Bosses in Iowa can now fire people for giving them erections - Polidicks

[quote]IOWA CITY, Iowa -- 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. [B]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.[/B] 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. [B]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.[/B] 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. [B]"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,"[/B] 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, [U][b]once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.[/B][/U] [B]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." [/B] [B]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. [/B]The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate. [B]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.[/B] [B]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.[/B] 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." [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/bosses-irresistible-workers_n_2348381.html[/url] [/quote] [quote]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, [U][b]once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.[/B][/U] [/quote] Because this is the way you tell a woman that she's indecently dressed.

im sorry what How the fuck does someone justify firing someone to "save their marriage" because they were attracted to that person? I mean, maybe- just maybe- [I]not fucking her[/I] would save your marriage, and having a little self control would prevent you from firing her?

sexism is real

Good decision. 10/10

What surprises me the most about this is that it was a 7-0 vote

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38929057']im sorry what How the fuck does someone justify firing someone to "save their marriage" because they were attracted to that person? I mean, maybe- just maybe- [I]not fucking her[/I] would save your marriage, and having a little self control would prevent you from firing her?[/QUOTE] What's the fun in that?

Women and men are equal now, guys! There's no need for feminism anymore! :downs: This is fucking bullshit.

I'm getting Deja Vu from this but I'm not sure if it's actually late, why does this thread remind me of another news story that was posted forever ago?

[QUOTE=Eeshton;38929100]I'm getting Deja Vu from this but I'm not sure if it's actually late, why does this thread remind me of another news story that was posted forever ago?[/QUOTE] I did a quick google search [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2147823/Lauren-Odes-fired-LINGERIE-company-having-big-breasts.html[/url] Ironic that it was a lingerie company

What kind of prick would fire somebody for this?

[quote=The article]"...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" [/quote] There is clearly some logical disconnect here with the people responsible for that ruling. Saying "its cuz of da 'motions, not cuz she's a wimmin" is the most poorly disguised way to get away with sexism. And it's disgusting that they are getting away with it.

This is almost unbelievable

Now i'll never get a job...

bulge in pants 0/10 would not hire.

Glad I'm not a boss there, I wouldn't have any employees at the end of the day.

Wait, does this mean that at any other place and with normal jobs I can now walk around with a raging hard-on visibile through my jeans? [B]YES![/B]

What???? How could you possibly come to such a dangerously stupid decision, that you are allowed to fire people simply because you are attracted to him/her?

She'd worked for him for ten years, she's 32 now. He hired a 22 year old hottie, hoping for some action. Ten years later-nothing. So he's texting her, trying his best to make something happen. His wife finds out and "It's her fault! She's so damn sexy I'm tempted to drill more than teeth."

I think this is the stupidest thing I read today.

A man got a sexist law passed because he was too much of a disgusting whore to stay loyal to his [i]wife[/i] and keep himself from imaginatively grinding himself all over his worker [B]and then[/B] harassing her? (not that she knew at the time or cared later, though really it was in some manner) And in hindsight, the law not only does discriminate against women but it also labels men as not being able to "control themselves". This is gross, and the man in the article should be ashamed of himself for not having a thought in his head of simply being loyal and acting using logic and his own consciousness instead of acting on simple hormonal impulses, and then inadvertently tarnishing the image of his own sex and oppressing the other to "punish" his worker for not being a lapdog.

Iowa Supreme Court confirmed for misogynists.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;38930134]Iowa Supreme Court confirmed for misogynists.[/QUOTE] Iowa Supreme Court confirmed for would be shallow adulterer apologists.

This is more or less the same argument radical islamists use for the burqua

[QUOTE=Falubii;38929074]Good decision. 10/10[/QUOTE] No no no he should have banged her and [I]then [/I]fired her

setting back feminism and gender equality decades is kind of a bad thing but you could [I]totally[/I] make a pick up line out of this [I]"Hey baby, I hope you don't get a job at my business. Because I'd have to fire you. Because I find you sexually attractive."[/I]

[quote]victory for family values [/quote] Fuck family values...

this state sucks

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38929057']im sorry what How the fuck does someone justify firing someone to "save their marriage" because they were attracted to that person? I mean, maybe- just maybe- [I]not fucking her[/I] would save your marriage, and having a little self control would prevent you from firing her?[/QUOTE] This is like the justification Saudi muslims give for forcing their women to cover themselves in a sheet. Something about women seducing men otherwise.

[QUOTE=archangel125;38930749]This is like the justification Saudi muslims give for forcing their women to cover themselves in a sheet. Something about women seducing men otherwise.[/QUOTE] Believe it or not, the big, bad (and actually scary) "moral police (mutaween)" of Saudi Arabia tried to track down and arrest a woman for showing her "temptress" eyes. She had some pretty eyes too.

[QUOTE=axelord157;38930778]Believe it or not, the big, bad (and actually scary) "moral police (mutaween)" of Saudi Arabia tried to track down and arrest a woman for showing her "temptress" eyes. She had some pretty eyes too.[/QUOTE] I believe it. I lived there once.