State Supreme Court Rules ‘Irresistible’ Employees Can Be Fired

[Nova]

I live in Iowa and am studying to be a paralegal, lol.

Here's a little inof about Iowa’s Right to Work law.
http://www.nrtw.org/c/iartwlaw.htm

Also, if an employee does not have a signed contract with their employer, they are considered an "at-will" employee, which means that the employment is voluntary and indefinite for both the employer and the employee. Either party can terminate the relationship at anytime.

http://www.iowa-lawblog.com/2007/10/articles/employment-law/atwill-employment/

Your second link says the following:

"Obviously employers cannot violate state or federal laws when firing employees."

And I'm sure that was the basis for the employee's law suit. I've lived in several "right-to-work" states. In none of them could an employer fire an employee because of the latter's sex or race.

The odd thing about the IA Supremes' decision is the ruling that firing a woman because she's attractive has nothing to do with her gender. Which twists law AND grammar into pretzels.

 

[Nova]

As someone linked above, Iowa is an employment-at-will state. She could be fired for no reason at all so long as there was no discrimination based on a protected classification. I haven't read the decision, but it sounds like the reason here was personal to the employee. The employer was attracted to her, specifically, not because she was a woman, in general. So they found no gender-based discrimination. It may seem unfair, and it may actually be unfair, but if the law allows it, it's legal.

Do you suppose the doctor testified that the terminated employee was the ONLY WOMAN ON THE PLANET he finds attractive? Because if not, it's hard to see the logic that his urges are unrelated to her sex and gender as well as individual attributes.

The ISC decision threatens to undo all civil rights legislation: "I didn't fire her because she was black; I fired her because she too black and it bothered my clients." "I didn't fire him because he was gay; I fired him because his flamboyance annoyed me." Etc. and so forth.

 

[katydid23]

I was on the fired worker's side until I read about the text messages she and the boss were exchanging. I think she did cross the line by doing that, so I can understand her being fired. She was encouraging the possible relationship between them. JMO

 

[Karmady]

Do you suppose the doctor testified that the terminated employee was the ONLY WOMAN ON THE PLANET he finds attractive? Because if not, it's hard to see the logic that his urges are unrelated to her sex and gender as well as individual attributes.

The ISC decision threatens to undo all civil rights legislation: "I didn't fire her because she was black; I fired her because she too black and it bothered my clients." "I didn't fire him because he was gay; I fired him because his flamboyance annoyed me." Etc. and so forth.

I'm guessing it'll be appealed. Maybe you can volunteer to argue it

fwiw, I don't think it would have to be the only woman on the planet he's attracted to to be specific to an individual female in any given instance. But your argument is undoubtedly the one that will be made. Lawyers loving their "slippery slopes" the way they do and all lol

 

[sorrell skye]

According to a 2007 survey funded by the ADHA (American Dental Hygienist's Association), 99% of practicing dental hygienists were women.

http://www.adha.org/downloads/DH_pratitioner_Survey_Exec_Summary.pdf

I find Dr. Knight's claim that he "only employs women and replaced Nelson with another female employee" to be completely disingenuous as a defense. Since most dental hygienists are female (99%) - he would have had to search high & low to find a male hygienist to replace her.

Documents show Dr. Knight and Nelson did engage in at least two occasions of exchanging text messages regarding her clothing as well as her sex life. The report shows Dr. Knight did "acknowledge he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing."

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Stat...-Can-Fire-Irresistible-Workers-184521271.html

He was her employer and, as such, it was his responsibility to communicate to her in a professional manner regarding her attire. If he felt her workplace attire was unfit for the office, telling her "his pants were bulging" was NOT professional by anyone's definition, and IMO, crossed the line into sexual harrassment.

At another point, in response to an alleged comment Nelson made about the infrequency of her sex life, Knight responded: [T]hat's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

http://www.click2houston.com/news/I...rker/-/1735978/17873204/-/m3p49j/-/index.html

Again, he was her employer, and this was an inappropriate response to her alleged comment about the "infrequency of her sex life". If he felt that her alleged comment about her sex life was inappropriate, he should have nipped it in the bud, rather than participating in it & encouraging it & apparently enjoying it (until he got caught).

The sole reason he fired Ms. Nelson (after ten years of her being "the best dental assistant he ever had") was because the missus came across the text messages. Why was she snooping on her husband's phone, unless she was already suspicious of him? Mrs. Knight probably threatened to take him for everything he was worth if he didn't fire Ms. Nelson. Personally, I don't blame Mrs. Knight one bit for being pissed off, but I think her ire is misplaced. Her husband sounds like a leacherous a-hole to me. The b*****d probably thought he was being generous by giving Ms. Nelson one month's severance pay (after 10 years work???). I envision a divorce on the distant horizon for one Dr. Knight - when he gets caught with a "bulge in his pants" for someone else down the road.

Good gawd - I wonder how his female patients feel after reading about his lurid comments? If he was my dentist, I'd drop him like a stinkin' bag of garbage.

ETA: Some articles describe Ms. Nelson as a dental assistant, and others describe her as a dental hygienist. Nevertheless, both of these occupations are female dominated at around 99%.

 

[kline]

Traditionally, "right to work" means right to work whether or not you join a union, not right to terminate an employee in violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This decision is outrageous! Unless the doctor was able to show his assistant was somehow encouraging his affection, his inability (or feared future inability) to control himself is not her problem.

Unfortunatly being able to be fired for any reason right,wrong fair or even sane is part of the deal with 'Right To Work'....it just isnt part of the package Right To Work advocates emphasize when trying to sell it.
For obvious reasons.

 

[Donjeta]

The sole reason he fired Ms. Nelson (after ten years of her being "the best dental assistant he ever had") was because the missus came across the text messages. Why was she snooping on her husband's phone, unless she was already suspicious of him? Mrs. Knight probably threatened to take him for everything he was worth if he didn't fire Ms. Nelson. Personally, I don't blame Mrs. Knight one bit for being pissed off, but I think her ire is misplaced. Her husband sounds like a leacherous a-hole to me. The b*****d probably thought he was being generous by giving Ms. Nelson one month's severance pay (after 10 years work???). I envision a divorce on the distant horizon for one Dr. Knight - when he gets caught with a "bulge in his pants" for someone else down the road.

Good gawd - I wonder how his female patients feel after reading about his lurid comments? If he was my dentist, I'd drop him like a stinkin' bag of garbage.

He totally sounds like a cheater made in heaven because his reasoning is, "If she's there I'm going to have an affair with her, I can't help myself in the presence of an attractive woman, woe is me."

For non-cheaters there is the alternative to think: "Yeah, she's attractive, but I'm already married so that's not going to develop into anything, let's just stick to the job."

Because, you know, you have the choice whether you're going to cheat or not. (Even assuming that the other person is eager to cheat with you, which is not to be taken for granted.)

 

[ljwf22]

This seems to be the same dentist. It appears he has a substance abuse problem.
Sanctions

Sanctions history found


Substance Abuse (4/20/2011)
Action Taken: Suspension
Allegation of Complaint: Please reference the following Document
State: Iowa

Link:http://www.healthgrades.com/dentist/dr-james-knight-xscyb/background-check

 

[Nova]

I was on the fired worker's side until I read about the text messages she and the boss were exchanging. I think she did cross the line by doing that, so I can understand her being fired. She was encouraging the possible relationship between them. JMO

I agree, but the Court specifically ruled that her conduct was not an issue.

 

[Nova]

Unfortunatly being able to be fired for any reason right,wrong fair or even sane is part of the deal with 'Right To Work'....it just isnt part of the package Right To Work advocates emphasize when trying to sell it.
For obvious reasons.

But "right to work" doesn't trump constitutional protections, which is the issue here.

 

[Nova]

I'm guessing it'll be appealed. Maybe you can volunteer to argue it

fwiw, I don't think it would have to be the only woman on the planet he's attracted to to be specific to an individual female in any given instance. But your argument is undoubtedly the one that will be made. Lawyers loving their "slippery slopes" the way they do and all lol

At the end of the link, the plaintiff's lawyer says her client has no other options at the present time. I found that odd because I assumed this would be appealed beyond Iowa; but I readily admit I don't understand how state v. federal appellate jurisdictions work. Perhaps the woman has to file a new suit in federal court.

And just as obviously, I'm not qualified to argue the appeal. But it seems to me that the logic is specious when one argues that action wasn't based on the victim's protected status, but only the attributes unique to that status. "I didn't fire him because he's gay. I fired him because he reminds me of gay sex and that disgusts me!" (I realize, of course, that gay people are members of a protected class only in certain states.)

What is to stop someone in Iowa from refusing to hire women altogether? Can't he just argue that he might have an affair with any of them?

 

[TrackerSam]

He totally sounds like a cheater made in heaven because his reasoning is, "If she's there I'm going to have an affair with her, I can't help myself in the presence of an attractive woman, woe is me."

For non-cheaters there is the alternative to think: "Yeah, she's attractive, but I'm already married so that's not going to develop into anything, let's just stick to the job."

Because, you know, you have the choice whether you're going to cheat or not. (Even assuming that the other person is eager to cheat with you, which is not to be taken for granted.)

You're right IMO and it really isn't about the legal issues or maybe it is. He knew she was "irresistable" when he hired her. If you own a bar, don't hire an alcholic to tend bar and expect a good outcome. I don't know if that's a good analogy but you know what I mean. If I were one of his patients, I'd drop him.
I'm sure his wife made him fire her.

 

[legalmania]

I live in Iowa and am studying to be a paralegal, lol.

Here's a little inof about Iowa’s Right to Work law.
http://www.nrtw.org/c/iartwlaw.htm

Also, if an employee does not have a signed contract with their employer, they are considered an "at-will" employee, which means that the employment is voluntary and indefinite for both the employer and the employee. Either party can terminate the relationship at anytime.

http://www.iowa-lawblog.com/2007/10/articles/employment-law/atwill-employment/

I've been a paralegal for longer that I care to talk about , I remember how excited I was when I first got my degree. It takes a lot of hard work to get any respect. Good luck to you and don't let them break you because they will try.

 

[Nova]

I've been a paralegal for longer that I care to talk about , I remember how excited I was when I first got my degree. It takes a lot of hard work to get any respect. Good luck to you and don't let them break you because they will try.

My background is primarily in legal document processing and I promise you I have nothing but respect for paralegals. I hope it didn't appear that anyone here was showing disrespect.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

'Irresistible' Iowa mom pleads with all-male state supreme court to void ruling for randy dentist who sacked her to save his marriage

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ntist-sacked-save-marriage.html#ixzz2HDcmrGPD

 

[flourish]

My background is primarily in legal document processing and I promise you I have nothing but respect for paralegals. I hope it didn't appear that anyone here was showing disrespect.

Nova, my friend, I certainly didn't get that idea from your posts I thought the poster was just giving "fair warning" to the other poster.

I'm just...horrified by this story! This doctor really should have handled this better and I totally agree he's avoiding the actual issue here, which is his lack of self-control and professionalism. And yes, if his wife thinks the problem is solved, she is in for a very rude awakening!

As for "Right to Work," I used to live in a right to work state. I was working two part-time jobs. My morning job, which was new, was scheduling me for 3 hour shifts, but then the boss would leave right before my shift was to end, and wouldn't come back for HOURS. He would leave me and the assistant manager at the store alone. I couldn't very well leave her alone there (I guess I could have, but I'm too nice and that didn't seem right). The 3 hour shifts turned into 7-9 hours WITHOUT A SINGLE BREAK. Seriously--I got to literally RUN to the bathroom one time. And then the manager would miraculously show up 10 minutes before my shift at my other job started--so I'd end up rushing and late.

When I called the BOLI folks, though, they told me in my state at that time it was not required to give breaks to employees, nor was it an issue to keep me over double what my scheduled shift was. Needless to say, I quit that job in less than a week!

I hope I hear that this case is overruled or changed or .... something!