So I’ve rendered elucidator at a loss for words. I suppose that’s some sort of honor …
A Participation Ribbon, at the very least.
How about a free dental check-up by Dr. Creepy McCreepster?
I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here. Oddly enough, I’m not entirely sure about this whole thing. The Dr.'s comments were undoubtedly creepy and inappropriate, I don’t dispute that at all. My hesitation to make the Dr. the sole “guilty one” in this comes from the not-very-informative news article. There’s just not enough information there, IMHO, to say “Dr. 100% guilty of sex discrimination, assistant 100% innocent”.
If there’s more than one link or more information here, I apologize, I didn’t read all of the pages in this thread. At any rate, the outrage seems to be based on the Dr.'s tacky comments which all do seem to point to “can’t control himself, blah blah blah”. But within the article, earlier on in this discussion with his employee, the Dr. HAD talked to his assistant about inappropriate clothing and so on. They don’t show any of these examples of inappropriate clothing in the article, but if I owned a business, and one of my employees was dressing provocatively, I’d talk to them about it, and if it continued, they’d get the boot. Unfortunately, they don’t show what he considered “inappropriate” so we don’t really get both sides of the story.
They worked together for 10 years, and that’s a very long time in close quarters. Is it possible that much of what the Dr. said about his reason is him channeling his wife’s worries and jealousy and that he said it badly (and possibly with wish fulfillment mixed in)? And as someone suggested in the MPSIMS thread, the Doc and his assistant obviously were, at one point, comfortable enough with each other to discuss some aspects of each of their marriages and sex life. That’s going a bit too far in friendship in the professional realm, and it sounds as if she was just as indiscreet as he was regarding discussions.
Did he say stupid and tacky things? Absolutely. But I’m wondering if it is really that his meaning was as the title suggests or if it was merely a bungled, really AWFUL attempt at explaining “look, after this many years of this person dressing inappropriately at work, with the addition of my assistant and I having (unfortunately) wandered into the territory of discussing things that are too personal, it’s just not uncomfortable for me and my wife for various reasons”. (not everyone is good at speaking on the spot in an intelligent well-thought out way, smart enough to get through dentist/medical school or not). Did the guy really mean for absolute sure, “I’m afraid I have no control and will inevitably fall into an affair with this irresistible woman” or was he clumsily trying to say “this is the sort of thing that leads to affairs and here’s why”? I dunno, and with his wife riding shotgun, jeez, who knows what was really meant?
I’m not trying to paint the guy as an innocent here, I too think his comments were creepy and stupid, not to mention unnecessary. I’m saying, I don’t think the assistant is the completely innocent sex discrimination victim she’s portraying herself as. Not without more information, I don’t.
That’s not quite correct; people give their employees money in exchange for services provided; in this case, I assume services like answering the phone and typing up documents and booking appointments, etc. The services his assistant was providing in exchange for her paycheque have absolutely nothing to do with how attractive she is, or how much Dr. Bonerpants wants to have sex with her.
I agree with the people saying that married people have to be aware of boundaries and crossing lines and removing temptations, but just firing people (and messing with their lives in a major way) because YOU need temptation removed isn’t right.
If jerkishness is to be made a crime, where are we to house all the criminals?
Would it have crossed a line if he’d asked her whether she’d like a Lamborghini in her garage?
I think it’s immoral to create a political system in which someone’s subsistence is based on their attractiveness. I think the dentist’s rating of their assistant’s attractiveness was contingent on the assistant’s gender.
How do you know the dentist is not bisexual?
I guess my problem is that it basically sounds like “I fired her because I may sexually harrass her in the future.” yet the court says that since he didn’t actually harass her then that’s OK. I also have a propblem with the fact that firing her because she’s a woman is illegal but firing her because she’s an attractive woman is OK. I think this is a case where the letter of the law runs counter to the spirit of the law.
It might be immoral but hell, the world is immoral. Pretty people make more money, period. That’s life.
The dentist is definitely a dick however I’ve seen people get fired for much stupider and MUCH more unfair reasons. If she’s so damned sexy I’m sure she’ll have no trouble getting another job.
Actually she was the hygienist (not that it matters).
But I think you’re wrong. People pay for services because the services help them. If there’s some other negative aspect which outweighs the value of the services provided, people don’t pay for them. Nor should they.
It’s splitting hairs, but she wasn’t fired because she was attractive, but because she was attractive to him. For whatever reason – mid-life crisis, problems in his marriage, her sympathetic nature – he started seeing her differently. The same thing could have happened with a homely employee. It wasn’t how she looked, but how she looked to him. The court got that part right.
But he should have given her more than a month’s severance. The court decision even characterized that as “ungenerous”.
I agree. Particularly for this case where the relationship crossed the line of professionalism. Read the judgement I have quoted from a member further up the discussion. There’s a bit more information. That said, I still think the guy is a douche, but not completely in the wrong.
Because of his comments. They’re quoted in the article and opinion.
I didn’t say it in the GD thread (which I started), but on reflection I withdrew any disdain for the Iowa appellate court and placed it on the dentist instead. I hope he loses all his patients.
[QUOTE=AK84]
Have you even bothered to read the judgement. She specifically did not claim that she was harassed.
[/QUOTE]
Nitpick: that’s an opinion, not a judgment. In the US, “judgment” refers solely to an order entered by a trial court.
You don’t have to sue, you just have to file a claim for unemployment benefits. They will ask you why you were dismissed, because if you were fired “for cause,” you don’t qualify to collect benefits. When you tell them you have no idea why you were fired, you were just told you had to leave, they will press you to guess. I was asked, “Why do you think you were fired?” If you say, “My best guess is that he couldn’t keep his dick in his pants and his wife lowered the boom,” they will follow up with the employer with your side of the story and ask for their side. That’s when they’ll be stupid enough to put it in writing.
If they’re like one of my former employers, they’ll lie and say you were fired for cause and your claim for unemployment benefits will be denied, opening the legal process for you to challenge the denial in front of an “Administrative Judge.” Though not technically part of the court system, their rulings are allowed to be used in a potential suit, should you prevail and choose to seek additional damages.
If your former employer is a huge corporation like mine was, they will see the ruling in your favor and settle with you before it becomes public. If you lose the U.E. case and choose to continue through the courts because you need those unemployment benefits to survive until you find another job — a likely scenario here — then all secrecy bets are off.
Tell me about it.
Yes, sweetheart. Now run your pretty little head along and bring bossman a cup of coffee, willya?
Actually, at least in PA, you are not asked why you were fired. By filing the claim, you are saying you meet the necessary criteria. The employer then can protest you receiving UC, stating why they feel your claim is not covered.
Over the years I’ve had several people quit and then file for UC. I’ve fought those claims and won in each case.
Shayna is apparently unaware that some people don’t live in… whatever state she lives in.
Question: Wouldn’t this woman be required to wear a lab coat (or a dental uniform that he would provide) over her clothes whenever she was at the dental office? If so, then he did have some sort of control over her tight-fitting attire.
And yes, I too am an employer (with my wife co-owner as well) and we do have a say in what is appropriate dress attire for our employees, and expect them to follow it or eventually be fired if appropriate warnings were given. I am surprised that the wife or husband didn’t consider this years before it got to this point. Both of them don’t seem too intelligent on how the whole situation was handled.
The hygienists at my dentist’s office wear scrubs, which can be surprisingly sexy on the right person. Not that this in any way justifies the dentist being an arse.
It was far from an ideal situation, but personally I would prefer any Medical professional who is drilling inside my head to take whatever steps required to remove potential distractions.