Don't get too fit or you can be fired!

mhcoss

if your boss has told you your clothing is distractive and you need to wear more conservative attire then you need to heed to that warning. Nothin to see her folks move along.

LetsMakeupXtina

if your boss has told you your clothing is distractive and you need to wear more conservative attire then you need to heed to that warning. Nothin to see her folks move along.

sounds like you didnt read the entire article

FlaxMilk

People keep focusing on her dress, but that was one snippet of the article. His own attorney stated that the plaintiff didn't do anything wrong. I didn't read anywhere that she refused to change how she dressed. I also didn't read evidence beyond his erection that her clothes were actually inappropriate (and really, many women have curves, it can be impossible to wear something that conceals their shape completely, and why should we have to? People don't expect men with nice broad shoulders to have to wear something that conceals their shape. Of course there is a line, but women with larger breasts would have to wear a potato sack to completely conceal the fact that they exist and prevent people from noticing them. And again, why should they have to? I take care to dress conservatively at work and am still unable to prevent human nature.)

However, since employers can pretty much let anyone go for any reason in many states, I'm not surprised. However, if I were a female employee in that office, I'd quit ASAP. I don't want the wife and the pastor calling the shots on my job, and really, it's pretty difficult to be impartial when you are the boss and your spouse is an employee. (Many professions have ethical codes about not being your friend or loved one's supervisor for this reason.)

FlaxMilk

if your boss has told you your clothing is distractive and you need to wear more conservative attire then you need to heed to that warning. Nothin to see her folks move along.

His attorney:

"***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."

roselover58

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/27/yelp-users-slam-dentist-who-fired-his-assistant-for-being-irresistible/?test=latestnews

Some quotes from the article:

"Melissa Nelson, a 32-year-old married mother of two, had worked for James 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 Supreme Court opinion."

and

"On Dec. 21, 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."

OMG, what a load of crap. Read the whole article and see what happened. Melissa may not have been "offended" by her bosses remark about bulging pants but it was totally inappropriate. Talk about stupid men....the dentist and all the men on the Iowa supreme court fit the bill. It was not all about Melissa's tight clothes. It was about the dentist and his roving eye and his wife wanting Melissa GONE. The only thing Melissa is guilty of is being naive. The judges however have much to answer for and are demonstrating a lack of respect for women and giving employers a way to fire women without just cause. Stupid Idiots. The truth is, a woman can just be a woman, dressing any which way, covered from head to toe, and randy men will still be randy men. They may not be able to change their feelings of attraction but they sure as h*** can change their behavior.

Reminds of a comic that said if women wore big boxes, the men would mention how well one of them was wearing the Frigidaire one...

love22step

What I take out of that is this: Don't wear tight and/or revealing clothing to work.

That's what I see, too. What's the problem?

KeriW626

that is quacked.

lovechicagobears

Additionally, she was filing under "discrimination". The court found no discrimination because it doesn't have a clause for "tight clothes" or "because my wife said so". That's why they ruled against her.

FlaxMilk

That's what I see, too. What's the problem?

The problem is that wasn't actually the problem. (I hope a man's erection is not necessary and sufficient evidence to convict a woman of dressing in an overly sexual way.)

BogQueen1

Actually, if you read the story carefully you'll see that the dentist asked his assistant not to wear such revealing clothing and she wouldn't dress in a less provocative manner.

So yeah. Fire the assistant, save your marriage. It's as easy as that.

If the woman had any common sense she could have dressed more conservatively and still been attractive, and then looked for another job. Just because you have 'it' doesn't mean that a professional office is where you should flaunt it, even if you have been working there for 10 years.

Actually the article also says she wore scrubs every day to work. And she was a dental assistant. I'm sorry, I read this article a few days ago and was just shocked. Basically his wife was offended because he found this assistant attractive and told him to fire her, and he did to 'save his marriage'. Tell him to stop being a randy old coot and find some courtesy and professionalism. Seriously, to talk about your pants bulging out at work? I'd turn around and walk out the door and hire an attorney for harassment. Different strokes for different folks of course, but to be fired for being attractive? Ugh.

gingerveg

So yeah. Fire the assistant, save your marriage. It's as easy as that.

Seriously? If this guy can't control himself, how is getting rid of one attractive woman from his life going to save his marriage? Would you want to stay married to a man who had zero self control? It is HIS responsibility to not cheat on his wife, it's not the responsibility of women to protect him from himself.

If you want to be in a committed relationship, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to stay committed and faithful.

Amen to this. ^ For sure the responsibility is up to the person in the relationship!

Regarding this particular case. If there was a dress code and she did not adhere to the dress code and got fired after being warned, then fair enough. If not, then she has a good case for discrimination. Discrimination happens everyday but this is a big story because, let's face it, a hot white women is involved.

I'm sorry but I don't feel like reading the article because I don't have the stomach to deal with the comments right now. I have the sense that a lot of people will have suddenly become feminists over this issue and yet these same people could care less about other instances of discrimination and absolutely atrocities that are occurring to women across the globe.

LadyOfOceanBreeze

I would say that due to the employee's blatant non-compliance to rules set by her employer, she obviously wanted to be fired. And with good reason! look how many people are talking about this, I heard about it first on my way in to work on my car stereo. I myself would never go against any rule set by my employer and if I did I would expect there to be severe consequences! :explode: :explode: :explode: DUH!


ok, i stand corrected. the firing was due to blatant drama in the workplace. end of story.

FlaxMilk

I would say that due to the employee's blatant non-compliance to rules set by her employer

Where do you see this?

thatjulesgirl

I love that he consulted his pastor before terminating her and ending up in court. Typical Christian rhetoric - women are the evil temptresses who are obviously trying to corrupt and disgrace innocent, naive men who have zero control of their urges... OH PLEASE. GET A GRIP. :huh:

It's a dentists office. I hardly think she was turning up in micro-minis and nipple tassels with plastic stripper heels. Her "inappropriate" attire was probably just snug and he couldn't bloody control himself. What a creepy, old lech. And the idea that "irresistible" sexual urges make sexual harassment / discriminatory firings are somehow different from "uncontrollable greed" making embezzling ok or "blind rage" making assault in the workplace ok is ridiculous. You're an adult, you control your crap while you're at work. As long as she wasn't flashing nipples or sending him sexts (which, I highly doubt someone would do to a man they consider a "father figure") then he's COMPLETELY in the wrong.

Not to mention - it's ok to fire someone because your wife doesn't like them???? There goes any and all job security for ANYONE in ANY job who's boss has a wife. :huh:

gomisskellygo

I would say that due to the employee's blatant non-compliance to rules set by her employer

Where do you see this?

Exactly! And she wore scrubs!!!!! Her scrubs were to attractive? Pa-lease!

cuterbee

An employer should have the right to fire an employee without cause. I also wonder how many of you would even hire, much less keep a sexy housekeeper around your hubby while you are at work.....

If my hubby couldn't keep his hands to himself, he'd be out the door. If you can't trust them, you can't trust them. Learned that the hard way.
___
Having been around lots of people wearing scrubs over the years, I have to say that a few women with just the right body type (very large, perky breasts that are fairly high on the chest wall) have absolutely amazing cleavage even in scrubs. Not that that excuses the sleazy dentist.

rio66

I saw that a few days ago and I just can't comprehend it. So apparently it's our fault if the men around us can't control their own actions. Unbelievable! That's the same thing as saying it's the woman's fault for getting raped because she was attractive. There is a lot that isn't discussed in the article but the main idea to me seems to be that it's a womans fault for being a woman and men don't have to take any responsibility or control their own thoughts and actions.

Exactly!!

tigersword

What I take out of that is this: Don't wear tight and/or revealing clothing to work.

Too bad that's not what their decision said nor what the legal precedent this case will set.
You can take anything out of it you want, but you have to step back and realize what the long term effects will be.

Do you have the court decision handy for me to actually read? Because all I see is a link to a poorly written sensationalistic article, that doesn't really give any real information on the actual court decision. I believe the only decision the court made was that the dentist in question did not commit discrimination when he terminated her. It's very simple, any employee can be terminated for any reason, as long as that reason doesn't discriminate based on gender, race, or religion. He fired her because he found her too attractive, and his wife wanted him to fire her. There's no discrimination there, because without a written contract, a person can be terminated at any time, for any reason. It's called "At-Will Employment."

At-Will employment legal definition: "any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work." Notice the part in bold.

She sued for discrimination, that she was fired just for being female. She wasn't fired just for being female, therefore, it's not discrimination.

Improvised

I hadn't read the part about his... pants. That would seriously freak me out if someone said that to me (except for my husband, lol). Ugh, just ugh. There's fault on both sides.

tigersword

I would say that due to the employee's blatant non-compliance to rules set by her employer

Where do you see this?

Exactly! And she wore scrubs!!!!! Her scrubs were to attractive? Pa-lease!

Where in the article did it say she wore scrubs?