You gotta be kidding me!

[ddog]

I can't understand how it is much ado about nothing? Sure there are a lot of sad things in the news but this is such a knock towards women it is upsetting. No one should ever half to worry about losing their job because someone's marriage is threatened.

I agree, and I can guarantee you that for the lady in question, it is not much ado about nothing. She lost a job for reasons she didn't deserve, and one she worked hard at. She is probably questioning quite a few things in her mind right now. I feel for her.

I'm sure she will be fine, but that doesn't take away from the fact that she just didn't deserve this.

BooHoo, stuff happens. The fact remains she will soon be working again. People get fired all the time for reasons that seem stupid or silly,or even reasons that hurt someones feelings. Life goes on. On the grand scale of things this is at the bottom. Peoples feelings get hurt, they face hardships, life is NOT fare, get over it. I expect she will be hired soon and whoever hires her will get plenty of press coverage about how they helped the lady.

Edited December 24, 2012 by ddog
because!

[Crazy Horse]

This case will probably be overturned by a higher court. There are certain classes of people that you can not, by law, discriminate against in hiring or firing. Gender is one of those classes; wearing green socks(an example used) isn't. That trumps any "work at will" laws. Would a male employee have been fired for the same reasons? Doubtful, unless the Dr's lawyer put him on the stand to testify that he also got turned on by men. That's why we have appellate courts to correct the mistakes made by the lower courts.

Clearly this is a case of the employer not being able to handle and keep hidden his fantasies. We've all fantasized about coworkers at one time or another no matter where they were on the chain of command. Nothing wrong with that as long as the individuals' work is unaffected or nothing else adverse happens. Losing one's job is about as adverse as it gets.

However, mine is just another street lawyer opinion. What does our resident Legal Eagle think about the case?

...Happy Hobbying...

...Crazy Horse...

[Sphinx]

This case will probably be overturned by a higher court.

There is no higher court. Employment issues are a matter of state law and the Iowa supremes have the last word. Unless she wants to file an equal protection case and claim that "hot" is a protected class.

[Crazy Horse]

There is no higher court. Employment issues are a matter of state law and the Iowa supremes have the last word. Unless she wants to file an equal protection case and claim that "hot" is a protected class.

Wrong. When I go to work tomorrow by federal law, not state, I'll be payed overtime. That's only one of very many examples of federal laws that could trump any state laws on employment issues. As I look at the case it's clear that she was only fired for being female. All the behind the scenes action between the Dr and his wife is irrelevant to that point. That the Dr and his wife could not handle themselves as adults is not the female employee's problem. That the case will go to a federal court I have no doubt.

...Happy Hobbying...

...Crazy Horse...

[Sphinx]

Wrong. When I go to work tomorrow by federal law, not state, I'll be payed overtime.

Wrong. FLSA does not mandate overtime pay for working on Christmas. Only for hours worked by covered workers in excess of 40 hours per week.

In any event, Ms Nelson would be an exempt employee under FLSA. Careful CH, you're in danger of failing this class.

[Crazy Horse]

Wrong. FLSA does not mandate overtime pay for working on Christmas. Only for hours worked by covered workers in excess of 40 hours per week.

In any event, Ms Nelson would be an exempt employee under FLSA. Careful CH, you're in danger of failing this class.

I said nothing about Christmas. Tomorrow just happens to be it and I just happen to be one of those covered workers. Very cleaver on your part to divert attention from the fact that you were and still are wrong when saying that the Iowa state courts have the last say in the matter.

Now while you're at it why don't you educate the rest of our class on why Ms Nelson would be exempt from federal anti discrimination laws. I've already admitted to being nothing more than a street lawyer. Obviously you think you're more than that so why don't you continue to educate the rest of us and maybe you'll find an apple on your desk from the grateful class.

...Happy Hobbying...

...Crazy Horse...

[Sphinx]

Obviously you think you're more than that so why don't you continue to educate the rest of us and maybe you'll find an apple on your desk from the grateful class.

I suspect the class is bored (mine usually are) but I'll play along since I'm bored too.

While you are correct that many federal statutes do impinge on state authority as far as employment, the Iowa Supreme Court would be the highest authority on the contractual issues relating to the plaintiffs employment. Unless as I suggested, she attempted to make a discrimination/equal protection claim. Gender is a protected class (although limited in some cases) but given that all the employees are women and her replacement was a woman, there seems no federal question and no basis for cert from a federal court.

But hey...I'm all for court-made law and I am all for hot dental hygienists. I hope the ACLU takes a run at it.

[dangle]

sounds like the dentist was trying to fill the wrong cavity

[Guest sophiarose]

Yes, I'm well aware life is not fair....you're probably telling the wrong person that LOL

I don't think there is anything wrong with having empathy for another person's situation. That's just me. Enjoy your holidays...

[Crazy Horse]

I suspect the class is bored (mine usually are) but I'll play along since I'm bored too.

While you are correct that many federal statutes do impinge on state authority as far as employment, the Iowa Supreme Court would be the highest authority on the contractual issues relating to the plaintiffs employment. Unless as I suggested, she attempted to make a discrimination/equal protection claim. Gender is a protected class (although limited in some cases) but given that all the employees are women and her replacement was a woman, there seems no federal question and no basis for cert from a federal court.

But hey...I'm all for court-made law and I am all for hot dental hygienists. I hope the ACLU takes a run at it.

Very good...now we've gotten to the meat of the matter. Would an attractive male employee have been fired. If not, then the only reason Ms Nelson was fired was because she was female; gender discrimination because her employer could not control his fantasies. His problem not hers but there would also appear to be a pattern of gender discrimination in the defendant's office as you point out that all the employer's staff is female.

Now as to why her lawyers filed the case they did instead of the easier to win(from my uneducated point of view) sexual discrimination case is beyond me but then appellate courts are also there to correct the mistakes of lawyers and they do make enough of them don't they.

Thanks for the exchange. I'm also all for hot dental hygienists; I wonder why no one's posted any pictures yet.

[Guest Jake]

I'm also hot for dental hygienists...I'll be interested to find out where she gets re-hired:D

It's one of those occupations where small fingers are very valuable. If she gets hired in Denver...I might not need to ask my proctolgist to check my teeth anymore:eek:

Thanks for the exchange. I'm also all for hot dental hygienists; I wonder why no one's posted any pictures yet.

[boink36]

I'm also hot for dental hygienists...I'll be interested to find out where she gets re-hired:D

It's one of those occupations where small fingers are very valuable. If she gets hired in Denver...I might not need to ask my proctolgist to check my teeth anymore:eek:

After the Proctologist checks your teeth have a pediatrician check your junk.

[Guest Jake]

Ok...I'll admit...shaving down there may not have been a great idea, but let me tell ya....I've had lots of girls tell me how cute it is:cool:

After the Proctologist checks your teeth have a pediatrician check your junk.

[Bit Banger]

Yes, I'm well aware life is not fair....you're probably telling the wrong person that LOL

I don't think there is anything wrong with having empathy for another person's situation. That's just me. Enjoy your holidays...

There's a difference between having empathy and getting up in arms and expecting somebody to do something about the situation. Yes, I've been let go (plant closing, company downsizing, etc.) and it's not fun. But IMHO, "at will" employment practices are superior to the totalitarian alternatives.

[Jez UaBriain]

[

This really has nothing to do with gender. It's not upsetting that a woman was fired it was the way it happened. It does not appear unfair IT IS unfair and totally wrong.

This woman was hired to work for a Dentist not make his wife feel comfortable. If a man cannot keep his affairs separate or control his own relationship it is certainly not the fault of his employees.

Yes indeed, and it shows the ol' boy system is at the helm.Someone said here that the lady in question is pretty, so she'll get a break somewhere.

I have to say this, this board is full of pretty women. Do you think being a hooker is a "breaK". This is not something we dreamed of as little girls.

The Iowa State Supreme ol' boys, and the dentist are spineless. The wife wife is a jealous sow. The lady who lost her job has more ingrity in her littlepinkie then all of them combined. Let us not forget the dentist had made prior advances at her via text. She did not respond. This alone could have been a sexual harrassment suit. This case is sickening and sounds like open season on attractive women.

The state of Iowa is breeding ground fat, jealous wives and apparently-spineless husbnds.

This guy(the dentist ) will hopefully never become s hobbyist as he is to stupid to cover his ass, so wifey can't find out what he has been up to.

[Bit Banger]

...

The Iowa State Supreme ol' boys, ...

Are just doing their jobs; maintaining the rule of law. It's NOT their job to change the law or make them up as they go along based on what would be nice.

...and the dentist are spineless. The wife wife is a jealous sow. ...

On these points I'm fairly sure you will not get too much disagreement, especially about the wife.

...Let us not forget the dentist had made prior advances at her via text. She did not respond. This alone could have been a sexual harrassment suit. ...

And if she had enough evidence to support a sexual harassment suit she would have had a case. But either she or her lawyers decided to not go that route.

[Lucy Kitten]

Are just doing their jobs; maintaining the rule of law. It's NOT their job to change the law or make them up as they go along based on what would be nice.

MALARKEY! That was not maintaining the letter of the law, hence why the case made it all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court. It is their job to determine justice which they certainly did not do.

On these points I'm fairly sure you will not get too much disagreement, especially about the wife.

And if she had enough evidence to support a sexual harassment suit she would have had a case. But either she or her lawyers decided to not go that route.

[NaughtyNiceGuy]

So what does all this have to do with hookers and johns? Has anyone turned away a hooker for being too attractive?

[Bit Banger]

... Has anyone turned away a hooker for being too attractive?

Sort of - but that would lead to a rate thread, so I'll not detail further.

[Bit Banger]

Are just doing their jobs; maintaining the rule of law. It's NOT their job to change the law or make them up as they go along based on what would be nice.

MALARKEY! That was not maintaining the letter of the law, hence why the case made it all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court. It is their job to determine justice which they certainly did not do.

Let's face it, neither you nor I are lawyers licensed to practice in IA. Neither of us can really argue the merits of the case because we don't have all the facts & evidence presented at court. But the people of IA pay these guys the big bucks to make these decisions. I would say that they probably have a fairly good idea of what 'the law' has to say on the matter. But who knows, maybe this case will be reversed by SCOTUS because SC of IA got it wrong; I doubt it.

If you want different future outcomes, lobby for changes to the IA law. Be prepared for an uphill slog. BTW, CO is an 'at will' state so you might want to start working closer to home.

[boink36]

Let's face it, neither you nor I are lawyers licensed to practice in IA. Neither of us can really argue the merits of the case because we don't have all the facts & evidence presented at court. But the people of IA pay these guys the big bucks to make these decisions. I would say that they probably have a fairly good idea of what 'the law' has to say on the matter. But who knows, maybe this case will be reversed by SCOTUS because SC of IA got it wrong; I doubt it.

If you want different future outcomes, lobby for changes to the IA law. Be prepared for an uphill slog. BTW, CO is an 'at will' state so you might want to start working closer to home.

I'm willing to bet, if this case was about a man who lost his job this thread would have died three days ago.

[Sphinx]

I'm willing to bet, if this case was about a man who lost his job this thread would have died three days ago.

If a man was fired for being irresistible, he wouldn't file a lawsuit. He'd brag to his friends who wouldn't believe him; but he wouldn't call a lawyer.

[Jez UaBriain]

Are just doing their jobs; maintaining the rule of law. It's NOT their job to change the law or make them up as they go along based on what would be nice.

On these points I'm fairly sure you will not get too much disagreement, especially about the wife.

And if she had enough evidence to support a sexual harassment suit she would have had a case. But either she or her lawyers decided to not go that route.

With the text messages being suggestive that she did not respond back to him with? How much 'evidence" do you need? Contrary to what many may think, not all are willing to file suit at the first sign of impropiety. If that were so we'd be spending all our time in court. Besides you can't be screaming wolf the first time a man gets stupid. However.... this whole thing is just wrong. This man was so wrong. It could have been so much better if he'd helped her find placemant in another practice, with a severance package,. I am sure she would have been okay with that. Most of nus understand wife jealously. This lady worked for him for ten years. I stand my ground, the man and his wife are scum. The dentist has no spine, and the Iowa justices probably have wives that are equally nasty.

So I stand my ground. This girl got fucked over. Period. Plain and simple. I hope her next employer has a better sense of what is right and what is wrong.

Granted, this was the outcome of the justice system. Although I think the term "justice" is way off the mark here, But in closing I have to say-

Since when did it become okay to fire pretty women from their job, because they won't fuck you, and the wife is jealous"? That is not okay and you know it. Bottom line.

[Bit Banger]

...

And if she had enough evidence to support a sexual harassment suit she would have had a case. But either she or her lawyers decided to not go that route.

With the text messages being suggestive that she did not respond back to him with? How much 'evidence" do you need?...

You would think that the text messages & etc. would be enough, but that's NOT the case she (or her lawyers) filed. If she had, the situation may have been different.

... So I stand my ground. This girl got fucked over. Period. Plain and simple....

Since when did it become okay to fire pretty women from their job, because they won't fuck you, and the wife is jealous"? That is not okay and you know it. Bottom line.

Was it nice for her? No! Was it legal? According to SC of IA, yes.

There are lots of 'not nice' situations for people in employment law. Look at this situation from the employer's perspective. He has an employee who, for whatever reason, presents a problem. (Yeah, he's spineless & hen pecked, but his wife wanted her gone so she's gone.) Should the employer be prevented from eliminating the problem? In an 'at will' state, it doesn't really matter what the problem is as long as it isn't related to a protected class (gender, race, handicap, etc.). It may not be nice, but it is legal. It's legal because there are so many other situations where an employer needs to be able to fire a problem employee.

Ladies, be thankful you aren't in a legal, regulated industry. Because if you were all your preferences about race or handicaps would be thrown out the window. You'd might be able to deny service because your client is drunk or disruptive, but not for a reason related to a protected class. You can get away with these preferences under the umbrella of our illegal activities, even if it's not NICE.

[Nightrain]

You would think that the text messages & etc. would be enough, but that's NOT the case she (or her lawyers) filed. If she had, the situation may have been different.

Was it nice for her? No! Was it legal? According to SC of IA, yes.

There are lots of 'not nice' situations for people in employment law. Look at this situation from the employer's perspective. He has an employee who, for whatever reason, presents a problem. (Yeah, he's spineless & hen pecked, but his wife wanted her gone so she's gone.) Should the employer be prevented from eliminating the problem? In an 'at will' state, it doesn't really matter what the problem is as long as it isn't related to a protected class (gender, race, handicap, etc.). It may not be nice, but it is legal. It's legal because there are so many other situations where an employer needs to be able to fire a problem employee.

Ladies, be thankful you aren't in a legal, regulated industry. Because if you were all your preferences about race or handicaps would be thrown out the window. You'd might be able to deny service because your client is drunk or disruptive, but not for a reason related to a protected class. You can get away with these preferences under the umbrella of our illegal activities, even if it's not NICE.

Late to the debate but wondering: First, what, judging from the information presented, made her a "problem employee"? Other than her being irresistibly attractive? An "accusation" which I interpret as having its roots in her gender. Here, I think, the argument can be made that the root of the firing is her gender and thereby qualifies as being a civil rights violation.

Second, seems like she actually gave him a pass (no pun) on his attempted sexual harassment (ie, how often do you have orgasms, heh heh). She could have (and should have) saved these texts and filed sexual harassment charges against him. He "thanked her" by firing her.

[Bit Banger]

First, what, judging from the information presented, made her a "problem employee"? Other than her being irresistibly attractive?

She was a 'problem employee' because his wife (who in a small practice may have actually been a partner & therefore management) didn't want her near her husband.

An "accusation" which I interpret as having its roots in her gender. Here, I think, the argument can be made that the root of the firing is her gender and thereby qualifies as being a civil rights violation.

Probably a difficult case to make considering that the rest of the staff are also female.

Second, seems like she actually gave him a pass (no pun) on his attempted sexual harassment (ie, how often do you have orgasms, heh heh). She could have (and should have) saved these texts and filed sexual harassment charges against him.

On this we agree, she (or her lawyers) probably gave him a pass when they filed their suit. Why? I don't know - perhaps they didn't feel they had enough evidence to prove a case of sexual harrassment and make the charge stick.

[Lucy Kitten]

Late to the debate but wondering: First, what, judging from the information presented, made her a "problem employee"? Other than her being irresistibly attractive? An "accusation" which I interpret as having its roots in her gender. Here, I think, the argument can be made that the root of the firing is her gender and thereby qualifies as being a civil rights violation.

Second, seems like she actually gave him a pass (no pun) on his attempted sexual harassment (ie, how often do you have orgasms, heh heh). She could have (and should have) saved these texts and filed sexual harassment charges against him. He "thanked her" by firing her.

There seemed to be no indication that she was a problem employee I think the dentist himself had said that she was the best employee she had ever had.

Why she chose not to file a sexual harassment charge is beyond me. I did read in another article though that the case was denied an appeal to be reopened because the Supreme Court deemed their decision fair. However her behavior seemed especially gracious and far more than this man deserved.

I would like to imagine if the shoe was the on the other foot how these men would feel. In all my years of working I have had two male superiors, one hired me on the spot and gave me a job and a salary that was not deserved and the whole two days that job lasted I don't think he looked at anything but my tits, the other just liked to make obscene comments and eventually had to leave when he had an affair and impregnated an employee. My female superiors wanted me to hide the fact that I had tits, there was a dress code for everyone else and a separate one for me. If I spoke to another male at my job it was assumed I was having sex with them. It is apparently not a new thing that being attractive is a punishable offense in the workplace.

The funny part is that attractiveness and it's mostly subjective means of measure means that all women need to be on their toes and be aware that they might be perceived as an "irresistible temptation/distraction". That if a man, especially a man in a superior position, gets a boner and his wife gets pissed it is all the fault of the female employee and she must suffer the consequence.

What I really don't understand is why men especially men who engage in an illegal activity such as this see this issue as being so black and white. We all know that not all laws passed and judgements made are fair or even reasonable. This definitely seems to be a case like that. I don't care for the "life is not fair" argument either. Sometimes things are not fair and there is nothing we can do about it but there are times when it can and should be rectified. I will not ever accept as a part of life that as a woman I will have a different set of expectations and rules or that any of those decisions should be made by only men.

[Lucy Kitten]

She was a 'problem employee' because his wife (who in a small practice may have actually been a partner & therefore management) didn't want her near her husband.

That is not the employees problem nor does it make her problematic. I would imagine that for anyone to really be a problem they would have to actively be involved. Sounds like the problem employee was the wife who could not control her jealousy in the workplace.

Probably a difficult case to make considering that the rest of the staff are also female.

Why? The man is obviously a heterosexual, the employee female making her a temptation based on her gender that led to her getting fired. He wanted her vagina. The rest of the staff being female is sort of moot, it is definitely a female dominated industry, there are men but very few and they are usually in a superior position. Just because he hires females and is seemingly not sexist doesn't mean that his decisions were not based on her gender.

On this we agree, she (or her lawyers) probably gave him a pass when they filed their suit. Why? I don't know - perhaps they didn't feel they had enough evidence to prove a case of sexual harrassment and make the charge stick.

[frankenthaler91]

The dentist was a douche bag.

A proper thing would have been to tell the hygienist that he had issues with his wife. Give her time to find a new employer. Unless there is a big severance package that we don't know about.

[Bit Banger]

...

What I really don't understand is why men especially men who engage in an illegal activity such as this see this issue as being so black and white. We all know that not all laws passed and judgements made are fair or even reasonable. This definitely seems to be a case like that. I don't care for the "life is not fair" argument either. Sometimes things are not fair and there is nothing we can do about it but there are times when it can and should be rectified. I will not ever accept as a part of life that as a woman I will have a different set of expectations and rules or that any of those decisions should be made by only men.

(emphasis mine)

The reason my position appears so 'black & white' is because 'the law' & lady Justice are supposed to be blind. I'm looking at the general situation, not this specific example, and I'm looking from both sides (employer & employee) of the issue. Would your views be any different if the fired employee were a male so attractive that all the female customers came on to him causing disruption in the office, or a person who's face was sufficiently disfigured to make the customers uncomfortable, or a person with a gap-toothed, yellow smile and bad breath? You don't want a different set of rules for women, and yet you seem to be asking for a different set of rules in the hygienist's case. Should an employer be forced to retain the services of someone who is causing them a problem? That's slavery in reverse. OK, so his wife is a jealous bitch; it becomes his problem when the wife makes his life miserable. But 'at will' employment laws basically say that he can fire anyone for any reason (except for certain protected classes, but that's a different issue). If you don't like 'at will' employment, lobby to get the law changed or move to a different state. Granted, the hygienist may have had a sexual harassment suit, but that's not the case she filed; that's not the case the SC of IA ruled on. Do you know something about the makeup of the SC of IA that I don't; is it all male? SCOTUS isn't.