You're too hot to work here, you're fired. Court says OK. Seriously.

[Morrison_Lad]

This story is on HuffPo, but unfortunately there's an auto-play video. Be aware.

http://tinyurl.com/cj7nueq

Basically, an all-male Iowa court ruled that this dentist was fine in firing an assistant because he found her very attractive. From the article:

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.

Now the article mentions that Nelson didn't try and bring charges of sexual harassment, which it seems like she could have (the Lamborghini comment, for instance). The court decided that her firing was legitimate, stating that Knight fired Nelson for "moral" reasons, not because she was a woman.

I honestly don't know anymore. Anyways, read for yourselves and decide.

[zemo]

This story is on HuffPo, but unfortunately there's an auto-play video. Be aware.

http://tinyurl.com/cj7nueq

Basically, an all-male Iowa court ruled that this dentist was fine in firing an assistant because he found her very attractive. From the article:



Now the article mentions that Nelson didn't try and bring charges of sexual harassment, which it seems like she could have (the Lamborghini comment, for instance). The court decided that her firing was legitimate, stating that Knight fired Nelson for "moral" reasons, not because she was a woman.

I honestly don't know anymore. Anyways, read for yourselves and decide.

Weeeeelllll...it kind of was for moral reasons, because the guy didn't want to risk cheating on his wife. At least that's the official version the court had to deal with. Personally, I assume he was well on his way to try something, and when his wife caught him red-handed, he shifted the blame towards the assistant.

That said, unless this can be proven, there doesn't seem to be anything that the court have ruled otherwise. They aren't supposed to rule on how shitty of a human being someone is (and even this ruling that he benefits from still paints the guy as extremely shitty). I doubt a court with an equal gender balance could have ruled differently.

Still...can't get over how pathetic and failtastic that guy is.

[Morrison_Lad]

That was sort of my first response, as well. Then I started thinking about it.

She was fired because she was hot, but not only that: because she was a hot WOMAN. Assuming that the guy isn't bi-sexual, he wouldn't have fired Justin Hartley or Chris Hemsworth, for instance. And they are obviously very sexually attractive. This woman was fired because she was a sexually attractive WOMAN.

[zemo]

That was sort of my first response, as well. Then I started thinking about it.

She was fired because she was hot, but not only that: because she was a hot WOMAN. Assuming that the guy isn't bi-sexual, he wouldn't have fired Justin Hartley or Chris Hemsworth, for instance. And they are obviously very sexually attractive. This woman was fired because she was a sexually attractive WOMAN.

That's not the juristical reasoning, and, honestly said, sexism also doesn't work that way. Yes, she'd have to be a woman for him to be sexually attracted to her, but he didn't fire her because she was a woman (at least officially, which is the only provable intention at this point, it appears), but because she is attractive. One has to assume that he wouldn't have fired her if she'd been an unattractive woman. He most certainly wouldn't have hit on her.

Doesn't mean that there isn't sexism in this at all, as telling a woman she is dressing too sexily for a job is delving a bit too much into the area of slut-shaming. But, again, the official, and thus right now only provable, explanation was that she was fired because she was distracting the doctor by her good looks. I will admit that I am no expert in US state law, but I still can't see how the court could have ruled differently. ESPECIALLY in the USA, where precedence plays a huge role.

Guy's still a massive sleaze.

[Ravenwing263]

Nope, no war on women in this country, no-sirree bob, nothing to see here.

*Walks away, whistling*

[Morrison_Lad]

That's not the juristical reasoning, and, honestly said, sexism also doesn't work that way. Yes, she'd have to be a woman for him to be sexually attracted to her, but he didn't fire her because she was a woman (at least officially, which is the only provable intention at this point, it appears), but because she is attractive. One has to assume that he wouldn't have fired her if she'd been an unattractive woman. He most certainly wouldn't have hit on her.

Doesn't mean that there isn't sexism in this at all, as telling a woman she is dressing too sexily for a job is delving a bit too much into the area of slut-shaming. But, again, the official, and thus right now only provable, explanation was that she was fired because she was distracting the doctor by her good looks. I will admit that I am no expert in US state law, but I still can't see how the court could have ruled differently. ESPECIALLY in the USA, where precedence plays a huge role.

Guy's still a massive sleaze.

First, yes he's a sleaze. And, more importantly to me, he's incredibly weak.

But let's face it: He hired her because he liked the way she looked. She worked there for ten years, so she was good at her job, presumably. But he probably had a number of applicants to choose from, and he chose her. We all know why. Then, when it became "inconvenient" for him to have her around, he fired her. And why did he fire her? Because he was supposedly attracted to her. And why was he attracted to her? Because she was an attractive WOMAN. Not because she was attractive. But because she was someone who was both attractive and someone with whom he would ... well, get a "bulge in his pants" over.

Her gender is absolutely key to why she was fired. And I honestly hope she appeals this. With the US courts the way they are today, who knows? But let me ask you this: If she hadn't been a woman, would she still have her job? If the answer is yes, then he is in legal trouble as far as I can see. Her attractiveness is a tertiary issue.

[J.R. LeMar]

I feel sorry for this poor guy. How the heck could he be expected to behave like a professional and do his job while this woman is walking around being attractive? Of course that's distracting! Didn't any of y'all read Genesis? If so, you'd know the dangers of being tempted by a woman? He had to fire her, for his own sake.

This is why we should force women to wear burkas in this country. So us men won't be distracted so much, and can get on with our lives.

[Lester C.]

He's a moran, aside from the obvious. Iowa is an employment at will state, if he hadn't given a reason for termination the case would never have gone to court.

[NickT]

That's rubbish, the only part one could even begin to see a legitimate reason for firing her was if it was based on clothing


One thing though..

But let's face it: He hired her because he liked the way she looked. She worked there for ten years, so she was good at her job, presumably. But he probably had a number of applicants to choose from, and he chose her. We all know why.

We don't know that.

[Treacle]

This story is on HuffPo, but unfortunately there's an auto-play video. Be aware.

http://tinyurl.com/cj7nueq

Basically, an all-male Iowa court ruled that this dentist was fine in firing an assistant because he found her very attractive. From the article:

Now the article mentions that Nelson didn't try and bring charges of sexual harassment, which it seems like she could have (the Lamborghini comment, for instance). The court decided that her firing was legitimate, stating that Knight fired Nelson for "moral" reasons, not because she was a woman.

I honestly don't know anymore. Anyways, read for yourselves and decide.

I think she has a case to pursue further legal action in a higher court.