In Iowa you can be fired for being too pretty

posted at 2:31 pm on December 22, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

One of the wilder stories from the judicial branch to cross our desk in some time popped up this weekend. Our tale takes place in an Iowa dentist’s office, where an attractive, married woman works as a dental assistant. After ten years on the job providing what the dentist himself described as “stellar” performance, she was fired because she was too attractive and represented a threat to the owner’s marriage. There was no affair. There was no allegation of an affair. But the dentist’s wife also worked there and, after discovering some personal (not sexual) text messages between the two, she wanted the woman gone. The assistant went to court claiming unjust termination. There’s no way that one holds up, right? Wrong.

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.

Someone I frequently turn to when I need to understand the byzantine maze of the legal system, Dr. James Joyner, seems to feel that this was pretty much the correct call.

As weird and embarrassing as this case is, it’s a reasonable decision in the narrow case of a sole proprietorship. Should the boss be able to work with women he finds attractive and resist crossing boundaries of professionalism? Sure. But, if it’s his shop, he should have the right to remove the temptation.

This obviously becomes more problematic in a larger firm, especially when the supervisor isn’t also the owner. In those cases, asking for reassignments or just moving on to another firm are more appropriate solutions. But that’s unreasonable if it’s your firm.

I suppose that’s why I’m not a lawyer, since this simply doesn’t make any sense. But I don’t want to confuse the right to manage your own business with the need to provide a sensible justification here. The dentist is the business owner and proprietor as well as the service provider. He has the right to operate his business as he sees fit, and employers generally don’t have to provide all that much of a reason for terminating employment beyond saying, “this just isn’t working out.”

But in this case he felt compelled to provide a reason, turning what would have otherwise been just one of millions of cases of a worker getting laid off into a national media circus. Reading the full article, it sounds a lot less like he wanted to terminate the assistant himself, but was forced into it by threats from his wife. This sounds stunningly unprofessional, but was it illegal? I suppose that question has been answered now. But “being too attractive” as a reason to be discharged from your job still just sounds wrong. (Not that I’ll ever be in danger of falling into that particular trap, of course.)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

It’s people like you who contributed to the rise of the unions and made them the powerful things they are today.

LOL.

When you defend the indefensible, you open yourself to being over-ruled by your peers at the ballot box.

unclesmrgol on December 22, 2012 at 4:46 PM

The point of having a Constitutional Republic is that the whim of the voters is limited just as the arms of government are. You can’t just vote for whatever you want. That’s not a Constitutional Republic; that’s a Democracy. And America was specifically created to NOT be a Democracy.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 22, 2012 at 4:48 PM

…but was forced into it by threats from his wife

Huh, a wife influencing her husband, what a concept…

bandarlog on December 22, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Too pretty? My job would be safe then.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 22, 2012 at 4:52 PM

so if you were working at a job for a long time, and you workd hard every day, and you and the boss were getting along, and the company was doing well financially… and then one day you get fired for no reason, you would be totally fine with it? you wouldn’t wonder what happened?

Sachiko on December 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM

I can see where you’re coming from, and I agree with you: yes, it’s totally unfair to the employee.

But it’s still the employer’s right. The employer created the business against all odds: high tax rates, federal regulations, need for marketing, start up capital/debt, building codes, local regulations, state regulations, 10s or 100s of pages of contracts, and, in the dentist’s case, 11+ years of school to pass medical exams.

The reason given could even be the employer just wants to increase the profit margin. That doesn’t sound ‘fair’ either, right? But it is the employer’s property, business, and profits.

The only thing this case accomplished is to make business owners think twice before they are honest when firing employees.

And isn’t it better for someone to hear the ‘unfair’ reason they lost their job, instead of being wounded by false claims of poor performance?

If we continue to burden businesses with hiring/firing requirements, our unemployment rate will ‘necessarily skyrocket’. (U6 is already at 14%)

Nephew Sam on December 22, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Too pretty? My job would be safe then.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 22, 2012 at 4:52 PM

You’re cute in your own very weird way ;)

DarkCurrent on December 22, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Used to be one could hire somebody simply because of their good looks.

What was that that Congressman Charlie Wilson said back in the ’80′s?

“It is easy to teach ‘em to type and take shorthand, but darn difficult to get them to grow big t*ts.”

Guess we all know where that dentist’s cajones are. Probably the same place Obama’s are. In a little jar in the bottom drawer of the wife’s vanity.

coldwarrior on December 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM

You’re cute in your own very weird way ;)

DarkCurrent on December 22, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Awww. *grin*

annoyinglittletwerp on December 22, 2012 at 5:14 PM

I think this was the right call for a sole proprietership, a mom-and-pop business, or even a small partnership. We aren’t there and can’t objectively judge what is going on between the people, and if the family is more important than the business, the business relationship must give.

That said, the employee should have been given extra consideration, down to help finding a new job with another dentist in the area. Does the dentist have professional contacts? Could he have tried to find someone willing to swap jobs and employers? Was the employee willing to do this? There’s so much not given here.

njcommuter on December 22, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Many years ago when I lived in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, my dentist made a habit of hiring the best looking dental hygenists right out of school. It didn’t matter their capabilities, he wanted his male patients to want their teeth cleaned as often as possible. The word spread fast, he and his partner built a thriving practice.

Perhaps this lady from Iowa should move to the DC area and forget about suing her former boss.

Corky Boyd on December 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM

In Iowa you can be fired for being too pretty

Been to Iowa plenty. Trust me, this is not a problem 99% of Iowegians.

The 1% are the visitors from Minnesota.

Bruno Strozek on December 22, 2012 at 4:22 PM

…livestock…can be confusing?

KOOLAID2 on December 22, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Good lawd..
this turned into,muslims,rape,and personal insults.
Some here seem to support Govt involvement in private business.
Its worked out splendidly.
Go run a business and see what you support.
Comments here were not defending the perv dentists behavior.

bazil9 on December 22, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Civil rights lawsuit coming up. And I’d support the woman. Hope she wins big against the sexist idiot. An employee is an employee. Period. Their gender or attractiveness doesn’t matter, as long as they’re good at their job. All other excuses go to justify the behaviour of the employer.

tommy71 on December 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM

…livestock…can be confusing?

KOOLAID2 on December 22, 2012 at 5:28 PM

lovingmyusa is an Iowan-and I’m also a native Iowan.
*bite!*

annoyinglittletwerp on December 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

lovingmyusa is an Iowan-and I’m also a native Iowan.
*bite!*

annoyinglittletwerp on December 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

So was my one grandmother. They settled there after
immigrating from Norway.
Where abouts twerp?

My grandmother was a knock out. :)

bazil9 on December 22, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I hope she fights it. This is total BS.

Tasha on December 22, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Civil rights lawsuit coming up. And I’d support the woman. Hope she wins big against the sexist idiot. An employee is an employee. Period. Their gender or attractiveness doesn’t matter, as long as they’re good at their job. All other excuses go to justify the behaviour of the employer. – tommy71 on December 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM

This is the case of a jealous wife, who happened to work in the office and saw what was going on. There is no civil rights case here.

SC.Charlie on December 22, 2012 at 6:01 PM

bazil9 on December 22, 2012 at 5:56 PM

My dad was born/raised in Davenport. My parents married in either Bettendorf or Davenport, and I was born in Sac City.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 22, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Reading the full article, it sounds a lot less like he wanted to terminate the assistant himself, but was forced into it by threats from his wife. This sounds stunningly unprofessional, but was it illegal?

Just like with any other relationship, an employee-employer relationship, especially for a sole-proprietorship, is just like any other relationship. Either party can end it at any time for any reason; it takes mutual consent to continue the relationship.

Why does it always seem to be o.k. to most people that a person can quit and walk off the job (or strike or whatever) at any time for any reason, but that the employer does not have the same ability to end the relationship by firing the employee at whatever time they want for their own reasons?

Theophile on December 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

My guess is that it will negatively impact the dentist’s business. While firing the hot dental assistant was his legal right, this is not good publicity for the business.

bw222 on December 22, 2012 at 6:14 PM

bazil9 on December 22, 2012 at 5:56 PM

My dad was born/raised in Davenport. My parents married in either Bettendorf or Davenport, and I was born in Sac City.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 22, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Wow-she was from near Davenport!
My Grandparents married there. They ran a small diner
but then during the war my Grandfather enlisted in the Navy
and was stationed in Cali.
They stayed there until they passed.
Cool..small world.

bazil9 on December 22, 2012 at 6:26 PM

My guess is that it will negatively impact the dentist’s business. While firing the hot dental assistant was his legal right, this is not good publicity for the business.

bw222 on December 22, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I agree. regardless of the law-there will consequences.

bazil9 on December 22, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Well it’s simple. Attraction is an immutable fact of nature, but gender is just a construct. You can change your gender dontcha know, but attraction is innate. At least that’s what lefties and the courts tell me.

njrob on December 22, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Why does it always seem to be o.k. to most people that a person can quit and walk off the job (or strike or whatever) at any time for any reason, but that the employer does not have the same ability to end the relationship by firing the employee at whatever time they want for their own reasons?
Theophile on December 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

THIS, EXACTLY. ‘NUFF SAID.

Marcola on December 22, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Just like with any other relationship, an employee-employer relationship, especially for a sole-proprietorship, is just like any other relationship. Either party can end it at any time for any reason; it takes mutual consent to continue the relationship.

Why does it always seem to be o.k. to most people that a person can quit and walk off the job (or strike or whatever) at any time for any reason, but that the employer does not have the same ability to end the relationship by firing the employee at whatever time they want for their own reasons?

Theophile on December 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

In this case, you are trying to reason with people on the Right who feel they are entitled to have their employers serve them somehow – these in-denial, soft socialists aren’t going to hear you!

Anti-Control on December 22, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Sorry but this has wimp written all over it. Apparently this country has gotten to the point that a man is expected to be nothing but a horned up gadfly with delusions of a nonstop sexual romp and no self control.

1) If you can’t check your p@@@@er at the door you’re not much of a man to begin with. Which leads to….

2) If you can’t manage your wife/relationship such that regardless of the attractiveness of said person without fear, well buster your problems run deeper than your wife.

Seems to me the lawyer for the lady should have gone for hostile work environment.

Dr. Dog on December 22, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Seems to me the lawyer for the lady should have gone for hostile work environment.

Dr. Dog on December 22, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Your attitude reminds me of the leftists who don’t care about any business that might end up shutting down because of 0dumbaCare’s requirement that employer’s pay for their employee’s birth control.

If you wondering? Nope, I don’t expect you to understand why your attitude reminds me of theirs! :D

Anti-Control on December 22, 2012 at 7:11 PM

But that’s NOT her pic, is it … sigh.

Paul-Cincy on December 22, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Ah. It’s Christina Hendricks, the large-breasted secretary from Mad Men.

Paul-Cincy on December 22, 2012 at 3:08 PM

She’s delightful isn’t she? Saying this as a woman, too. She’s been in tons of TV shows and was in a couple of episodes of Firefly where she had a different look but was still smoking hot.

kim roy on December 22, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Seems to me the lawyer for the lady should have gone for hostile work environment.

Dr. Dog on December 22, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Your attitude reminds me of the leftists who don’t care about any business that might end up shutting down because of 0dumbaCare’s requirement that employer’s pay for their employee’s birth control.

If you wondering? Nope, I don’t expect you to understand why your attitude reminds me of theirs! :D

Anti-Control on December 22, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Admittedly we don’t know what led up to it, but the boss shouldn’t be asking about orgasms or her sex life. Wouldn’t that be considered sexual harassment? Maybe at that point SHE should have done something or left.

kim roy on December 22, 2012 at 7:18 PM

The government should not be regulating who is fired by a firm for any reason, including race, gender, religion or sex orientation.

thuja on December 22, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Your attitude reminds me of the leftists who don’t care about any business that might end up shutting down because of 0dumbaCare’s requirement that employer’s pay for their employee’s birth control.

My comment had nothing to do with being a business. This sordid tale could have resulted at a cocktail party and the outcome would have been nearly the same. You have never heard of the term `hen pecked husband`? That is what this smells like in spades.

Here’s another test. What if the wife did not work there but pressured the `boss` to fire her anyway? Change your outlook any? It should. But it would not change the basis of my comment. The `boss` has no b@lls.

A leftist? You have to be kidding. I make Atilla the Hun tame by comparison.

Dr. Dog on December 22, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Pics are available on Google Images. HAHAHAHAHAHA everybody here imagines that she looks like Jessica Rabbit. (More like Miss Piggy.)

That must be some jealous wife.

Ain’t I bad?

Seth Halpern on December 22, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Additionally, Anti-Control, my observation about the lawyer was about the attend approach not whether it had merit or not.

Dr. Dog on December 22, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Admittedly we don’t know what led up to it, but the boss shouldn’t be asking about orgasms or her sex life. Wouldn’t that be considered sexual harassment? Maybe at that point SHE should have done something or left.

kim roy on December 22, 2012 at 7:18 PM

That’s right – we don’t know every fact involved, like why he asked her about her personal life regarding orgasms, or why she stayed on the job as long as she did. The questions I have: 1) did the IA SC make the correct decision (7-0 says “Yes!” to me) 2) are there legitimate grounds for a lawsuit here (from what I have seen so far, I say, “No!”

I do know I don’t like the selfish, socialistic entitlement mentality shown by an increasing number of people who self-identify as believers in small government, nor do I much like nor respect those who show a predisposition toward filing lawsuits – I have this notion that the people I am referring to here tend to like Boehner as a “leader” just fine, and lament that his “Plan B” fell through so embarrasingly!

Anti-Control on December 22, 2012 at 7:37 PM

My comment had nothing to do with being a business. This sordid tale could have resulted at a cocktail party and the outcome would have been nearly the same. You have never heard of the term `hen pecked husband`? That is what this smells like in spades.

Here’s another test. What if the wife did not work there but pressured the `boss` to fire her anyway? Change your outlook any? It should. But it would not change the basis of my comment. The `boss` has no b@lls.

A leftist? You have to be kidding. I make Atilla the Hun tame by comparison.

Dr. Dog on December 22, 2012 at 7:20 PM

“It should”? Ok, whatever you say! lol

As I already said: 1) your attitude reminds me of the leftists I mentioned; 2) I didn’t expect you to understand why I made the comparison – thank you for proving that my inference was perfectly accurate!

Anti-Control on December 22, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Why does it always seem to be o.k. to most people that a person can quit and walk off the job (or strike or whatever) at any time for any reason, but that the employer does not have the same ability to end the relationship by firing the employee at whatever time they want for their own reasons?

Theophile on December 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Employers don’t have to explain (or even mention) the firing to prospective employees: employees do have to explain it to prospective employers.

PersonFromPorlock on December 22, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Why does it always seem to be o.k. to most people that a person can quit and walk off the job (or strike or whatever) at any time for any reason, but that the employer does not have the same ability to end the relationship by firing the employee at whatever time they want for their own reasons?

Theophile on December 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I’ve wondered about that. My best guess is that some people can’t imagine themselves as employers.

A person’s business life is part of their personal life.

Axe on December 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Employers don’t have to explain (or even mention) the firing to prospective employees: employees do have to explain it to prospective employers.

PersonFromPorlock on December 22, 2012 at 7:55 PM

That’s exactly right. And that’s one of the blessings of owning a business. But he paid a price to get there. The dentist created a business against all odds: regulations, marketing cost and strategy, recession, high taxes, start-up capital/school debt, long hours, medical board certification, and years and years of school.

The only people who have a ‘right to’ a job are the people who manage to create a business against all odds. (and they only get to keep that job for as long as they manage to keep the business going)

Unfortunately, most employees don’t really understand just how much blood, sweat, and tears were involved to turn a profit on the first product in a given business. It might be a good thing to require highschool students to earn a certain amount through selling a product directly before graduation. Then at least they won’t enter the market with the ‘I am entitled to a job’ mentality – and they might actually be motivated to help their employers keep the business in the black.

Nephew Sam on December 22, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Civil rights lawsuit coming up.

tommy71 on December 22, 2012 at 5:42 PM

That’s what she just lost. Do try to keep up.

GWB on December 22, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I’m also a native Iowan.
*bite!*

annoyinglittletwerp on December 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

That just means you’re a 1%er! ;)

GWB on December 22, 2012 at 8:48 PM

That just means you’re a 1%er! ;)

GWB on December 22, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Get that bite looked at.

Trust me on this.

Axe on December 22, 2012 at 9:04 PM

You should be able to fire anyone for any reason at any time.

jhffmn on December 22, 2012 at 9:38 PM

he’s either a henpecked spineless twit or someone incapable of controlling his bodily urges.

SoRight on December 22, 2012 at 2:45 PM

So your wife would have no problem with you constantly working around, say, flirty bikini models? My wife is smart & wise enough to have a problem with that.

We don’t know enough of his situation to justify the condemnation you made.

itsnotaboutme on December 22, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Flirty is different from attractive. If an employee of mine were FLIRTING with me I’d fire her WITH CAUSE. It’s unprofessional and unwanted.

Firing someone because they are easy on the eyes is akin to the barbarians in the Religion of Peace who force women to live in a shroud because the MEN are not capable of controlling themselves.

I’m quite proud of the fact that the mere presence of an attractive woman who is not my wife has zero impact on the likelihood of my marital fidelity. I’m not a freaking bonobo, I’m a grown man.

You’re leap from a competent and professional woman to “flirty bikini models” says much more about you than it does about the case at hand.

SoRight on December 22, 2012 at 9:41 PM

And yes, I meant “your”.

SoRight on December 22, 2012 at 9:41 PM

If the business owner, individual or corporate has no right to hire or fire on whim, then there is no freedom as envisioned by the founding fathers, beyond whatever contract agreed to between owner and worker. The govt and unions have inserted themselves in between the two primary parties.

Jesus in Matthew 20:15  Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ 16 So other last will be first, and the first last.”
The story concerns employees bitching about their pay compared to another.

AH_C on December 22, 2012 at 11:11 PM

If the business owner, individual or corporate has no right to hire or fire on whim, then there is no freedom as envisioned by the founding fathers, beyond whatever contract agreed to between owner and worker. The govt and unions have inserted themselves in between the two primary parties.

Jesus in Matthew 20:15  Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ 16 So other last will be first, and the first last.”
The story concerns employees b!tching about their pay compared to another.

AH_C on December 22, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Firing someone because they are easy on the eyes is akin to the barbarians in the Religion of Peace who force women to live in a shroud because the MEN are not capable of controlling themselves.

SoRight on December 22, 2012 at 9:41 PM

+1000

Says much about Dr. Henpecked and his supporters.

unclesmrgol on December 23, 2012 at 12:49 AM

An attorney for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight said the decision, the first of its kind in Iowa, is a victory for family values

I wonder if Mrs. Nelson’s family feels that way. I usually support the rights of business owners, but it is abuses like this that usually cause stoopit rules and laws.

The old coot had no business texting the woman and getting personal.

Laura in Maryland on December 23, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Lol. Its like a rapist saying that the woman wore sexy clothes, and went out with him on a date. Hey, she asked for it, man. And all around him would just nod.

tommy71 on December 23, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Obama was born in August 1961, and Inouye won election to the Senate in November 1962, taking office in January 1963. Obama wasn’t two years old, not even when rounding the numbers; he was one year old when Inouye won his Senate election. (At least this isn’t as bad as Obama’s Selma math.)

Well, that’s the official story, but maybe it is not a problem of Obama’s poor math skills (which should be clear enough to anyone watching the national deficit and debt) but instead is a problem with the truth of where and when Obama was actually born. Is it possible that this is a slip of the truth? A failure to stay consistent to the lie that Obama was born in Hawaii in August 1961? Hey, I’m just asking.

Dollayo on December 23, 2012 at 4:32 AM

When you own a business–people work at your pleasure–and you can fire them when you are no longer pleased. <– that's a period

whiskeytango on December 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Grow up, Conservatives. And don’t try to deny that atleast 90% of you, are caucasians. In the next 30 years, thats gonna change drastically. And thats when you’ll get the minority tag, and understand discrimination due to race. You pooh-pooh this case now. Depending on your age, you or your kids are gonna whine later.

tommy71 on December 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Wise is the man who removes temptation from his path. Billy Graham made it a rule to never be alone with a female who was not his relative. And it was a rule the other men associated with his Crusade had to follow as well.

SukieTawdry on December 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Of course, I’m from the school that believes any employer has the right to fire (or not hire) anyone he likes and for any reason. But that’s just the silly libertarian in me.

SukieTawdry on December 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Here’s the opinion.

If an employer repeatedly took adverse employment actions against persons of a particular gender because of alleged personal relationship issues, it might well be possible to infer that gender and not the relationship was a motivating factor.

Since Mr. Knight admittedly only employs women, he runs the risk of repeatedly failing to control his urges. Probably best that he quit working entirely to concentrate, temptation-free, solely on his wife.

Sachiko on December 22, 2012 at 4:36 PM
SoRight on December 22, 2012 at 9:41 PM
unclesmrgol on December 23, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Yep.

Dr. Knight later testified that he made these statements to Nelson because “I don’t think it’s good for me to see her wearing things that accentuate her body.”

rukiddingme on December 23, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Here’s an article on the dental assistant who was fired (not the woman HA has pictured), the dentist and his wife. Assuming she is not crazy, there is no way this woman would have had a romantic relationship with the dentist:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252135/Melissa-Nelson-Judges-married-dentist-fired-aide-said-irresistibly-attractive.html?ICO=most_read_module

bw222 on December 23, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Of course, I’m from the school that believes any employer has the right to fire (or not hire) anyone he likes and for any reason. But that’s just the silly libertarian in me.

SukieTawdry on December 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

There are people on the Right like me and you, who believe that people who build their own businesses do own them, and those who don’t, who believe that employers are there in some way to serve their employees, even if it certain employees of theirs make them miserable – these socialistic, dependent whiners don’t understand John Galt’s mentality, nor do they care to.

How can you reason with these selfish, overly emotional, delusional, depressed and depressing people on the Right who believe the world owes them a living somehow? Answer: you can’t – all you can expect is from them is to haughtily indicate that they are morally superior, more principled, and less emotional than you, causing much amusement!

Anti-Control on December 23, 2012 at 6:02 PM

all you can expect is from them

Anti-Control on December 23, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Grow up, Conservatives. And don’t try to deny that atleast 90% of you, are caucasians. In the next 30 years, thats gonna change drastically. And thats when you’ll get the minority tag, and understand discrimination due to race. You pooh-pooh this case now. Depending on your age, you or your kids are gonna whine later.

tommy71 on December 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM

That was some good insight into your own immature psychological makeup – thank you for the entertainment! :D

Anti-Control on December 23, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Some skirts should be put on the dangerous clothing list. LOL.

Hey, I can be honest and say some women do distract the workplace. Some men do too.

johnnyU on December 23, 2012 at 7:50 PM

7 day waiting period for nylons

johnnyU on December 23, 2012 at 7:51 PM

If some guy and his wife wanted me to stop working for them because they thought that I was a threat to their marriage, then I would be happy to quit me job. I would completely respect their efforts to try to preserve their family.

The last thing that I would do is sue them.

blink on December 23, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Strange. The dentist sounds like an idiot… and a pervert. He had the right to fire her but that doesn’t mean he isn’t an idiot or sexist.

There will be consequences. Oh, and this judge’s reasoning? Sounds like another Huckelberry “for the children”/”for my marriage” cliche line.

antisense on December 23, 2012 at 9:36 PM

A gun wielding pretty person is RIGHT OUT! The horror.

johnnyU on December 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Iowa (where I live and work) is an “At Will” employment state. This means that any party (the employer or employee) can terminate their involvement at anytime and for any reason without advance notice or warning.

Rndguy on December 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I think the ‘inappropriate” text messages are a real factor here, along with the tiny size of the office. Without the texts (indicating some line of propriety had been crossed), I’d be fully on the lady’s side. With them, I’m not so sure.

krome on December 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM

You say “Sorry, it’s just not working out”, no reason is needed.

Wagthatdog on December 24, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Since someone quipped that the woman looked more like Miss Piggy, I poked around the internet and what I found was pretty attractive looking. I did see an image of someone of apparently the same?? name who would fit the Miss Piggy image.

If the concern by the spouse was that something might develop between the dentist and the assistant, despite both being married, all I can say is that something similar did happen and affected a relative of mine. Her husband ran off with his assistant and divorced her.

So while I don’t think it was particularly fair to the dental assistant, the possible concerns of the spouse about what might happen do not seem so far fetched to me.

Russ808 on December 24, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I’m a male, but when I first started out to practice law, my boss’s wife got me fired because I wore a three-piece suit every day and she was afraid I’d take away from his success because he dressed casually and she apparently thought I’d draw attention away and impress people more than he did.

It was especially puzzling since I’ve always been a nerd, even before the term was common. I guess you just can’t win.

flataffect on December 24, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Iowa (where I live and work) is an “At Will” employment state. This means that any party (the employer or employee) can terminate their involvement at anytime and for any reason without advance notice or warning.

Rndguy on December 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM

It’s too bad there can’t even be the most basic common-sense clauses, like your business must be losing money or said employee is failing in their duties. I find it an insult to capitalism when employers can abuse their rights for such bullcr@p reasons.

It demotes American workers to being bootlickers afraid of Boss-Man’s merest whim, who can be sacked even if they’re doing 110% and their business is rolling in the dough.

MelonCollie on December 24, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Why no links to madeline Albright? I need a little kick-start this a.m.

Fuquay Steve on December 25, 2012 at 7:23 AM

It is just amazing how many stupid people are out there, and no doubt all these idiots vote. Look fools: the employer can terminate the employee for any reason or no reason. It is an “at will state. It is unbelievable how many imbeciles would rather have the Government second guess every hiring or firing decision. The only thing stupider than this is that this idiot dentist actually gave a reason. All he had to say is that he did not want to work with her for personal reasons. That’s it.

Rogervzv on December 25, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Easy Solution?

Make her wear a burkha.

GMoses on December 26, 2012 at 5:22 PM

One thing for sure…Nancy Pelosi will never lose her job on this point….Ugly as home made sin.

logicman_1998 on December 27, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I’m in the “wife is right” camp.

The moment these two started exchanging personal emails, the line had been crossed and the relationship was unprofessional. Why are they taking the time to email each other at all in a small business shop? Hmmmm?

And, if I found out that my wife was exchanging personal emails with her boss, you better believe I would correct his behavior.

The dental assistant was NOT fired because she’s pretty – she was fired because she interfered with a marraige. She earned her firing.

Further, that dentist is a cad and he had better be begging forgiveness. He owes his wife far better treatment than she has gotten.

Cricket624 on December 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Petraeus, party of two. Petraeus?

Kenz on December 28, 2012 at 2:13 AM

I’ve often run into this problem with the husbands of women I work with. They are just convinced my charm and good looks will make their spouse fall for me as easily as saying “these are not the droids you are looking for”….

Bradky on December 28, 2012 at 6:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2