I Guess Men Are Powerless To Control Their Urges - In Iowa, Anyway

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
4,712
572
113
Upstairs
IOWA CITY, Iowa — A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa State Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an “irresistible attraction,” even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behaviour or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.

An attorney for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight said the decision, the first of its kind in Iowa, is a victory for family values because Knight fired Melissa Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman.

But Nelson’s attorney said Iowa’s all-male high court, one of only a handful in the nation, failed to recognize the discrimination that women see routinely in the workplace.

“These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don’t think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires and that Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and control their bosses’ sexual desires,” said attorney Paige Fiedler. “If they get out of hand, then the women can be legally fired for it.”

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

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.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

Nelson was stunned because she viewed the 53-year-old Knight as a father figure and had never been interested in starting a relationship, Fiedler said.

Nelson filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, arguing she would not have been terminated if she was male. She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight’s conduct may not have risen to that level and didn’t particularly offend her, Fiedler said.

Knight argued Nelson was fired not because of her gender, but because her continued employment threatened his marriage. A district judge agreed, dismissing the case before trial, and the high court upheld that ruling.

Mansfield noted that Knight had an all-female workforce and Nelson was replaced by a woman.

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

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

Knight’s attorney, Stuart Cochrane, said the court got it right. The decision clarified that bosses can make decisions showing favouritism to a family member without committing discrimination; in this case, by allowing Knight to honour his wife’s wishes to fire Nelson, he said.

Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.

“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 said. “The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage.

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

the old maxx50

New member
Dec 22, 2010
779
0
0
reading some of the dentist comment to the secretary .. i would say she has a sexual harassment case .. on top of discrimination .
 

badbadboy

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2006
9,576
277
83
In Lust Mostly
The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

Lost me exactly at this point. I hate it when people can not do the right thing and use their 'crutch' to make the hard decisions.

Terminating this woman because he had a hard on for her was just plain wrong.

I have worked in a large company on a few occasions and it was filled with attractive women who would make any guy trip over his dick. There were policies in place about sexual harassment and to my knowledge the rules were abided by with one exception. The senior VP didn't think it applied to him and it cost the company big bucks to pay off a young receptionist whose father was a litigator specializing in HR problems like harassment. Talk about "don't do as I do, do as I say".
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,919
0
0
“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 said.
No, they were related to the fact that he was a pig.

I think if he fired her for no reason other than what were sexual urges on his part, that is pretty clearly a case of sexual harrassment.
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,499
7
38
on yer ignore list
IOWA CITY, Iowa — A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa State Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an “irresistible attraction,” even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behaviour or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.
No, they were related to the fact that he was a pig.

I think if he fired her for no reason other than what were sexual urges on his part, that is pretty clearly a case of sexual harrassment.
apparently the iowa supreme court disagrees with you; however, it could go to the us supreme court where the decision could be reversed. i admit that the quote about being 'unfair but not unlawful' sounds pretty fucked up, and could indicate an opening for appeal

certainly the decision did not take place in canada, so canadian laws and attitudes won't ever apply

just sayin' :)
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,919
0
0
She didn't charge sexual harrassment though, she charged gender discrimination.

If this was taken to a jury as a sexual harrassment case, she would have a reasonable chance of winning.
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,499
7
38
on yer ignore list
Nelson filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, arguing she would not have been terminated if she was male. She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight’s conduct may not have risen to that level and didn’t particularly offend her, Fiedler said.
if her own (female, i think) lawyer admits a weak case for sexual harassment, then there was likely none
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,919
0
0
It still would have been a case even if weak, whereas it is clear that it was not gender discrimination. The approach they took was pretty much a losing proposition.
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,499
7
38
on yer ignore list
It still would have been a case even if weak, whereas it is clear that it was not gender discrimination. The approach they took was pretty much a losing proposition.
it would be interesting to know what the lawyer charged
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
4,712
572
113
Upstairs
Unless the dentist admits to being bi sexual, or bi curious she was fired STRICTLY because she is a female. If he had a male receptionist, the dentist is sayng there would be no problem.

How they could rule it was not discriminatory, by 7-0,yet is a mystery to me.

This is just like a like a ruling in an Islamic country where men must be protected from their uncontrollable desires by keeping women covered head to toe. No responsibility placed on the male.

I wonder if the judges would have been so generous if a woman boss fired a male employee she found too attractive?
 

Dgodus

Banned
Nov 5, 2011
856
0
0
Here and There
I'm curious to know if he would have fired her if his wife hadn't of told him to. I think there are grounds for allowing this if it becomes a family matter. Media spin, and how they want to potray him aren't really going to give the truth and for all we know he may have only said those few off color remarks, and that was it, over the 10 or so years they worked together (which is pretty normal, especially if she never said "those remarks are inappropriate").

I'm also curious to know (on a tangent here) when it becomes possible for a man (such as a boss) to claim harassment or use disciplinary measures on a female employee who's being told dressing in certain ways (form fitting cloths, high skirts, low cut necks, or dressing to accent her sexuality and attractiveness) is inappropriate. I would never say a woman invites harassment, but I do take issue with some people who do dress up to make themselves very attractive then are rude or have to be overly verbal when they find people looking. I don't leer or harass, I'm not undressing with my eyes or imagining dirty scenarios in my mind; I'm just looking at something/one attractive.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,919
0
0
Unless the dentist admits to being bi sexual, or bi curious she was fired STRICTLY because she is a female. If he had a male receptionist, the dentist is sayng there would be no problem.

How they could rule it was not discriminatory, by 7-0,yet is a mystery to me.

This is just like a like a ruling in an Islamic country where men must be protected from their uncontrollable desires by keeping women covered head to toe. No responsibility placed on the male.

I wonder if the judges would have been so generous if a woman boss fired a male employee she found too attractive?
It is not gender because other employees were female and she was replaced by a female.

This falls more under sexual harrassment than gender bias. She was fired because of her supervisors unwanted lust directed at her, not because of her gender or because of anything she did.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,919
0
0
I'm curious to know if he would have fired her if his wife hadn't of told him to. I think there are grounds for allowing this if it becomes a family matter. Media spin, and how they want to potray him aren't really going to give the truth and for all we know he may have only said those few off color remarks, and that was it, over the 10 or so years they worked together (which is pretty normal, especially if she never said "those remarks are inappropriate").

I'm also curious to know (on a tangent here) when it becomes possible for a man (such as a boss) to claim harassment or use disciplinary measures on a female employee who's being told dressing in certain ways (form fitting cloths, high skirts, low cut necks, or dressing to accent her sexuality and attractiveness) is inappropriate. I would never say a woman invites harassment, but I do take issue with some people who do dress up to make themselves very attractive then are rude or have to be overly verbal when they find people looking. I don't leer or harass, I'm not undressing with my eyes or imagining dirty scenarios in my mind; I'm just looking at something/one attractive.
You can establish dress codes and fire people for violating those, provided the code is applied uniformly.

This case is nothing like that though. Her boss had the hots for her, his wife found out and made him fire her.

You can kind of understand that some give and take should be allowed in a personal family business on something like that, but the victim (this woman) should have been adequately compensated because it was the failing of her boss that caused it, not her. She sure as hell should not have been given 1 months salary and told to F off.
 

Dgodus

Banned
Nov 5, 2011
856
0
0
Here and There
I'm mostly debating for the sake of debating. But applying a dress code uniformly isn't always practical or necessary. Ie me wearing tight pants to work may be ok but another fellow wearing tight pants displaying a significant bulge may not be; this would apply to women as well no?

The article mentioned he had made note of her attire and asked her to stop dressing in that manner. We don't know what's in the text it simply said "personal nature". I know from experience with dealing with a provider after we were exchanging many text conversations of a personal nature it definitly impacted the business side of things (such as she thought it would be weird reading a review by me even though she incessantly complained about not getting reviews, as well as she couldn't do the job in in the manner she'd easily do for a stranger/first time client).

The woman in question already shot herself in the foot by saying his behavior didn't offend her. I'm also just trying to point out when business gets personal it can comicate things and it's often very difficult to simply go back.
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
4,712
572
113
Upstairs
The point is, HER only offence was HIM being attracted to her.

That is not her fault and she didn't encourage him.

The reason for firing was he didn't think he could control himself and thought he might have an affair. If the entire onus was on him to control his behaviour, and he didn't feel he could and his solution was not to ignore her and just be a dentist then it is completely discriminatory to fire her.

The judges are saying women should try to be ugly at work if they want better job security.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,919
0
0
Here is a good summary of the issues from Slate on-line. The author makes the point that while it seems sleazy to fire someone who is too hot, it is legal.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...oman_for_being_irresistible_did_he_break.html
The article says the same thing I said, that it was not gender discrimination but that she could have a case for harrassment. For whatever reason she chose not to go that way but I think she had a much stronger case from that angle.
 

Big Dog Striker

New member
Nov 17, 2007
1,537
1
0
Its almost 2013 and they still have an all-male medieval Supreme Court in Iowa. :doh: Very bad precedent. :nod:

Too bad it can't be elevated to the US Supreme Court.

I don't see any reason women in that town should continue patronizing that dentist. Just my opinion. :rolleyes:

Anyways, good thing they didn't have a Cactus Club in Iowa, it'll probably end up having all their female servers fired and become the first all-male Cactus Club in the world. lol :pound:
 
Vancouver Escorts