Woman fired for being irresistable

Is it just me or does anyone feel as if they've entered the Twilight Zone after reading this?

Firstly, knowing my boss was hankering to do me would probably be cause to want to work elsewhere but in no way would I consider myself at fault.

Secondly, what a fucking pussy whipped asshole.

Thirdly, 10 years of employment and he shows her the door with a month's severance pay? How about doing the decent thing and compensating her adequately - say 6 months severance with a stellar reference. Any reputable and professional mediator could have sorted this out to the advantage of all parties. Instead, there is now another fucked up precedent which will give any employer just cause to fire a woman for any reason as long as he claims she was an attractive distraction. Don't get pregnant in Iowa, ladies.

Finally, WTF is going on with the courts in Iowa? They'd be the first to condemn Sharia Law but damn if this doesn't smack of it.

Am I over-reacting?

 

Agreed, Borla,

Also, I think she's better off out of it, but should have got a decent payoff.

The ruling is bizarre and sets a dangerous precedent. Most of the details mentioned are irrelevant to employment law, or should be.

 

I don't see why this is a women's issue. Nothing in that ruling stipulates, for example, that a female business owner may not fire one of her employees, if that person's presence is a perceived threat to her marriage.

The dentist's office employing an all-female workforce, and Melissa's replacement being female, underlines this.

What I do agree with, is the fact that the terms of her termination were nowhere near adequate. 6-12 months severance plus a very positive recommendation seems like the way to go.

After all, why should the employee make the sacrifice for your marriage?

EDIT: Also wanted to add a point regarding the entire issue. As a business owner, the dentist creates the organizational culture and environment. If he feels that the environment is not compatible with his professional work, it should be his prerogative to change the environment as needed. The business owner takes on all financial risks and legal responsibilities of the business; it would appear only just that the owner mold it the way he/she wants to.

 

Thanks for the link, Borla.

For me, I'm less upset over the firing part. Assholes will always do things to uphold their reputation as assholes. What I find most disturbing is the reaction of the courts even with the understanding that they are guided in their decision by existing legislation.

My guess is that he wasn't too concerned about her attire until his wife got wind of his "growing" preoccupation with her.

In the long run, Melissa Nelson will end up better off, no doubt but overall, I think it's a blow to the anti-discrimination laws if something like this can be used to side step them so easily. What's to say a business owner can't fire a woman because she's pregnant simply by claiming that he finds her attractive and it poses a threat to his marital vow of fidelity?

Nothing.

 

I agree with your logic. However, you pointed it out already: she's better off not working with a boss like that anyway.

I would put forward that legislation should be passed that requires a minimum severance package, if an employee is fired while the argument in question is cited. If an owner/manager is happy to make the payment and give the recommendation, wouldn't it be better for the employee to change the workplace rather than stay on an face a toxic work environment, anyway?

 

You are possibly correct that it's more of an employment issue than a woman's issue but the repercussions of the court's decision could affect women in the Iowan work force overall. I don't believe he would have fired her at all if his wife didn't catch on to his interest in Melissa and insist upon him getting rid of her. It's not uncommon for small medical and dental practices to be dominated by female assistants. Most men don't seek out jobs like that. It wasn't simply the fact she was a woman. It was because his wife personally felt threatened by her. Not a good situation and for all concerned, it was probably better that Melissa leave. But the court should have stepped up and insisted she be compensated for a loss of employment due not to her performance but to her boss' physical and sexual attraction to her and his wife's jealousy over it. No less would be done in most states given these circumstances.
--- merged: Dec 23, 2012 3:46 AM ---

I'm not sure the number of states but there are quite a few and the trend is growing where legislation has been passed allowing "At will" employment which basically states that either the employer can fire an employee without needing to provide just cause or an employee can resign without giving notice or providing a reason. Most states do have labor boards however where complaints of discrimination can be registered. Discrimination being exempt from the "At will" law as it's a federal law. But there is no law anywhere in the States mandating severance. Whether to give it or not is left up to individual employers.

 

We agree on all major points.

The concept of "at will" employment is completely alien to me. Then again, the US isn't known for being the most reasonable and properly regulated country out there.

 

If you can be fired for being to hot, could the same apply if you're not?

 

Wow, this is just incomprehensible to me. Mostly the idea of being able to fire someone at will, for no good reason; but certainly for being too hot-- especially when said employee appears to have no particular sexual interest in the boss.

But also-- how is the chick in that picture "irresistible??!" Cute, sure. But so hot no man could resist her blond hotness??! Please. She seems perfectly resistable. Don't get me wrong, she also seems like the blameless victim of a horrendously unjust circumstance beyond her control. But also...not that hot. Just saying....

 

What happens when he sees an 'irresistible' woman on the street? Is it not his fault if his dick cattle prods her down a dark alley? Is it just the fault of the bulge in his pants? I wonder how long it will be before the 'its not my fault, she/he was irresistible' excuse is used on Cheaters.
Certainly one months severance pay was a crappy amount. If the worker were one of his congregation, I wonder if the pastor would have still thought that a fair amount.
'Though noble as a judge, we declare his law is fudge' - straight out of comic opera. Feel very sorry for his wifes victim.

 

I was wrong in stating that some states allow "At Will Employment." The truth is all states allow it with the exception of Montana.

Employment At Will: What Does It Mean? | Nolo.com

 

PA is one of the most notorious for the "At Will Employment." Unions use to protect the employees, but since they have been pretty much squeezed out in the US it's a free for all. Only the really big unions survived, but they have lost a lot of their negotiation powers.

I have seen many walked out of our building, over the thirty years I have worked there. If your not in the click, you end up on the nasty end of the stick.
We have had many femme fatale ran out of our place by other jealous woman. Yep at will firing for good looks.

 

I share the puzzlement of others.
We have a dress code where I work. Violations lead to a series of disciplinary steps which theoretically could ultimately cause one to lose their job although I don't think that its ever gone that far.
Losing your job for violating a dress code, especially after warnings, makes sense to me,
Being fired because you're too hot, and the boss' wife is flummoxed, I don't get it.

 

He says "she's too attractive, employing her will destroy my marriage." What I hear is "I propositioned her and she turned me down. I can't stand having a female subordinate who sees herself as more than a sex object."

 

If nothing else, hopefully there will be an exodus of female employees from this asshole's office. Unless of course, they were jealous of her too.

 

So you don't believe the story, cyn? You think she was more likely fired because she was a shitty worker? I'm all for seeing her canned if that was the case but it really doesn't appear to be. She'd worked for this dentist for 10 years. I suppose time is irrelevant - employees can one day start slacking off or screwing up no matter how long they've been on a job but I honestly don't believe that was the case here.

And no, idiots are not a protected class and I'm not sure I've read anything on this thread that suggests anyone supports the notion that people shouldn't be let go based on poor job performance or for behaving so inappropriately as to disrupt the workplace. I'm a bit floored to hear that this guy you mentioned was allowed to keep his job so I'm definitely in agreement with you there. But you do live in NYC after all, which is a good deal more liberal than many other places in the US.

I think the overall consensus is that it was probably for the best that she leave his employ but the manner in which it was handled by he and his wife was just plain fucking shitty. Maybe you don't agree?

So....a bit confused by your post.