Simply “Irresistible?” You’re Fired
Posted by Michelle Moquin on December 27th, 2012
Good morning!
My mother brought this write to my attention. Thanks mom.
Bosses Can Fire Hot Workers For Being ‘Irresistible’: All-Male Court
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.
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.
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.
“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,” 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, 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.
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.
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.
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.”
*******
Readers: So a woman can now be fired because her employer finds her too “irresistible?” Is this starting to sound like we’re not in America but the Middle East? A man can’t control his sexual urges because he finds a woman “irresistible”, so he puts the responsibility on the woman and if she doesn’t hold up her end by “monitoring” her bosses “feelings,” and “sexual desires,” she can legally be fired. Wh’at?! What’s next, women will be required to don a burka because he can’t control himself?
This is absolutely crazy. A woman has to deal with enough discrimination, sexual harrassment, etc. Now a woman has to deal with managing whether her boss is going to get turned on or not. Once again, the woman, the victim here, is blamed because the man can’t handle his sexual desires and is afraid he might do something. Sick.
Knight making such remarks as “…if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing,” is not something I would expect to hear coming from a man who claims he is a “religious and moral individual,” not to mention, saying these kind of remarks is sexual harassment. No man who claims to be “moral” would say that sort of thing to a woman, a married woman. Not sure when Nelson looked upon Knight as a ”father figure,’ but I can’t imagine her thoughts remained the same after he made those sexual comments to her. Nelson should have sued Knight for sexual harassment as well.
And what about Knight’s wife? Where’s the support of women? Once again, the woman is blaming the innocent woman, when she should be looking at her husband, and telling him to get it together and get control of himself and his lust. Here the wife is working along side of the husband and he is making sexual remarks to his employee, Nelson, and the wife is blaming Nelson because her husband can’t control himself. Hello…your husband, a “moral married man,” shouldn’t be making such remarks to a woman. This is sexual harassment.
This “all-male” ruling in favor of firing this woman because of this man’s shortcomings shouldn’t have happened in the first place. Not only is the innocent blamed, but in my opinion this is just an excuse to give the man free reign to do whatever. He can sexually harass a woman and then if the woman doesn’t give in to his desires, his ego can get her fired because she was just too “irresistible.” This gives a man an option to fire a woman for whatever reason because she was too “irresistible.” Who’s going to argue with what turns a man on? A peek of an ankle? A lock of hair sweeping across her eye?
Yeah…firing Nelson was good for “all parties”. Right. “Preserve the marriage.” Yeah right…until the next pretty thing comes along and screws it all up again. Oh yeah – No problem, we’ll just fire her too.
What’s next? A man is walking down the street, sees an “irresistible” woman and because he can’t control his sexual desires, he can legally have a police officer arrest her? How far does this go?
Thoughts? Blog me.
Peace out.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
December 27th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Michelle, this article emphasizes the point being made about the privileges white men have in this country on yesterday’s blog. An ALL male court could come up with such a sexist ruling without batting an eye.
To them it is their right to take away the rights of others as long as it doesn’t apply to them. Only in a white dominated society can one imagine bosses with the right to go around firing people because of how mother nature gave the looks.
December 27th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
The hypocrisy of white men has no equal, “Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.” – Really yet he admitted flirting with the woman and telling her if he had a hard on her clothes were too revealing.
What is the difference between this and the muslins blaming their women for enticing them? This is just sick.
December 27th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
We get rulings like this because dumb as a box of rocks white women continue to elect white republican governors. That is one mentally sick race. One half, the males, suffer from penis envy resulting in racial neurosis. The other half, the females, are simply mentally retarded.
December 27th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Social Security Traps: Part 2
One False Move Could Cost Singles, Widows and Widowers Thousands of Dollars
Some of the traps that ensnare current and future Social Security recipients apply especially to people who are single or widowed…
TRAPS FOR SINGLES
TRAP: Bad timing. If you’re single, there are certain ages when it is most advantageous to wait a little longer to start receiving benefits. That’s because your monthly benefit amount increases in size for every month that you delay starting Social Security from age 62 to 70—but it doesn’t increase at a consistent pace throughout those years.*
For instance, if you start your benefits at age 66, or whatever your so-called “standard” or “full” retirement age is, you probably are doing so exactly at the moment when continuing to postpone the start offers the greatest rewards—even though it’s the age that the Social Security Administration (SSA) considers the “normal” time to retire.
When you crunch the numbers, it turns out that there actually are two windows during which it is especially inopportune for most single people to claim benefits if they wish to maximize the total amount they receive.
One window runs from age 62 and one month through age 63 and 11 months…while the other is centered around your standard retirement age—age 65 and five months through age 66 and seven months if your standard retirement age is 66.
If your standard retirement age is higher than 66, the windows during which it’s best not to start benefits are within eight months before or after your standard retirement age and within approximately 12 months before or after the date that is three years prior to your standard retirement age.
Example: If your standard retirement age is 67, the windows to avoid are between 66 and four months and 67 and eight months…and between approximately age 63 and age 65.
All this is true for married people, too, but married people have additional benefits options, such as spousal benefits and switching strategies that mean starting benefits at standard retirement age sometimes makes sense.
TRAP:
Neglecting to file for benefits at your standard retirement age. You should file even if you don’t plan to start collecting until later. But when you file, immediately suspend your benefits.
This “file-and-suspend” technique is a more common tactic and more obvious advantage for married couples. Typically, the higher-earning spouse files and suspends so that the lower-earning spouse is eligible to claim spousal benefits while the higher-earner’s eventual benefits continue to grow in size.
But file-and-suspend offers advantages for singles, too. When you suspend your benefits, you remain entitled to the benefits held in suspension. That means you have the option to collect those past benefits as a lump sum at any point until you lift the suspension and begin receiving your monthly benefit checks.
This lump-sum option could come in handy if you suddenly find yourself in need of money. And it could allow you to get as much as possible out of the Social Security system if, while the suspension is in place, you learn that you don’t have long to live.
If you request the lump sum, your future monthly benefit checks will be calculated as if you had started your benefits when you originally filed and suspended—meaning that they will be on the low side.
If you don’t take the lump sum, they will be calculated as though you had started them on the day you lifted the suspension—that is, as though you had never filed and suspended at all.
Example: A man who is eligible for $2,000 per month at his full retirement age of 66 files and suspends at that point. Three years later, he learns that he has terminal cancer. He requests a lump sum and receives the three years of benefits that were suspended—$72,000.** He receives two additional monthly checks before passing away, bringing his total benefits to $76,000. Had this man simply delayed filing until he received his bad news, he would have received just two payments totaling $4,000.
TRAPS FOR WIDOWS AND WIDOWERS
TRAP:
Permanently choosing between survivor benefits and your own retirement benefits. The best option usually isn’t one or the other—it’s one and then the other.
Many widows and widowers depend on their Social Security checks to pay the bills. Yet most receive less from the Social Security system than they should because of this simple trap.
When widows and widowers explore their benefit options, they typically are told that they must choose between claiming a benefit based on their own earnings and claiming survivor benefits based on their departed spouse’s earnings—not both.
The vast majority select whichever of these is larger and then receive that amount each month for the rest of their lives. These checks often are relatively small because survivors tend to start their benefits as soon as they’re eligible—some don’t have any other way to pay the bills.
Widows and widowers are allowed to start their survivor benefits as early as age 60, but the sooner they claim them, the lower their monthly checks will be.
Start benefits at age 60, and you will receive just 71.5% of the amount you would receive if you start benefits at your standard retirement age (assuming that is age 66).
What most widows and widowers don’t realize is that while they can’t receive both their retirement benefit and their survivor benefit at the same time, they can—and, in most cases, should—eventually switch from one to the other.
This switching strategy can produce tens of thousands of dollars in additional benefits, particularly when both spouses had significant earnings during their working lives.
Example: A woman is widowed at age 62. She has a standard retirement benefit of $1,657 and a standard survivor benefit of $2,245. In this situation, most widows simply would take the survivor benefit and receive $1,862 per month for life (that’s the $2,245 survivor benefit minus a reduction for starting benefits at 62, four years prior to standard retirement age). If this woman lives to age 85, she will receive a total of $506,464 from the Social Security system.
Much better:
If this woman instead claimed her own retirement benefit at age 62, she would receive $1,277 per month ($1,657 minus the reduction for starting four years before standard retirement age) until age 66…at which point she could switch to her standard $2,245 survivor benefit.
This strategy would produce additional benefits of more than $62,000 if she lives past age 85.
TRAP:
Your standard retirement age for survivor benefits might be different from your standard retirement age for retiree benefits.
The SSA is slowly phasing in a higher standard retirement age. If you were born in 1937 or earlier, you can retire at age 65 and receive your standard retirement benefit.
But if you were born after 1937, your standard retirement age falls somewhere between age 65 and two months and age 67, depending on the year of your birth.
What most people don’t realize: The SSA is using a slightly different schedule to increase the standard retirement age for survivor benefits. This could cause widows and widowers to accidentally delay the start of survivor benefits beyond their survivor benefits standard retirement age, costing them some monthly checks without increasing the size of future checks.
(Those born between 1945 and 1956 are not affected—for them, both standard retirement ages are 66.) To find your survivor standard retirement age: Go to http://www.ssa.gov/survivorplan/survivorchartred.htm.
Example: If you were born in 1956, your standard retirement age for retiree benefits is 66 and four months—but your standard retirement age for survivor benefits is exactly 66.
IF YOU ARE MARRIED OR DIVORCED
For Social Security traps that affect married couples, see our article in the December 1, 2012 issue or click here. Also see “Divorced? You Could Be Entitled to Much More Social Security” (click here).
*To calculate the amounts that you could get at each age, go to http://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/index.html. Decisions about when to start Social Security also depend on your life expectancy (go to http://www.ssa.gov/oact/population/longevity.html for a guide to life-expectancy calculations) and on whether you still are earning substantial employment income, which could mean much of your Social Security benefits would be lost to taxes.
**Estimates of future Social Security income provided in this article do not include future inflation adjustments.
Source: William Meyer, founder and managing principal of Social Security Solutions, a company that offers personalized Social Security benefits optimization guidance through either an online service or expert consulting, Leawood, Kansas.
He previously served in executive roles at H&R Block and Charles Schwab. http://www.SocialSecuritySolutions.co
December 27th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Biased poll options are biased. That said, sounds like the dude was sexually harassing her and she was oblivious as hell/played along, his wife found out and he fired her to cover himself.
As for firing, shouldn’t be allowed. Letting go, also shouldn’t. At first I was like “yeah, ok” but then I realized it’s not really any different than judging somebody by their skin color.
Letting somebody go because you feel you’re too personally involved is different than letting somebody go because you feel they are too attractive. Also, it would be abused to all hell by people who would harass their employees in the same way this guy did.
December 27th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
i can’t believe im actually reading this.
December 27th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
White women never cease to amaze me with their stupidity. So will that stupid woman ban attractive women from going in to seek dental work? Where will the idiot draw the line.
When will the moron just demand that her hubby put a leach on his tiny penis. Typical act of a white woman throwing the woman under the bus rather that demand that the man stop thinking with his little head.
The next time you hear a woman claiming she knows women who behave like something you are knocking about a man, it will be a caricature of this man’s wife. Another woman imputing to a woman what a man does all the time.
Any pastor worth his salt should have told Knight to get his sexual lust under control, and to resist temptation. Except it was more convenient to blame the woman. Especially since the other women in that congregation were ready to get behind that.
The judges should have advised the couple to ban attractive women from coming in for dental work in their ruling. It would have added a dimension of sincerity to the bullshit.
December 27th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Hehe… Wow, I’m not really sure what to say except that is one dumb wife.
December 27th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Men, Your erection is your own damn business. Either you have self-control, or you blame all your mistakes on cleavages, ass, etc.
December 27th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
This sets a disturbing precedence. should a female employer now be allowed to fire a male employee simply because he’s too attractive and could be a distraction?
December 27th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Michelle, nice to have a mother that is up on the issues. What does one say to an Icon’s mother.
Hello mother of Michelle, Great topic.
December 27th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
I’m wondering what a man who thinks attractive women should be having more sex, should be fornicating more often, not less (“That’s like having a Lamborghini and not driving it”) is doing talking to a pastor.
What church does this guy go to?
December 27th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Guess I’ll never be able to get a job in Iowa. More seriously though, this is the same line of thinking that makes women wear a hijab. “You’re making me think bad things, and I’m too big of a scumbag to stop it. It’s your fault.” Christian sharia law indeed.
December 28th, 2012 at 8:52 am
I disagree with the decision. However, it’s unlikely to be overturned since there’s no one to overturn it. The Iowa Supreme Court, the highest state court in Iowa, decided that the conduct at issue does not violate the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
The federal courts, including the SCOTUS, don’t review decisions of state courts that exclusively decide questions of state law. The only remedies available to Iowans who disagree with the decision are legislative (the Act can be amended) and political (I assume the bastards could be voted out the next time they show up on the ballot).
Michelle you use your blog to warn women about trusting men to decide their destiny. This is a prime example of why this country never was anything but a vehicle that made white men the real Affirmative action beneficiaries.
This is a poignant example of them using the law to say that a man shouldn’t have to be responsible for his urges. Perhaps that is why they feel they can rape a woman whose clothing is too “tempting” to them. Totally sick.
December 28th, 2012 at 8:55 am
Zen Lill I hope you had a truly merry xmas. Vacations over, where are you? Your fans are wondering why you haven’t weighed in on this topic.
Hope you are in good health. Best wishes.
Ira
December 28th, 2012 at 8:58 am
A pretty good explanation of at will employment here. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employment-at-will-definition-30022.html
State laws vary some, but the best legal counsel I ever got on the subject was—you can terminate employment for any reason or no reason as long as you give notice, or severance pay in lieu of notice, except for age, race, etc.
Most large employers spell out in policy some definition of both work performance and personal conduct requirements. and what constitutes cause for separation.
Some personal conduct—-fighting on he job, stealing, etc. are (or at least were ) universally recognized as cause for termination. Many people terminated for cause –performance or conduct— claim discrimination or challenge the evidence of cause. Sometimes they have a case and win. Sometimes they just provide employment for lawyers.
I sometimes wonder if those who think employees’ rights should be limitless believe employees have any responsibility to the employer. If an employer is obligated to keep every employee forever should the employee be obligated to continue in the job forever?
This is simply an outlier case where an employer handled a situation poorly, and then so did the employee. Did her give her notice or severance pay? The court ruling appears to follow the law, which is its proper role regardless of gender.
If the ruling offends your delicate sensibilities, change the law. But both employer and employee pay a price for the way they handled the situation. Who wants to hire the woman, or work for the man now?
December 28th, 2012 at 9:04 am
hahaha…I just debated about whether to come on here today, thanks Ira, though I have so much to say in terms of Iowa (or any state) law, rights of owners/employees, the irrefutable laws of people interaction and biology and the reading between the lines of this story it isn’t even funny.
I’m going to go enjoy some tennis now, work for a few hours and formulate a few paragraphs that ought to cover my views on this, as you know I will give an overview that has not been written here yet (it ain’t easy being me and seeing what I thought everyone would’ve called out by now…on all parties parts, I felt it right from the beginning of the article, and no I am not about to make her wrong or the law right) – hope everyone enjoyed the holiday hoopla…Luv, Zen Lill
December 28th, 2012 at 10:14 am
Why are you guys so hot for Zen Lill’s comments. There are other women here who have plenty to say.
December 28th, 2012 at 10:22 am
Aren’t you tired of the posts explaining the law or excuse it. It like when it was illegal for blacks to eat or drink water out to white only places. The assholes would say the same bullshit we hear now. “It’s the law,” as if God from on high came down and wrote the bigoted bullshit for the white boy to benefit from.
You assholes wrote that law and it should be repealed. It is a shame that white women don’t have the brains or balls of black people or they march down to city halls all over that fucked up state of Iowa and demand change in that law.
But alas white women are as dumb as a box of rocks for the most part so we females of that race with a desire to equality will never get it. We like the rest of America will have to wait until some OTW woman gets mad and galvanize the females in this country to do something about this truly sexist law.