue. Others, including myself and most of my family, have not. Despite repeated attempts, the outcomes have not been good. If one happens to be in a position to control one's environment, it only makes sense to make use of that option. While it sucks to be the one fired (yes, I've been there), I think it would suck more to be part of a system that would legally prohibit having that option available.

[Joker]

I've most definitely struggled but I take responsiblity. I do not pass that on to someone else. I do not feel she should have been fired. I do not feel the wife should have been able to request it and been accomodated. I do not feel it is fair to the innocent party. Everyone struggles, but everyone should not just be able to hurt others to help themselves.I think the pp upthread who said he could have been honest and then allowed her to work while looking for a job would have been the best solution.

[Mrs Mungo]

I haven't read it yet, but it really isn't surprising, as most states are employment-at-will states. You can be fired for any reason whatsoever, except for the federally protected ones.

 

Ultimately, I have to agree with this. When you vote for employment to be at-will, then this is what you get. Employers can fire you for pretty much anything they please. Workers' rights have been extremely eroded (by both major parties) over the last 25 years or so.

 

I might personally think he should be ale to deal with his issues on a professional level (after all, men and women who work together in other businesses don't always have the option of firing everyone they find attractive), but that has nothing to do with the legality of the situation.

[nmoira]

I've most definitely struggled but I take responsiblity. I do not pass that on to someone else. I do not feel she should have been fired. I do not feel the wife should have been able to request it and been accomodated. I do not feel it is fair to the innocent party. Everyone struggles, but everyone should not just be able to hurt others to help themselves.I think the pp upthread who said he could have been honest and then allowed her to work while looking for a job would have been the best solution.

 

The employee has to deal with a gap in her resume and the stigma of having been fired because he wasn't thinking with his brain. He took the easy way out rather than the honorable one.

[Lawana]

Meh. I think it's worse to have no ability to hire/fire at will than it is to have occasions when someone loses his/her job through no fault of their own.

[elizabeth]

 

Keep his relationship professional as he had done for the previous 10 years? I'm stunned that men all over Iowa can now fire female employees and just claim they were attracted to them. I feel it's just so very wrong.

This lawyer has read the decision in its entirety and thinks the analysis used was that of a gatekeeper court. The method they used to get around it being federally protected and thus not discrimination based on gender was ridiculous. It was about power and who had it. I hope his shameless behaviour about having a" tent in his pants" made his wife proud. what a weak weasel of a man who could not simply deal with his own sexuality. Here is the case in full, it is one of the worst decisions yet. The voters got what they wanted and they have a court with puppets. A shame filled day again for Iowa. Here is a decison that will send a chill down the spine of every red blooded woman. I have known some lame-o men in my time but this one takes the cake. http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20121221/11-1857.pdf If you are an attractive woman in Iowa, watch it as you can be fired with no recourse even if your creepy boss says inappropriate things to you....

[staceyobu]

I think you have an unrealistic view of human nature.

 

I think the wife was upset with her husband, not the woman in the office (unless she was in some way leading him on).

 

The employee's choices were to:

1. ignore the employer's behavior (which was likely to escalate given his attraction to her),

2. get fed up and sue him for sexual harassment,

3. have an affair that ruins both of their marriages, or

4. leave and find another job.

 

She should have done #4 on her own. He forced her to.

 

You should have to leave and find another job because your boss acts like a pig? What if it becomes acceptable for all male bosses to act like pigs? Then where are women supposed to work?

 

This is in no way, shape or form fair to the woman.

[Joker]

Personally I have no opinion one way or the other about what this man should or should not have done. It's always too easy to make a judgment call based on the perspective given by a news source and I'm not comfortable doing that, especially since it doesn't effect me in anyway.

 

But, I would think the point here would be that the Iowa Supreme Court was not ruling on what he *should* have done from a human decency point of view, but a legal point of view. People do all sorts of things that others find to be unacceptable; but, in the US so long as what you're doing is not against the law there's really not much anyone can do about it. In this case the court ruled that what the employer did was not against the law. For all you know, Horton, the judges all personally felt as you do.

 

This is actually part of the critique of Western liberalism (in the broad sense of the word): the idea that people have no motivation to do much more than push the boundaries of the law. So if the law literally says "no gender discrimination" and the employer is not discriminating against gender, then he can fire his female employee simply for being ugly or in this case, attractive.

 

I get that many will think it's all on the up and up legally, but I am dumbfounded by those that defend it as right. I don't get defending the dentist and throwing out the assistant. It seems so backwards and wrong. I'll admit that I don't think it should be ok legally either, though. Talk about some serious power given to spouses. If I find myself threatened by someone, I can just tell dh to fire them? That doesn't seem at all right or legal and is something I would never do.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't think it should be legal either, but only 11 states allow for the type of exception that may have protected her in a case like this.

[Caitilin]

Mad Men, anyone? I am, frankly, gobsmacked.

[GWOB]

I was wondering if someone would bring this to our attention.

 

Without reading any replys, I have to respond. The wife in me says Oh Heck Yes!!!! The logical, rational, Jesus-loving person want to beat the crap out of the dentist and his wife. Dude needs to control his response to a hussy. The hussy needs to remind herself she is married. Women are not the cause for men's sins. Men are grown and can control themselves. A group of men on the Iowa Supreme Court should know better than to blame the woman for their sins.

 

Yes, the woman in this case behaved badly. I agree with that assumption. However, the dentist could and should have controlled himself. Let's not lay all the blame on the female. Men are smart and capable of controlling their responses.

[Reya]

At-will is at-will. You shouldn't have to justify firing anyone.

[Pamela H in Texas]

(didn't read article)

 

He *should* have prevented and actively worked against being in this position. The fact is that he didn't and needed an out. Since he couldn't very well quit his job.....And they are in a state where this was legal and he did give her severance so she wouldn't be strapped (though I kinda think maybe he should have given more even if a month is considered generous....again, in an ideal situation, HE would have been the one to leave rather than her losing her job).

[TravelingChris]

Is it the best situation? No. Is it legal, yes. Oh, and I like at will employment but that doesn't mean I like either of the parties behaviors here.

[elegantlion]

I hope his dental practice tanks. Yeah, that's mean, but would you want to go to that dentist? The one that tells his staff how much she "excites" him. Would you want your teenage daughter in his office? Would you let your kid go back alone with this clown?

 

I wonder if the outcome would have been different if she had sued for s*xual harassment.

[TravelingChris]

No, elegantlion, I would not go to that dentist. Since he was in an at will state, I think he should have kept his mouth shut and just fired her. Now I suspect that many, even ones who support at will firing, will not want to use him as a dentist. Too creepy.

[Tammyla]

I hope people drop him like the creep he seems to be. The ruling, sadly...not much surprises me here.

[Durriyyah]

I agree he shouldn't have said why. When we were firing people, we always just said, "Your services are no longer needed." and usually left it at that. I would fight for At Will employment if I had to, whether I'm on the manager's side of things or not. A business has a vested interest in keeping good employees, and being able to recruit good employees, which will largely keep the managers in line. Of course, there are exceptions but overall I haven't seen it be abused. I'm glad she got severance, and (I didn't read the article) I would hope she got some great references and possibly a name/number of someone she could interview with right away.

 

I know that the chips fall on both sides on the issue for very valid reasons. I don't think saying just to suck it up and get over it is as easy as it sounds to some men. I think it's like telling a depressed person to get over it; sometimes our emotions are stronger than our logic and we have to adjust accordingly. Some people get hurt when another is going through a bout of depression, and unfortunately this woman lost her job when he couldn't ethically control himself any longer. Sometimes we are the victim and sometimes we are the victimizer (hopefully rarely or never). Meh, as long as it isn't dangerous, life moves on.

[Kathryn]

I get that this wasn't "gender discrimination," but the article keeps saying "sexual harassment" is what the ruling was about. And I don't see how the ruling makes sense. I was taught the complete opposite of this: "Such conduct does not amount to sexual harassment, Iowa Supreme Court justices ruled Friday, because it was based on specific emotions tied to a specific relationship and not based solely on a person’s gender." If he acted inappropriately (which according to the article he did) and as her supervisor, it constitutes sexual harassment from what I was taught in school and by employers.

[Annie G]

They both behaved poorly. His behavior is just awful, but what was she thinking? 18 months before she was fired he mentioned her tight clothing, and then later talked to her husband. What woman then starts texting the guy after that? A smarter move for her would have been to start wearing less revealing clothes, find a job with a better employer, and not advance the relationship by texting about personal matters. No, she shouldn't need to adjust her clothing choices, but while she was trying to find a new job, why not? Men don't need to see tight clothes in order to have wrong thoughts but this guy already indicated it was a hot spot for him- I'd be wearing the most baggy scrubs available if I were that woman.

 

He's a pig, and while it was financially smart to get rid of her before she became an expensive harassment lawsuit, the guy probably needs to hire someone to help him learn how to behave better.

[regentrude]

I think he couldn't quit his job to get away from her because it's his business. What else could he do?

 

Be professional and keep his attraction out of it. That's what adults are supposed to do.

[regentrude]

The employee's choices were to:

1. ignore the employer's behavior (which was likely to escalate given his attraction to her),

2. get fed up and sue him for sexual harassment,

3. have an affair that ruins both of their marriages, or

4. leave and find another job.

She should have done #4 on her own. He forced her to.

 

She should have done #2.

A comment like this

At one point, Knight told Nelson that "if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing," the decision read.

 

most definitely constitutes sexual harassment (we have to undergo training every year at work).

It is appalling that he can first harass her and then, when his wife finds out, fire her.

[Mrs Mungo]

Be professional and keep his attraction out of it. That's what adults are supposed to do.

 

Exactly. If she had been his subordinate in a company that he didn't own, what then? He would have needed to find another way to deal with it.

 

She should have done #2.

A comment like this

most definitely constitutes sexual harassment (we have to undergo training every year at work).

It is appalling that he can first harass her and then, when his wife finds out, fire her.

 

I agree. I think his other female employees now have *very* good sexual harassment cases against him, if he says a word. Having already fired an employee for being attractive is definitely an indicator of a hostile work environment.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Exactly. If she had been his subordinate in a company that he didn't own, what then? He would have needed to find another way to deal with it.

 

 

 

I agree. I think his other female employees now have *very* good sexual harassment cases against him, if he says a word. Having already fired an employee for being attractive is definitely an indicator of a hostile work environment.

:iagree:

Just what I was thinking.

[MercyA]

They both behaved poorly. His behavior is just awful, but what was she thinking?

 

:iagree: She allegedly complained to him about the infrequency of her TeA life. There's a reason she didn't sue him for harassment.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

:iagree: She allegedly complained to him about the infrequency of her TeA life. There's a reason she didn't sue him for harassment.

 

What she did won't matter the next time. That is my point. He is setting up the rest of the ladies in his office quite nicely.

[Anne in CA]

As someone who works in a union job where not just anyone can be fired, and have one superior who clearly has a deep attraction to me I feel a little differently about this. We work together pretty well, but have tense moments. Human attraction is just not always mutual. Even if I were not married I would not be attracted to this person, so I am extra careful not to give him the wrong idea. Several years of working together have not fixed this situation. Maybe the dentist let her go truthfully so that he could give her a good recommendation for a different job? Maybe he had good motives. It is just not desirable to have two people working together who are a ticking time bomb. Wants become needs in times of stress and needs get met.

 

I went to church with a woman who was let go from a dental office where she just did not fit in. They were not unhappy with her work, but they just did not like her and she did not like them and she was about to quit so she was very happy when they let her go and she got unemployment. A work environment that is about close team work can become unbearable quickly when one person doesn't mesh.

[Kathryn]

 

 

:iagree: She allegedly complained to him about the infrequency of her TeA life. There's a reason she didn't sue him for harassment.

 

This article makes MUCH more sense than the one the OP linked to.

[somo_chickenlady]

Iowa is a right to work/employment at will state, so he can fire her for any reason other than federally prohibited ones, and I don't consider that discrimination of gender. While it sucks for the employee, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[butterflymommy]

 

I haven't read it yet, but it really isn't surprising, as most states are employment-at-will states. You can be fired for any reason whatsoever, except for the federally protected ones.

 

 

I couldn't tell you how many women on birth boards I've belonged to have been fired within days if not hours of telling their employer they were pregnant. Supposedly this is a protected category but the women dropped like flies as soon as they revealed they were pregnant. One woman was fired only after her employer found out she was unmarried (and pregnant).

[radiobrain]

exit stage left....

[TranquilMind]

 

I couldn't tell you how many women on birth boards I've belonged to have been fired within days if not hours of telling their employer they were pregnant. Supposedly this is a protected category but the women dropped like flies as soon as they revealed they were pregnant. One woman was fired only after her employer found out she was unmarried (and pregnant).

 

Oh, I know. People over 50 similarly drop like flies or don't get hired at all, while the companies vehemently state they would never discriminate.

 

Like in everything, there is an official story of how things are done and the real story. Unfortunately.

 

But if several women can demonstrate a pattern, they've got a lawsuit.