So just because he may have eventually crossed the line means she had to go. How does that indicate that she would have been willing to have an affair with this douche, especially after disregarding his previous comments and texts.
This is unbelievable. How this was upheld in the Supreme Court is mind-boggling.
An at-will employment can be terminated at any time so long as you do not violate public policy. Public policy reasons are typically things such as age, gender, or race.
Hotness is not a protected category, so that must be a legitimate reason to fire someone in an at-will state.
Yes, but since the dentist in question is heterosexual, he would never have fired a man for that same reason, so it could be argued that it really was discrimination on the basis of gender.
Gloria Allred is annoying in the extreme, but if ever a case was perfect for her, it’s this one.
So for an article submitted by a woman about a legal decision that many perceive as being harmful to women in the workplace, Will chooses a photo of large-breasted cleavage and calls it “sexy dentist.” Classy…
I may be wrong but there appears to be a button on the blouse that is under tremendous pressure.
My interest is to learn the manufacturer whereby I can contact him to find out the type of thread he uses on his buttons.
Lately the red breasts have been popping my line but with the kind of thread holding that button secure I should have no problem keeping the red breasts hooked.
or dynamite ….. ( Punchline to the old joke: “He looked at the game warden and said, ‘Are you going to just sit there looking stupid or are you gonna FISH?'”
Had to read it twice to “get” the redbreast reference. What could I have been thinking?
Discrimination or not, as the owner of the business he ought to be able to hire and fire whomever he wants for whatever reason– even a bad one.
[This, of course, assumes that there was no contract stating that the employment would stretch over a certain length of time, the contract was not breached, et cetera.]
Let the individual pay the natural consequences of his sexism [or whatever ism or ology that happends to be in disrepute at the time] via loss of business, loss of reputation, or exclusion from other places that discriminate against people who discriminate…
Many facts of the case are not reported here which leads me to question the credibility of fitsnews. This report is indeed “unfair and imbalanced.” The woman who was fired was not a victim. She participated in inappropriate behavior and put her job at risk. The dentist and his assistant were exchanging verbal and non-verbal communication and an emotional relationship had developed (though not reported in this article) which often leads to a physical relationship. This isn’t rocket science.
These relationships don’t resolve with continued contact. There must be separation of the people involved. It’s common sense. The dentist owns the practice so it is logical that the woman must leave or be fired in an attempt to preserve the marriage.
Being fired is a consequence of her choices. She was fired for her inappropriate choices. But that is not a sexy title for an article. If the title reads fired for being too “irresistible” – Well now, that sells!
His consequences will be different because he owns the practice. How many women will want to be his patient now?
She intentionally did not file a sexual harassment suit for the reasons you set forth here. If this had been unwanted innuendo/texts/come-ons, the law would have protected her.
I wonder if this guy ever pushed his beloved girlfriend into furniture and had to be restrained by court order from seeing her? Or had to resign his job because of a CDV conviction? Sound familiar?
This article should have included a photo of Ms. Nelson, so we could have seen that she obviously was NOT fired for being too hot. The judge was probably offended that she would make such a claim.
I think Catherine Templeton has big tits but all pics I’ve seen of her, she’s dressed in business suits. Maybe Templeton can write an op-ed piece for this space.
“You’ll still be smoking hot … but you’ll be smoking hot in the unemployment line.”
Not necessarily. Statistics show that attractive people get hired over equally qualified (or perhaps, in some instances, more qualified) but less attractive people.
I’ve never seen any “smoking hot” dental assistants in the unemployment line. But then again, I’ve never been in the unemployment line. Maybe I’m smoking hot . . . SWEET!
27 comments
So just because he may have eventually crossed the line means she had to go. How does that indicate that she would have been willing to have an affair with this douche, especially after disregarding his previous comments and texts.
This is unbelievable. How this was upheld in the Supreme Court is mind-boggling.
An at-will employment can be terminated at any time so long as you do not violate public policy. Public policy reasons are typically things such as age, gender, or race.
Hotness is not a protected category, so that must be a legitimate reason to fire someone in an at-will state.
Yes, but since the dentist in question is heterosexual, he would never have fired a man for that same reason, so it could be argued that it really was discrimination on the basis of gender.
Gloria Allred is annoying in the extreme, but if ever a case was perfect for her, it’s this one.
Some judges would likely agree with you. But not this judge, apparently.
He should have just said he didn’t like her. That would have been easier.
Hell in SC he wouldnt have evenhad to explain why he canned here!
We are an “at will ” empoyment state!
Your boss doesnt like you.
You’re gone!
That statute is almost useless to most employers.
That crazy lady that posts here on occasion had a letter to the editor published in The State.
So for an article submitted by a woman about a legal decision that many perceive as being harmful to women in the workplace, Will chooses a photo of large-breasted cleavage and calls it “sexy dentist.” Classy…
My problem with this: If there was not a reason to bash a MAN…you likely would not give a $#!*…
Liberals outrage is so selective. Four killed in Benghazi…and you scurry to defend and cover up…
The chance to scream ‘Sexism’…and you break your neck…
Sorry: but we GOT much bigger problems than liberal cliches…
If you want to fire someone you can…The court and-or Obama cannot run this man’s business…
But you want to make us pay for rubbers so she can hump like a rabbit…
Three Thousand killed in the WTC and Bushites scurry to defend and cover up…
I may be wrong but there appears to be a button on the blouse that is under tremendous pressure.
My interest is to learn the manufacturer whereby I can contact him to find out the type of thread he uses on his buttons.
Lately the red breasts have been popping my line but with the kind of thread holding that button secure I should have no problem keeping the red breasts hooked.
Any help would be appreciated
Spiderwire™
or dynamite ….. ( Punchline to the old joke: “He looked at the game warden and said, ‘Are you going to just sit there looking stupid or are you gonna FISH?'”
Had to read it twice to “get” the redbreast reference. What could I have been thinking?
Discrimination or not, as the owner of the business he ought to be able to hire and fire whomever he wants for whatever reason– even a bad one.
[This, of course, assumes that there was no contract stating that the employment would stretch over a certain length of time, the contract was not breached, et cetera.]
Let the individual pay the natural consequences of his sexism [or whatever ism or ology that happends to be in disrepute at the time] via loss of business, loss of reputation, or exclusion from other places that discriminate against people who discriminate…
Many facts of the case are not reported here which leads me to question the credibility of fitsnews. This report is indeed “unfair and imbalanced.” The woman who was fired was not a victim. She participated in inappropriate behavior and put her job at risk. The dentist and his assistant were exchanging verbal and non-verbal communication and an emotional relationship had developed (though not reported in this article) which often leads to a physical relationship. This isn’t rocket science.
These relationships don’t resolve with continued contact. There must be separation of the people involved. It’s common sense. The dentist owns the practice so it is logical that the woman must leave or be fired in an attempt to preserve the marriage.
Being fired is a consequence of her choices. She was fired for her inappropriate choices. But that is not a sexy title for an article. If the title reads fired for being too “irresistible” – Well now, that sells!
His consequences will be different because he owns the practice. How many women will want to be his patient now?
She intentionally did not file a sexual harassment suit for the reasons you set forth here. If this had been unwanted innuendo/texts/come-ons, the law would have protected her.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Bet she didn’t have any trouble finding another job.
I wonder if this guy ever pushed his beloved girlfriend into furniture and had to be restrained by court order from seeing her? Or had to resign his job because of a CDV conviction? Sound familiar?
This article should have included a photo of Ms. Nelson, so we could have seen that she obviously was NOT fired for being too hot. The judge was probably offended that she would make such a claim.
In a truly free market it wouldn’t matter why you want to hire/fire someone…which I know bothers most here.
That being said, $10 says that the unemployment rate for “hot” women(that want a job) is far lower than ugly ones.
You may hate me for saying it, but it’s true.
I think Catherine Templeton has big tits but all pics I’ve seen of her, she’s dressed in business suits. Maybe Templeton can write an op-ed piece for this space.
Motorboat heaven.
“You’ll still be smoking hot … but you’ll be smoking hot in the unemployment line.”
Not necessarily. Statistics show that attractive people get hired over equally qualified (or perhaps, in some instances, more qualified) but less attractive people.
I’ve never seen any “smoking hot” dental assistants in the unemployment line. But then again, I’ve never been in the unemployment line. Maybe I’m smoking hot . . . SWEET!
Had she come to work looking like that, I would have sent her home to change.
Here’s what she looks like:
http://www.kcci.com/news/central-iowa/Iowan-talks-about-being-fired-for-being-irresistible/-/9357080/17865692/-/fl55g8/-/index.html
this is what any state is headed for with republican leadership….she should have not been born SO attractive…
I was fired once. Must have been because I am attractive.
She is nothing to get excited about.