It wouldn’t affect the number of cases at all. Just as it would set a precedent to allow employers to fire employees so easily, the opposite precedent would be set if the women would have been allowed to keep her job. If that precedent was set, then future employers would know that they can’t do such shit and lawsuits would be curbed that way
Besides, I care little for the courts’ workload if something is so unjust. I would never think that lowering courts’ caseloads is better than actually upholding rights. The courts erred this time, to all of our detriment
I don’t see anything wrong with this unless this is some kind of huge dental practice. Very small businesses should retain the right to hire and fire on an at-will basis. It is impractical for very small businesses to operate otherwise.
“Attractive women” aren’t a protected class. Women are, but not all subsets. Plus, this guy didn’t fire her simply because she was attractive. He fired her because he had developed a relationship with her that had progressed to the point that it was harming his marriage.
There were no class of people at all involved here, just this one particular person for reasons that only applied to her. Now, if the guy has a new policy of not hiring women at all because he can’t keep his dick from becoming a diving rod for every woman at his office, then that is class discrimination.
So if his wife doesn’t want him to have daily contact with a woman she feels threatens their marriage, you think the courts should force him to continue to employ her?
You are an idiot. If the guy had any class, he would help her get another job and give her a generous severence but he should be able to cut off all contact with her if he wants.
Except this ruling allows me, you, or anyone to define attractive. In other words, a way out to fire anyone for no good reason with no threat of legal repercussion.
Couldn’t resist 'cause it’s the pit, eh? You are such a sophisticate.
How does this even happen these days? Employers don’t have to give a reason when they fire someone. So why is the case that employers so often give a reason that gets them into hot water? This employer could have avoided all this by just telling white lies, which we all learn to do from childhood.
KarlGauss, if it’s any consolation to you, I would expect there would be a different result under Canadian human rights laws, which would see this as a form of sex discrimination.
Not meant as legal advice, of course, just a general comment.
Fire at will lets you fire someone without giving any reason at all. Iowa is one such state. You have to prove that there was some impermissible grounds for your firing to get relief. Proving that you were fired because your bosses wife wanted him to fire you is not going to be enough to get you relief in Iowa.
I was hoping you wouldn’t notice. I’m a cowardly pitter.
“Nelson and Knight began texting each other in 2009, the court’s opinion said. Most messages were work-related or otherwise innocuous, but some were more suggestive, including one in which Knight asked Nelson how often she had an orgasm. Nelson did not answer that text.” <— pay attention to the bolding (mine) and the last sentence.
I do not know about Iowa - y’all grow corn or some such doncha? - but here that is a very, very clear example of sexual harassment. I cannot imagine a court seeing it is anything other, Canadian legal Dopers feel free to correct me.
She worked there for ten fucking years without being “too attractive” but once the Doctor’s wife found out he was texting her things like, “how often [do you] orgasm” her sexiness became a problem.
So, in short, woman get hit on by sleazy boss and gets fired because his wife found out that he was scum and threatened their marriage.
This is fine with you?
What specific kind of asshole are you?
If you happen to be one of the presiding judges then I happily retract that last question; I already know precisely what kind of asshole you are.
For the judge to rule it was sexual harassment, she would have to have sued on that basis and she did not. She sued only on the issue of gender discrimination, which this was clearly not.
The guy is a dick to be sure, but she is a dope for wanting to stay and for not suing on the right grounds.
I’m going to guess that you are some sort of management fuck or business owner.
That you think needing a just cause for termination would “[cripple] the courts” betrays a phenomenal lack of grey matter and the compassion that would imply.
Perhaps if Yankmericans stopped suing each other over every rain drop and nose-bleed the courts have to worry about these terrible employees asking the law to enforce their basic right to not lose their income solely because their boss is a douchebag.
Is there a reason that you feel douchebags ought to have the right to fire on a whim?
Would you be in favour of, or possibly benefit from, douchebags being held as a protected class?
If you’re claiming that scattered sexually suggestive text messages (without more) constitute a hostile work environment, you’re wrong. Iowa is in the Eighth Circuit. Here’s what the Eighth Circuit has said about HWE claims:
“Gordon alleges that statements by Boyd Heilig, a coworker, and Gary Heilig, a supervisor, created a hostile work environment. Gordon contends that Boyd Heilig made three to four racially offensive comments to him and additional sexually offensive comments to him. This limited number of offensive comments is insufficient to create a hostile work environment. See Burkett v. Glickman, 327 F.3d 658, 662 (8th Cir.2003) (“Offhand comments and isolated incidents of offensive conduct (unless extremely serious) do not constitute a hostile work environment.”).”
Gordon v. Shafer Contracting Co., 469 F. 3d 1191, 1195 (8th Cir. 2006).
I don’t know Canadian law, but I do know U.S. employment law.
You have no idea how the American legal system works. Most employment cases are filed in federal court. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, so they’re not hearing nosebleed and raindrop cases.
How do you propose judging whether an employer is, in your words, a “douchebag”? Seems like an unworkable standard to me.
As much as I truly hate reasoned discussion in the pit I must say that you raise a goodish point. For Americans… possibly Canadians; again CanaLawyers please chime in and correct me.
In my province, as far as I know, you needn’t specify every single ground of complaint when dealing with something like this. You would talk to The Human Rights Commission and you would lay out the facts of your complaint.
They would assess your complaint and, if they found it valid and the employer failed to abide by the decision, it would go to court. Either way after the complaint is made the Human Rights Commission appoints an attorney to advocate for you. If the lawyer fails to raise a particular argument that in no ways handcuff the Commission or the courts.
Further, I can file a human rights complaint on your behalf and have it adjudicated. The only stipulation being the Commission has the right to inquire of the person on whose behalf the complaint is filed if they wish to proceed. Should they say “no” it is up to the discretion of the Commission whether or not to go along with that decision.
This, to me, is a clear cut case of, “You were fired because I’m scum and my wife caught me.” This does not, in my opinion, constitute just cause.