It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(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.
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: [T]hat's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."
Originally posted by chagahunter
reply to post by jude11
Yeah, that s dentists for you. Too much mercury and/or nitrous oxide
Why did he hire her in the first place? Bet the wife wasn t involved in the hiring process.
running with the wolves
Originally posted by Grimpachi
He shouldn’t have hired her in the first place. It seems pretty screwed up to me. It is his fault in the first place. What a scumbag.edit on 22-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Grimpachi
He shouldn’t have hired her in the first place. It seems pretty screwed up to me. It is his fault in the first place. What a scumbag.edit on 22-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by Grimpachi
He shouldn’t have hired her in the first place. It seems pretty screwed up to me. It is his fault in the first place. What a scumbag.edit on 22-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
So he is a scumbag for firing her and not trying to sleep with her? Interesting viewpoint you have there.
As to hiring her, having a beautiful assistant/receptionist increases business, that's why she was hired.
Originally posted by Grimpachi
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by Grimpachi
He shouldn’t have hired her in the first place. It seems pretty screwed up to me. It is his fault in the first place. What a scumbag.edit on 22-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
So he is a scumbag for firing her and not trying to sleep with her? Interesting viewpoint you have there.
As to hiring her, having a beautiful assistant/receptionist increases business, that's why she was hired.
So he hires her for her looks and because he can’t control himself he fires her. Yup he fits the definition of a scumbag.
Originally posted by dave0davidson
I don't really see any problem with this. A business owner should be able to decide who they do or do not want to employ, whatever the reason is. It should not be up to courts, or public opinion, or the employee, or anyone other than the owner.
Originally posted by Unity_99
The decision would be unlawful, violate human rights and fair employment laws. So the judge made an illegal and improper ruling.
Originally posted by dave0davidson
I don't really see any problem with this. A business owner should be able to decide who they do or do not want to employ, whatever the reason is. It should not be up to courts, or public opinion, or the employee, or anyone other than the owner.