Too Good Looking? You Could Get Fired!
Curator's Notes: At least in Iowa. This is a must read for every HR professionals. I wish we knew more of the story, but what is revealed in this article is a cautionary tale on so many levels for the interaction of men & women in the workplace and the role laws play in the realm of intimate, personal feelings. Wow....
All-Male Iowa Supreme Court Rules Bosses Can Fire Employees for Being ‘Irresistibly Attractive’
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — 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 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 behavior 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 favoritism to a
family member without committing discrimination; in this case, by
allowing Knight to honor 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.”
Source Link:
I provided the source link - there are lots of comments - those are an interesting read as well!
All-Male Iowa Supreme Court Rules Bosses Can Fire Employees for Being ‘Irresistibly Attractive’
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — 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 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 behavior 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 favoritism to a family member without committing discrimination; in this case, by allowing Knight to honor 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.”
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 favoritism to a family member without committing discrimination; in this case, by allowing Knight to honor 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.”
Source Link:
I provided the source link - there are lots of comments - those are an interesting read as well!
I am posting this comment from a colleague of mine who has spent many years counseling couples and is now an executive coach. Alan Allard - www.alanallard.com
ReplyDeleteAlan says:
I think it is the height of emotional and spiritual immaturity for a man or woman to fire someone because they are afraid they might act on their sexual thoughts and desires. Seriously? Am I going to majorly disrupt someone's life (and give them ONE MONTHs severance after TEN YEARS?) because I cannot be responsible for myself? This boss firing his female employee after ten years of evidently great work is immoral! But he's not concerned about that! He's worried about "sexual immorality"...which has always been the real sin in churches. Nothing else much compares to that one.
How about I admit I might need some individual therapy or marital therapy to address whats going on? It's always easier for us to run away from the real problem...