Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

From	Message
astinkyfart 23-Dec-12, 14:17	What century are we in?? ..Dental Assistant Fired For Being 'Irresistible' Is 'Devastated' By Alyssa Newcomb | ABC News Blogs – 6 hrs ago....Email0Share0 Share0Print..... After working as a dental assistant for ten years, Melissa Nelson was fired for being too "irresistible" and a "threat" to her employer's marriage. "I think it is completely wrong," Nelson said. "I think it is sending a message that men can do whatever they want in the work force." On Friday, the all-male Iowa State Supreme Court ruled that James Knight, Nelson's boss, was within his legal rights when he fired her, affirming the decision of a lower court. "We do think the Iowa Supreme Court got it completely right," said Stuart Cochrane, an attorney for James Knight. "Our position has always been Mrs. Nelson was never terminated because of her gender, she was terminated because of concerns her behavior was not appropriate in the workplace. She's an attractive lady. Dr. Knight found her behavior and dress to be inappropriate." For Nelson, a 32-year-old married mother of two, the news of her firing and the rationale behind it came as a shock. "I was very surprised after working so many years side by side I didn't have any idea that that would have crossed his mind," she said. The two never had a sexual relationship or sought one, according to court documents, however in the final year and a half of Nelson's employment, Knight began to make comments about her clothing being too tight or distracting. "Dr. Knight acknowledges he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing," the justices wrote. Six months before Nelson was fired, she and her boss began exchanging text messages about work and personal matters, such as updates about each of their children's activities, the justices wrote. The messages were mostly mundane, but Nelson recalled one text she received from her boss asking "how often she experienced an orgasm." Nelson did not respond to the text and never indicated that she was uncomfortable with Knight's question, according to court documents. Soon after, Knight's wife, Jeanne, who also works at the practice, found out about the text messaging and ordered her husband to fire Nelson. The couple consulted with a senior pastor at their church and he agreed that Nelson should be terminated in order to protect their marriage, Cochrane said. On Jan. 4, 2010, Nelson was summoned to a meeting with Knight while a pastor was present. Knight then read from a prepared statement telling Nelson she was fired. "Dr. Knight felt like for the best interest of his marriage and the best interest of hers to end their employment relationship," Cochrane said. Knight acknowledged in court documents that Nelson was good at her job and she, in turn, said she was generally treated with respect. "I'm devastated. I really am," Nelson said. When Nelson's husband tried to reason with Knight, the dentist told him he "feared he would have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her." Paige Fiedler, Nelson's attorney, said in a statement to ABC News affiliate KCRG that she was "appalled" by the ruling. "We are appalled by the Court's ruling and its failure to understand the nature of gender bias.," she wrote. "Although people act for a variety of reasons, it is very common for women to be targeted for discrimination because of their sexual attractiveness or supposed lack of sexual attractiveness. That is discrimination based on sex," Fiedler wrote. "Nearly every woman in Iowa understands this because we have experienced it for ourselves."
chaz5 23-Dec-12, 14:58	... just how "distracting" does a woman's dress or behavior have to be to legitimize being terminated? Ignoring other factors in this case for a moment, I might understand how some women could be distracting in a work environment ... and I also understand how some men's behaviors could be equally distracting. In these situations, although prob'ly difficult to document, there could be sufficient reason for termination of employment. That all said, in this particular case, it sure sounds like the dentist stretched this 'gray' area in a biased sort of way (because of his wife's comment?) and it does not sound legitimate. Am I missing something?
softaire 23-Dec-12, 16:03	chaz Yes, I think you are missing something. Most employment is "at will" meaning you can be terminated anytime, without reason. The dentist is presumably in a private practice and he is the owner, boss and employer. He should have the right to hire and fire who he chooses, as he chooses. What difference does it make if his reason is that he fears having an affair down the road or losing patients and not being able to pay her?
changeling 23-Dec-12, 16:10	The woman was fired because the dentist's wife felt insecure? And their own pastor recommended it? I wonder how long the dentist has been married (seven year itch perhaps)? An odd ruling none the less, not even a mention of any compensation the woman might claim due to loss of earnings. Could this be why the justices ruled in favour of the dentist? It appears on the surface that any unfair dismissal laws (14th Amendment in the US) have been thrown out of the window. Is there possibly much more to this than is being reported?
changeling 23-Dec-12, 16:16	softy I have read the 'at will' part quite some time ago pertains to private employers. My question is this: Is there any laws that protect the employee from frivolous termination in private business in the US, or would differ from state to state?
dmaestro 23-Dec-12, 16:20	Justice is blind. These old guys posing as objective judges admitted it was not fair but said it was technically legal. She should refile in the federal system, and laws need be rewritten.
softaire 23-Dec-12, 16:25	change I do not know about that. It would be a good question for Illi. But why do you say it was frivolous termination? I saw it is just as serious that his views toward her began to change for the better about her and he became worried/concerned about it, as if he became concerned that he was beginning to lose clients because of her, or if he suspected she might be stealing from the petty cash drawer, or because of any other number of reasons. It doesn't matter the reason.
changeling 23-Dec-12, 16:30	softy I think you have given too much benefit of the doubt to the dentist. By the reports so far (I'm sure they are going to escalate somewhat, it is already all over the news here) it seems the woman was pretty good at her job and wasn't exactly encouraging any sexual advances (past or future). Terminated because of guilt is more likely than being terminated for her own good and the well being of her own marriage.
softaire 23-Dec-12, 16:36	change I think the dentist was worried about his marriage. But, it doesn't matter. He is the private employer and he gets to choose who he pays or does not pay to work there. It is his choice as the employer. She seems to have done a good job and they were both professional... until recently. It does not matter. He loses a good employee. She losses a job but should receive a severance and a letter of recommendation. (I would think) Why do you think it was frivolous?
chaz5 23-Dec-12, 16:41	Softy ... ... "at will" terminations work easily in small environments (like a dentist's office), so in this case you would be correct that he could keep/terminate staff at will. However, "at will" laws vary greatly from state to state, and in most there must be a legal reason to terminate ... or the terminated employee can have a legal recourse (e.g., race, creed, physically disabled, gender, etc. are the usual reasons so protected under the law). In larger companies or organizations, no HR Manager in his/her right mind would terminate an employee "at will" without a legally supportable reason.
changeling 23-Dec-12, 16:53	No indication that the woman has done anything wrong in any report. She was a long term employee that should have had the trust of her employer after all that time. Dentists are not usually large employers and I would think close working relationships would be the norm. Could it be simply that the dentist was getting randy towards the woman, and his wife didn't like it, so she got her fired! Not exactly the fault of the employee. As a former union delegate (way back) I can say that the number of times sex came up in minor industrial disputes at the workplace were almost disproportionate to other problems. The dentist does have the right to dismiss for whatever reason, the only grounds given is the perceived future problems by the man's wife (who also works at the practice) who 'ordered' him to sack another employee. Yes I think that is still a frivolous dismissal.
astinkyfart 23-Dec-12, 16:54	softy Can you fire someone after ten years because they are black? I think this at will thing is, or at least should be within reason. You can hire and fire who you want but this lady worked there for ten years then got fired because of her looks. This is not acceptable. So you can get fired for wearing red, chewing the wrong brand of gum, having a scar? having clean teeth? Some things are just common sense. This isn't.
changeling 23-Dec-12, 17:09	Do employees earn/receive long service pay in the US as we do here stinky (Just another thought)?
dmaestro 23-Dec-12, 17:12	This is inexcusable. I am shocked softaire is defending this dentist. His inability to control his fantasies should not result in a firing on that basis alone. It should raise questions about a breach of professional ethics. This "pastor" is unethical and should be more concerned about the injustice. The humiliation of being fired under such circumstances with a pastor and gloating wife present is unacceptable.
astinkyfart 23-Dec-12, 17:15	change I would say in most small business the answer is no. In a lot of corporations they give severance pay but I think even then its voluntary. Not an expert in this area but pretty sure we don't do that, at least not they way you do in Oz.
changeling 23-Dec-12, 17:21	Long service leave is separate from severance pay entitlements. Long service pay is 'usually' in most cases 1 months paid leave for every ten years service (that can grow the longer one works anywhere). The disadvantage of paid long service leave is that there have been hundreds if not thousands of cases where employees have been fired for some petty reason or other prior to their ten years being up!
astinkyfart 23-Dec-12, 18:17	I would say the system is set up to help people but we all know people have ways to beat the system. Too bad they do it in a way that hurts others.
softaire 23-Dec-12, 21:24	This is really all a question for Illi. He'll know more than any of us. My take is that in a Private Practice, the employer and the employee have an agreement (hopefully written) at the start of employment. Usually, the employer can terminate an employee without cause, at any time. If not, it will be stated in the written agreement. As long as the employer acts within the agreement, he can do as the agreement states. It does not matter what the reason. An employer who arbitrarily fires employees for no good reason will not long be in business. It is not economically advantageous to hire and fire a lot of employees. It will not work. Therefore, that practice will not predominate. It is economically advantageous to hire/fire at the proper time, for the proper reasons and that practice will prevail, over the long run.
chaz5 23-Dec-12, 21:51	Softy ... ... I have considerable experience in HR, and have been on both sides of numerous lawsuits. No, an employer over a certain size cannot fire anyone at will (without cause). The law is complex, agreed, but only employers with a handful of employees or certain small family-owned businesses have this privilege. No matter what at-will reason an employer might claim, there is inevitably a law/reason the employee might claim. Having said this, at will does come into play only if certain conditions occur (e.g. sufficient written warnings, violation of written procedures or practices, illegal acts, etc.). Softy, I don't think you're familiar with varioius laws on this one.
thumper 23-Dec-12, 22:09	My take based on what I've read: Building sexual tension over 10 years of working in close proximity. Getting a little too familiar. The 'casual' brush as you walk past, standing just a bit too close, the glance that lasts a bit too long, progressively more personal conversations and emails... His responsibility to his wife far outweighs any bruised sensitivities of the peanut gallery. If he's becoming increasingly disrupted and uncomfortable with the situation, he has every right to end it there and then. Not just his right but his obligated to end the situation and ensure no lines are crossed. What's the problem? Would you rather his marriage gets damaged or he cheats on his wife with a coworker, a married one at that? Him keeping her around for 10 years tells me that she's capable in her duties and barring unknowns (to us), I'm sure she would have received a good recommendation. Regardless, she was judged to be an increasingly wrong fit in his practice and he has every right to let her go.
chaz5 23-Dec-12, 22:14	... agreed. In small office situations (employers with few staff), the prerogative of the owner/manager on at will hiring/termination legally prevails, at least usually. But, it's not at all appropriate nor usually true for large employers (state laws may vary).
changeling 23-Dec-12, 22:15	What sort of a man fires one of his long term employees with his wife (who works at the same practice) and his Pastor in the same room at the time, on his wife's insistence and the Pastors 'recommendation'? Chicken!
astinkyfart 23-Dec-12, 22:54	Thumper It seems to me that its his problem not hers but who is to say what the whole story is in this situation. Saying that he should fire her to save his marriage is a stretch. Having an affair is one thing but letting someone go because you might is another. Can any woman ever work for him? Think how ugly she will feel   In saying that, I cant think of a situation where you could be forced to employ someone you don't want to.
dmaestro 24-Dec-12, 01:14	What affair? The woman was unresponsive and uninterested! The guy had a one sided obsession and then punished her. An affair requires two interested people. She probably had a good case for harassment. I think this dentist should be boycotted.
dmaestro 27-Dec-12, 13:39	Going after the creep.... www.yelp.com Hope the dentist is satisfied. Because this creep is now exposed on the internet to the world. He is going to regret his inability to control himself.

GameKnot: play chess online, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.