Physical & Emotional Abuse Support Group
Abuse is a general term for the treatment of someone that causes some kind of harm (to the abused person, to the abusers themselves, or to someone else) that is unlawful or wrongful. No one deserves abuse, period. Abuse can be emotional, physical, or sexual.
Pasted in from today's
Wolf's Daily Howl:
(CNN) -- Can a boss fire an employee he finds attractive because he and his wife, fairly or not, see her as a threat to their marriage?
Yes, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
"The question we must answer is ... whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction," Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote for the all-male high court.
Such firings may not be fair, but they do not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the decision read, siding with a lower court.
An attorney for Melissa Nelson, the fired employee, said the decision was wrong.
"We are appalled by the court's ruling and its failure to understand the nature of gender bias," said Paige Fiedler, the attorney. "For the seven men on the Iowa Supreme Court not to 'get it' is shocking and disheartening. It underscores the need for judges on the bench to be diverse in terms of their gender, race and life experiences."
The case concerns her client's employment as a dental assistant. Nelson worked for James Knight in 1999 and stayed for more than 10 years at the Fort Dodge business.
Toward the end of her employment, Knight complained to Nelson her clothing was tight and "distracting," the decision read. She denied her clothes were inappropriate.
At one point, Knight told Nelson that "if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing," the decision read.
At another point, in response to an alleged comment Nelson made about the infrequency of her sex life, Knight responded: "That's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."
During the last six months of Nelson's employment, Nelson and Knight, both married with children, started sending text messages to each other outside of work. Neither objected to the texting.
Knight's wife, who was employed at the same dental office, found out about those messages in late 2009 and demanded he fire Nelson.
In early 2010, he did just that. In the presence of a pastor, Knight told Nelson she had become a "detriment" to his family and that for the sakes of both their families, they should no longer work together, the decision read. Knight gave Nelson one month's severance.
In a subsequent conversation between Knight and Nelson's husband, Knight said Nelson had done nothing wrong and that "she was the best dental assistant he ever had," the decision read.
Nelson filed a lawsuit, contending that Knight fired her because of her gender. She did not say he committed sexual harassment.
In response, Knight argued that Nelson was fired because of the "nature of their relationship and the perceived threat" to his marriage, not because of her gender. In fact, he said, Knight only employs women and replaced Nelson with another female employee.
A district court sided with Knight; Nelson appealed.
"As we have indicated above, the issue before us is not whether a jury could find that Dr. Knight treated Nelson badly," read the high court's decision.
"We are asked to decide only if a genuine fact issue exists as to whether Dr. Knight engaged in unlawful gender discrimination when he fired Nelson at the request of his wife. For the reasons previously discussed, we believe this conduct did not amount to unlawful discrimination, and therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court."
Here is a link to the court's decision:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/12/21/11-1857.pdf
Wolf's Daily Howl:
(CNN) -- Can a boss fire an employee he finds attractive because he and his wife, fairly or not, see her as a threat to their marriage?
Yes, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
"The question we must answer is ... whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction," Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote for the all-male high court.
Such firings may not be fair, but they do not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the decision read, siding with a lower court.
An attorney for Melissa Nelson, the fired employee, said the decision was wrong.
"We are appalled by the court's ruling and its failure to understand the nature of gender bias," said Paige Fiedler, the attorney. "For the seven men on the Iowa Supreme Court not to 'get it' is shocking and disheartening. It underscores the need for judges on the bench to be diverse in terms of their gender, race and life experiences."
The case concerns her client's employment as a dental assistant. Nelson worked for James Knight in 1999 and stayed for more than 10 years at the Fort Dodge business.
Toward the end of her employment, Knight complained to Nelson her clothing was tight and "distracting," the decision read. She denied her clothes were inappropriate.
At one point, Knight told Nelson that "if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing," the decision read.
At another point, in response to an alleged comment Nelson made about the infrequency of her sex life, Knight responded: "That's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."
During the last six months of Nelson's employment, Nelson and Knight, both married with children, started sending text messages to each other outside of work. Neither objected to the texting.
Knight's wife, who was employed at the same dental office, found out about those messages in late 2009 and demanded he fire Nelson.
In early 2010, he did just that. In the presence of a pastor, Knight told Nelson she had become a "detriment" to his family and that for the sakes of both their families, they should no longer work together, the decision read. Knight gave Nelson one month's severance.
In a subsequent conversation between Knight and Nelson's husband, Knight said Nelson had done nothing wrong and that "she was the best dental assistant he ever had," the decision read.
Nelson filed a lawsuit, contending that Knight fired her because of her gender. She did not say he committed sexual harassment.
In response, Knight argued that Nelson was fired because of the "nature of their relationship and the perceived threat" to his marriage, not because of her gender. In fact, he said, Knight only employs women and replaced Nelson with another female employee.
A district court sided with Knight; Nelson appealed.
"As we have indicated above, the issue before us is not whether a jury could find that Dr. Knight treated Nelson badly," read the high court's decision.
"We are asked to decide only if a genuine fact issue exists as to whether Dr. Knight engaged in unlawful gender discrimination when he fired Nelson at the request of his wife. For the reasons previously discussed, we believe this conduct did not amount to unlawful discrimination, and therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court."
Here is a link to the court's decision:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/12/21/11-1857.pdf
In my opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court added insult to her injury.
" 'We are asked to decide only if a genuine fact issue exists as to whether Dr. Knight engaged in unlawful gender discrimination when he fired Nelson at the request of his wife. For the reasons previously discussed, we believe this conduct
did not amount to unlawful discrimination,
and therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court.' "
legal system or justice system?
I feel like an employer has the right to tell the employee if her clothing is not appropriate for an office.
I think maybe he is partly to blame though, because he did not tell her that if she didn't dress appropriately he would fire her. That would have been a clear warning that she better dress appropriately. She wasn't the only one doing the texting, it sounds like a game!!!
It is crazy that her boss didn't feel he could deal with her in the office without being tempted by her. Shows what a weak man he was. And how insecure and shallow his marriage was. There will always be someone prettier, sexier, smarter....The fact that he could not reassure his wife, and instead, gave her something to worry about, is what's abusive here. I think the court did what they had to do, based on the way the lawsuit was written.
But I feel sorry for the wife, being married to someone who cannot reassure her, who is tempted to put his marriage in jeopardy in this way. The texting would have been a deal breaker for me, it would have been me that was gone.....
Sounds a lot like my boss and his wife. They can't make their marriage work but faults everyone else.
So unfair for her to be fired.
I gather this sort of thing happens all the time. It's not fair, but it's they way of the world I guess.
The fact that this woman responded to the texts of her boss and did nothing to repel him from being interested in her (maybe encouraged it by being too friendly considering his wife worked at the same place) puts her job in a dangerous position. She should have known that his wife would not be impressed if she found out.
The man IS in the wrong, but he owned the business, and he obviously developed an inappropriate emotional relationship with this woman. If I was his wife, I might feel the same... Who knows.
I do believe the woman should get some compensation though....
Just my opinion.
And no it is not about justice that an all male supreme court ruling would determine the employer is within his rights to fire her without any legitimate reason.
imo it isn't about gender bias because had the woman been ugly and unattractive this issue would have never even happened let alone have made it to the supreme court.
To me the issue is sexual misconduct of an emplyer. Even if he never crossed that line in their texts, he crossed it in his comments to her about her clothing. Chances are there were no witnesses to his comments other than her. However her discussing the infrequency of her sex life with her boss was imo inappropriate and showed she had lack of boundaries. And in fact any attraction between them may very well have been mutual because I see no reason for her to have continued the texting outside of work concerning discussions of their personal lives, unless she felt some mutual attraction. I seriously doubt she honestly believed she HAD to text with him outside of work or else risk losing her job. However none of it justifies her firing.
I don't see it as gender bias at all but I do see her firing as wrong because the reason given was not legitimate imo.
She should have filed for wrongful termination and all the affects that termination caused (ie, emotional distress).
Then she should file a sexual harassment charge against him.
"Then she should file a sexual harassment charge against him"
Agreed!