Yes, it is, but Iowa law is seriously fuck up.
I must admit, my initial reaction was “what the fucking hell?”
But then I realised that the US employment laws are a lot less strict. And that obviously leads to huge benefits overall, even for the unemployed. Yes, you can have a happy medium like UK employment laws, but even they cause huge problems for legit employers all the time. For example if an eight month pregnant woman interviews with you and she would be best for the job if she wasn’t pregnant, technically speaking you have to employ her or she can sue you even if this will effectively destroy your business. Insane!
So while I have a problem with this guy, I don’t think I have a problem with the laws unless anyone can think of a way of legislating against rubbish like this. I mean, you can technically outlaw any particular douchey act but douches always find a way of being douchey in another manner.
It isn’t fair to characterise the legal position as saying women bodies are a sin or anything like that btw. I accept that Islam and Christianity might put it that way, but a western person would definitely see this as this guy being the sinner, indeed let me state cearly: There is no reasonable person who can look at the facts here and think anything other than the dentist is a twat. While I don’t wish ill on anyone’s business, I do think the greater good may be served by patients boycotting him to send a message to other douches.
In an at will employment agreement a female employer could fire a male employee for the same reason, or for no reason at all.
People get fired all the time because the boss just doesn’t like them, because they are earning too much compared to a new employee that could replace them for less - lots of unfair reasons that don’t even take into consideration whether or not they are doing a good job.
It isn’t a blast workin’ for the man (or woman) but those are the terms we agree to when we accept at will employment.
At least you aren’t crushed under the iron hell of some union thug!
I think they are idiots. Yes, sexual harassment suits are a terrible problem in really small businesses where the owners, husband and wife, both work and one of the few other employees has an affair with one of them. The law says firing the employee is probably an illegal retaliation. But what are they supposed to do? Threesomes? Orgies. I think it is a problem for each jury to work out, not for a bunch of old blowhard judges to decide that nothing is wrong with retaliatory firing.
But that is the nature (and great unfairness) of at-will employment law. There does not have to be cause. The judge’s hands were tied by the law.
No, you cannot sexually harass an employee and then fire them for giving in or not giving in, or anything related to it. Except in Iowa. Federal law prevents this in all but the smallest offices, so there may have been an exception here under Federal law due to the business size. In essence she was alleging that his texting her was soliciting sex and he fired her for refusing. Not the judges job to decide if that is true. As it is, Iowa is a national laughingstock.
Because he’s the only man in the scenario, so he must be to blame.
Maybe because
or
Those data point rather obviously towards, if not “creepy old leech”, at least someone who lets the head below his belt rather than the one above his head do his thinking type of loser. There are less evidence suggesting a “spineless henpecked” oh-so-oppressed-by-his wife type of loser
I’m gonna admit that I still just wanna see a picture of her. Just me?
I think it’s a dumb reason to fire her and it was even dumber for him to admit it. He should have given her a nice fat severance package and glowing recommendation and that should have been it. But yeah, ugliness/attractiveness is not a protected class, so there’s just not a good legal argument to be made.
It sounds like this guy was a real creep though saying things like not having sex for her is like keeping a nice car parked in a garage all the time.
Read the judgement, its not that creepy in the context it was said.
What about promotions based on sucking dick? Would laws against that be an interference in the market?
Illegal? Maybe not.
Is he a first-class pussy-whipped douchebag that should be the laughing-stock of every town and family gathering for the next 20 years? Abso-fucking-lutely.
That is really insensitive and inappropriate, you sexist creep. And no, it isn’t just you.
My bosses are husband and wife, and in years of working for them nothing like this has ever come up. What am I, chopped liver?
I’m pretty sure Iowa isn’t a country.
He deserves to be boycotted. Stupid shit shouldn’t have hired her in the first place if he didn’t think he could control himself. And maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t want a husband that I felt couldn’t control himself around his staff.
Yeah, I’m waiting for a follow up that the couple are getting divorced. Either because the wife’s too controlling or the husband’s a wuss. (and now he blew his chances with the cute girl…)
Of course they wood.