Court Room Politics

Why is his wife still with him? :dunno: Seriously, if I were married and my spouse came to me and said 'Honey, I need to fire this really, really attractive (insert gender here) because they distract me from doing my job.' I would look at them in disbelief, then go to the bedroom, pack up their stuff in suitcases and tell them to hit the road! Obviously he can't be trusted in this (or other types of) situation(s), so why stay with him? To me, he is admitting that he can't be trusted and to take it this far is just crazy! I predict that he will eventually stray from his marriage. Just saying.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moderator

i.e.having men decide what is best for us (which really is about what is best for them)

---

I'm pretty sure that it was the dentist's wife who was deciding what was best.

Really, recreational outrage aside, nothing's changed. She isn't the first woman fired because her boss's wife was jealous. She won't be the last.

Next week, somebody else will be fired for wearing the wrong team's logo on a tee-shirt or for having the wrong political party's bumper sticker on a car, because both of those things have happened already, too.

Pretty people simply aren't a protected class any more than Republicans or Dallas Cowboy fans are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sepia and Dust

I'm pretty sure that it was the dentist's wife who was deciding what was best.

Really, recreational outrage aside, nothing's changed. She isn't the first woman fired because her boss's wife was jealous. She won't be the last.

Next week, somebody else will be fired for wearing the wrong team's logo on a tee-shirt or for having the wrong political party's bumper sticker on a car, because both of those things have happened already, too.

Pretty people simply aren't a protected class any more than Republicans or Dallas Cowboy fans are.

---

And upheld by an all male court. It's not about being protected--it's about being fired because a man can't control himself and having an all male court uphold it because it helped maintain "family values." Total B.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moderator

And upheld by an all male court. It's not about being protected--it's about being fired because a man can't control himself and having an all male court uphold it because it helped maintain "family values." Total B.S.

---

No, it isn't. It's about two things, and only two: did the dentist have a legal right to fire the employee? and was that firing an act of sexual discrimination?.

Yes, he had the right to fire her. At-will employment means that he can fire her for any reason or for no reason.
No, it wasn't sexual discrimination. She wasn't fired for the sole reason that she was a woman.

There was no possible way for the court--regardless of who was sitting--to reach any other conclusion.

Let the media spin it into whatever they wish, but don't be fooled by that. Nothing has changed--a fired employee lost a routine discrimination lawsuit that she never had any chance of winning, anyway.

Yes, I understand the legal aspects but ethically and morally it is not right and to frame it as maintaining family values is still IMO B.S. And unless he's attracted to men, it did have something to do with her gender although I'm sure they would have said it was only attractive women who would be a problem, but it's still about gender. :glare: This sort of thing is also a trend that we are seeing in terms of attitude (e.g. comments such as let's do something about jobs so the little woman can get back home at a reasonable time and not seeing why that is offensive) and legislation in putting restrictions on women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sepia and Dust

She wasn't fired for the sole reason that she was a woman.

---

You are correct, this wasn't the only reason she was fired. She was fired because she was an attractive woman, his wife was intimidated, and he was attracted to this woman. Now that I think about it those are perfect reasons to fire this woman. The fact she was a good employee and not attracted to her boss makes no difference...well according to the all male court, anyway. :smile2:

So will rulings like this also make it acceptable for people to be fired if someone deems them unattractive and doesn't like looking at them? :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moderator

Yes, I understand the legal aspects but ethically and morally it is not right and to frame it as maintaining family values is still IMO B.S. And unless he's attracted to men, it did have something to do with her gender although I'm sure they would have said it was only attractive women who would be a problem, but it's still about gender. :glare: This sort of thing is also a trend that we are seeing in terms of attitude (e.g. comments such as let's do something about jobs so the little woman can get back home at a reasonable time and not seeing why that is offensive) and legislation in putting restrictions on women.

---

That it had to do with her gender is probably the only reason the case reached as high a court as it did. In the end, though, it failed to meet the legal criteria for discrimination.

If it's any consolation, the dentist and his wife are being tried in the court of public opinion, and have been found wanting. He will always be known as that horny dentist who let his wife bully him into firing his pretty assistant.

I also imagine that the assistant has had numerous job offers, maybe at a better rate of pay.

As to this trend you're seeing... if you'd care to start a new thread on it with some examples of legislation that restricts women's rights in the workplace, I'd be happy to participate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Ally~

The fact she was a good employee and not attracted to her boss makes no difference...well according to the all male court, anyway.

---

Legally, it makes no difference.

Quote:

---

So will rulings like this also make it acceptable for people to be fired if someone deems them unattractive and doesn't like looking at them?

---

That's already legal. Yes, you can fire ugly people. I think that Cracker Barrel won some lawsuits a few years back over this very thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moderator

Yes, I understand the legal aspects but ethically and morally it is not right and to frame it as maintaining family values is still IMO B.S. And unless he's attracted to men, it did have something to do with her gender although I'm sure they would have said it was only attractive women who would be a problem, but it's still about gender. :glare: This sort of thing is also a trend that we are seeing in terms of attitude (e.g. comments such as let's do something about jobs so the little woman can get back home at a reasonable time and not seeing why that is offensive) and legislation in putting restrictions on women.

---

I saw what ya did there- that there Romney-ism!! :laugh:

And yet the all male court still managed to adjudicate against her even though it was about gender. I'm sure the dentist will lose some of his patients but there will be others who will support him and that's the way it goes and perhaps as it should be in terms of people choosing whom they wish to do business with.

It wasn't legislation regarding women's rights in the workplace that I had in mind but will not hijack this thread for discussion.