Woman fired for being "irresistible."

Like Tree181Likes


I'm not sure I know what your feelings are. Would you care to elaborate?
Originally Posted by Saria


I've grown to truly hate people who put the onus on women to control men's behavior. I think women who do that deserve what they get.
Eres o te haces?
From another article I read the texts were totally innocent--something about her kids.

What chaps my ass the most about this is the assumption that an affair would have happened if he decided it, as if it was a foregone conclusion that she would have went along with his hypothetical advances.

She should have sued for sexual harrassent for his innuendos.

I hope that stupid POS and his moron of a wife have a miserable marriage for the rest of their lives. They deserve it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using CurlTalk App
Originally Posted by legends
Do you think anyone actually made that assumption? I think the dentist may have been content just having her around to fantasize about.

And the wife may have just resented the fact her husband was hot for another woman he spent 8 hrs with everyday...whether or not anything ever jumped off btwn them.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
That was very definitely the assumption in the various articles I've read. It wasn't just the fantasy (and let me just say, if (general) you are trying to control your partner's thoughts, well...good luck with that, honey), it was that if she stayed in that office, he would have an affair with her.
Eres o te haces?
From another article I read the texts were totally innocent--something about her kids.

What chaps my ass the most about this is the assumption that an affair would have happened if he decided it, as if it was a foregone conclusion that she would have went along with his hypothetical advances.

She should have sued for sexual harrassent for his innuendos.

I hope that stupid POS and his moron of a wife have a miserable marriage for the rest of their lives. They deserve it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using CurlTalk App
Originally Posted by legends
Do you think anyone actually made that assumption? I think the dentist may have been content just having her around to fantasize about.

And the wife may have just resented the fact her husband was hot for another woman he spent 8 hrs with everyday...whether or not anything ever jumped off btwn them.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
That was very definitely the assumption in the various articles I've read. It wasn't just the fantasy (and let me just say, if (general) you are trying to control your partner's thoughts, well...good luck with that, honey), it was that if she stayed in that office, he would have an affair with her.
Originally Posted by legends
Because obviously once he willed it she would succumb to his desires and sleep with him even though she was in no way attracted to him. This man is an assssssss. His wife is an even bigger one. Because women have no control nor responsibility for men's desires. He has no self control. But why should he. He is a HE.


Sent from my GT-P1000N using CurlTalk App
So this guy actually said that his assistant was a like a lambo he could never drive and his wife still wants to be with him?? Geez.
From another article I read the texts were totally innocent--something about her kids.

What chaps my ass the most about this is the assumption that an affair would have happened if he decided it, as if it was a foregone conclusion that she would have went along with his hypothetical advances.

She should have sued for sexual harrassent for his innuendos.

I hope that stupid POS and his moron of a wife have a miserable marriage for the rest of their lives. They deserve it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using CurlTalk App
Originally Posted by legends
Yes exactly!!like if HE decided its time to have an affair, this married mother of two would just go along with it. Yeah, right. Even if he did make advances, I doubt it would lead to an affair. If he can't deal with being around attractive women, and "can't control himself" then that's his problem.
2a/b
medium/thick
high porosity (from coloring)

Shampoo: Mop Top Gentle Shampoo
Co-wash: Chistophe Robin Lemon Cleansing Cream
RO: CJ strengthening, Kenra moisturizing
LI: Jessicurl Aloeba
DT: CJ rehab, Christophe Robin Prickly Pear Mask
PT: SS protein treatment, Ouidad 12 minute
Stylers: Jessicurl RR, SS Firm Hold Gel
Oils: caudalie, sweet almond
Really assinine and offensive.
curlypearl likes this.

Dogs and nature abhor a vacuum.
http://geaugadoggy.wordpress.com
So this guy actually said that his assistant was a like a lambo he could never drive and his wife still wants to be with him?? Geez.
Originally Posted by Josephine

i guess he was worried he couldnt handle a lamborghini after driving a minivan all these years. not that i think its right but why couldnt he have found other legal ways to let her go? he lacks common sense and decency
murrrcat likes this.

Last edited by OBB; 12-27-2012 at 01:37 PM.
Who said anything about this assistant CONSENTING to an affair with him? He can't have an affair with himself. His marriage is clearly already over. And for the wife, that assistant was the LAST thing she should have been worrying about. You've already mentally lost your boo, honey. Pssh.
Springcurl and murrrcat like this.
Transitioned from Dec 2011-Jul 2012

Now fully natural!

One year anniversary: Dec 28, 2012

Curl Type: The type that curls kinkily.
Products: Tresemme Naturals, Trader Joe's Tea Tree Tingle Condit., Coconut Oil


"Wait, I'm doing it wrong!"
I hope she can sue for wrongful termination since gender discrim was not the issue. The worker did nothing wrong. The wife however needs to be understand that she can't trust her husband, wherever he is. So it doesn't matter who or where, he's seems like he could stray. Is she going to put a GPS on his weiner?
multicultcurly likes this.
I hope she can sue for wrongful termination since gender discrim was not the issue. The worker did nothing wrong. The wife however needs to be understand that she can't trust her husband, wherever he is. So it doesn't matter who or where, he's seems like he could stray. Is she going to put a GPS on his weiner?
Originally Posted by Myradella3
You could have easily posted that in my Horrible Gift Ideas thread.
Ah the alternatives:

Douche makes advances, assistant says no, he still keeps it up, assistant stabs him with dental instruments.



That's my fantasy.
Southern Colorado Curly
Mix of 2s med-low porosity, med-fine texture, lots of hair
Obviously the wife should get him a chastity belt. Seems reasonable to me. *shrug*
It's going to be hilarious when he cheats on her with a frumpy, unattractive woman. Bonus points if she's older than the wife.
Eres o te haces?
From another article I read the texts were totally innocent--something about her kids.

What chaps my ass the most about this is the assumption that an affair would have happened if he decided it, as if it was a foregone conclusion that she would have went along with his hypothetical advances.

She should have sued for sexual harrassent for his innuendos.

I hope that stupid POS and his moron of a wife have a miserable marriage for the rest of their lives. They deserve it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using CurlTalk App
Originally Posted by legends
Do you think anyone actually made that assumption? I think the dentist may have been content just having her around to fantasize about.

And the wife may have just resented the fact her husband was hot for another woman he spent 8 hrs with everyday...whether or not anything ever jumped off btwn them.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
Yep.
Platinum Product Junkies
The Facebook
| The Twitter

The Product Lines:
Curl Junkie, b.a.s.k, Siamese Twists, Bobeam, Uncle Funky's Daughter, Amazing Botanicals, Zuresh, Dabur Vatika, Karen's Body Beautiful, Curls Unleased, Broo, Qhemet Biologics, Signature Texture, Darcy's Botanicals, Shea Moisture
Does she have a right to work at his business? He replaced her with a woman and all office staff are women so it doesn't seem to be gender discrimination.

The dentist was attracted to her and didn't want to be tempted by continuing to work with her (or the wife didn't want it, either way). His nor the wife's problem was the assistant being a woman, it was him being attracted to her looks. I don't get why this was a court case and agree with the lower court's original decision. "Beauty" is not a protected class.
Originally Posted by dia99
Well, it's not that simple. This certainly does look like discrimination on the protected ground of gender. This issue would never arise with a male employee. That it doesn't arise with every possible female employee is irrelevant - THIS employee was female, and the employee terminated her because he felt he could not control his attraction to her and/or his wife felt threatened and jealous by her due to her inherently female qualities. His comments to her sound like sexual harassment (though I'm curious how he even knew about her sex life?)

This is a perfect example of where this whole "men and women can't be friends" BS can lead. This woman shouldn't have to bear her boss' burden of remaining faithful to his wife. He is always going to meet attractive women. What is he going to do when he can't fire them or otherwise avoid them? It is his responsibility to figure out how to control himself. They're working in a professional environment - no reason they can't. There's a big leap from "finding someone attractive" to "cheating on my wife." It also takes two to cheat and he seems to be making the assumption that the employee would be willing.

I also disagree completely with the idea that "you can't blame the wife - I'd do the same as her." If your husband is sending inappropriate texts to his employee, he is the problem and fixating on forcing him to fire her doesn't hold him responsible for his behaviour and is no guarantee he won't do it again.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Does she have a right to work at his business? He replaced her with a woman and all office staff are women so it doesn't seem to be gender discrimination.

The dentist was attracted to her and didn't want to be tempted by continuing to work with her (or the wife didn't want it, either way). His nor the wife's problem was the assistant being a woman, it was him being attracted to her looks. I don't get why this was a court case and agree with the lower court's original decision. "Beauty" is not a protected class.
Originally Posted by dia99
No one has a right to work at any particular place, but once someone is hired, there are mutual rights and obligations between the employee and employer. If there is an employment contract (which I am going to assume since it doesn't sound like this was an appointment by government) then termination has to be in accordance with the contract and related laws. I can't imagine that termination for this reason was contemplated in the contract.

The employer must be REALLLLLLLY stupid, or she must have been a fantastic employee, because I'm surprised he admitted these reasons for termination. You'd think he'd find other legitimate reasons to fire her, like lateness, making mistakes etc. and stick to those. (Not saying that would be right or lawful, but that's usually what people do when they want to fire someone for a bogus reason.) He just made him and his wife look ridiculous and foolish by admitting his real reasons and I doubt that's what his wife had in mind.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Does she have a right to work at his business? He replaced her with a woman and all office staff are women so it doesn't seem to be gender discrimination.

The dentist was attracted to her and didn't want to be tempted by continuing to work with her (or the wife didn't want it, either way). His nor the wife's problem was the assistant being a woman, it was him being attracted to her looks. I don't get why this was a court case and agree with the lower court's original decision. "Beauty" is not a protected class.
Originally Posted by dia99
No one has a right to work at any particular place, but once someone is hired, there are mutual rights and obligations between the employee and employer. If there is an employment contract (which I am going to assume since it doesn't sound like this was an appointment by government) then termination has to be in accordance with the contract and related laws. I can't imagine that termination for this reason was contemplated in the contract.

The employer must be REALLLLLLLY stupid, or she must have been a fantastic employee, because I'm surprised he admitted these reasons for termination. You'd think he'd find other legitimate reasons to fire her, like lateness, making mistakes etc. and stick to those. (Not saying that would be right or lawful, but that's usually what people do when they want to fire someone for a bogus reason.) He just made him and his wife look ridiculous and foolish by admitting his real reasons and I doubt that's what his wife had in mind.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Agreed he was stupid to tell her, but that's not the court case, either. He worked with this particular woman for 10 years, and after 9 years (or so it seems from the court ruling and even the article), he became infatuated with her. After seeing her everyday and spending time with her for 8+ hours, he developed feelings. I definitely think her being pretty had something to do with it, but this isn't something that developed overnight and it seems to be isolated to this woman, this 10-year work relationship that was also mutually personal (talking about family, etc.).

I also agree it's not her responsibility how he feels. It's his, and he took responsibility by removing his temptation because he was in the position to do so. In another situation where they were peers/working for someone else, maybe he would have switched offices or done something different - in this case it was his office and his wife wanted her gone. He agreed that was in the best interest of his marriage. He could have found other ways to deal with this; he chose this way.

All employees don't have contracts. Many states have 'at will' employment. So, as long as there is no discrimination against protected classes, you can let someone go or they can leave at any time with no penalty on either side. He certainly opened himself up to a lawsuit by disclosing his reason to both her and the husband, and if this is an at will state he should have just let her go and not given a reason. But, he was not discriminating against her because she was woman. We can't say whether or not this would happen with a man, if there was a female business owner with a male employee, or if there was a gay or bisexual male or female business owner in a committed relationship (who had employed an attractive person of the same sex and developed feelings over time). Nothing I read seems to be about anything more than these two people plus the wife, not women in general.

The woman herself responded to the issue of sexual harassment and why she didn't claim that, which is discussed in the court document a bit.

I get that it sucks and is not 'fair' to the woman. But if she is not owed a job at this particular place I really don't see it as truly unfair, just stupid on the part of the husband to disclose his reasons.
People rise to the standard expected of them. GC
Does she have a right to work at his business? He replaced her with a woman and all office staff are women so it doesn't seem to be gender discrimination.

The dentist was attracted to her and didn't want to be tempted by continuing to work with her (or the wife didn't want it, either way). His nor the wife's problem was the assistant being a woman, it was him being attracted to her looks. I don't get why this was a court case and agree with the lower court's original decision. "Beauty" is not a protected class.
Originally Posted by dia99
No one has a right to work at any particular place, but once someone is hired, there are mutual rights and obligations between the employee and employer. If there is an employment contract (which I am going to assume since it doesn't sound like this was an appointment by government) then termination has to be in accordance with the contract and related laws. I can't imagine that termination for this reason was contemplated in the contract.

The employer must be REALLLLLLLY stupid, or she must have been a fantastic employee, because I'm surprised he admitted these reasons for termination. You'd think he'd find other legitimate reasons to fire her, like lateness, making mistakes etc. and stick to those. (Not saying that would be right or lawful, but that's usually what people do when they want to fire someone for a bogus reason.) He just made him and his wife look ridiculous and foolish by admitting his real reasons and I doubt that's what his wife had in mind.
Originally Posted by Amneris
Agreed he was stupid to tell her, but that's not the court case, either. He worked with this particular woman for 10 years, and after 9 years (or so it seems from the court ruling and even the article), he became infatuated with her. After seeing her everyday and spending time with her for 8+ hours, he developed feelings. I definitely think her being pretty had something to do with it, but this isn't something that developed overnight and it seems to be isolated to this woman, this 10-year work relationship that was also mutually personal (talking about family, etc.).

I also agree it's not her responsibility how he feels. It's his, and he took responsibility by removing his temptation because he was in the position to do so. In another situation where they were peers/working for someone else, maybe he would have switched offices or done something different - in this case it was his office and his wife wanted her gone. He agreed that was in the best interest of his marriage. He could have found other ways to deal with this; he chose this way.

All employees don't have contracts. Many states have 'at will' employment. So, as long as there is no discrimination against protected classes, you can let someone go or they can leave at any time with no penalty on either side. He certainly opened himself up to a lawsuit by disclosing his reason to both her and the husband, and if this is an at will state he should have just let her go and not given a reason. But, he was not discriminating against her because she was woman. We can't say whether or not this would happen with a man, if there was a female business owner with a male employee, or if there was a gay or bisexual male or female business owner in a committed relationship (who had employed an attractive person of the same sex and developed feelings over time). Nothing I read seems to be about anything more than these two people plus the wife, not women in general.

The woman herself responded to the issue of sexual harassment and why she didn't claim that, which is discussed in the court document a bit.

I get that it sucks and is not 'fair' to the woman. But if she is not owed a job at this particular place I really don't see it as truly unfair, just stupid on the part of the husband to disclose his reasons.
Originally Posted by dia99
Ah. We don't have "at will" employment except for appointments.

However, I still don't buy his logic, and the court (or the other side's lawyers) could have pressed him way more on that. So him developing feelings threatens his marriage how? If they're not acted upon, then nothing has happened, and the employee was also married with kids. Who says she had any interest in taking things further with him? The assumption that because he has feelings for her, there is some threat to his wife is absolutely based on sexism and gender stereotypes - men can't control themselves, a man and a woman together just can't help themselves, attractive women are threats to other women, etc. The comments about the Lamboghini seem to imply that he feels entitled to a test drive and only his marriage stands in the way - he appears to have given no consideration to what the employee might want or not want. It seems very much to be gender discrimination.

His wife shouldn't have any say in someone else's employment decision, whether or not it is "at will" - "at will" refers to the employer only, does it not? - so whether she wanted her gone should not be a valid consideration. And of course people who work together all day discuss personal topics like family - that's part of bonding as co-workers, understanding each other so as to work together better, etc. I work with men and we discuss such things all the time, but it would be a cold day in hell before I jeopardize my kids' happiness for any one of them. As long as there is nothing improper (sexual innuendo, etc.) I don't see a problem.

I know the fact he was stupid to tell her his reason is irrelevant to the court case, but I just found that interesting.
legends and Dedachan like this.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











I read the judgment and I disagree with the court that this was not sex discrimination.

He was asking her to wear less revealing or tight clothing or to put on her lab coat to show less of her body (and she denies that her clothing was revealing or tight, plus that is hard to define anyway.) That's classic sexism - that the visible shape of a woman's body must be covered up so as not to excite men.

Or this (classic sexual harassment):

Dr. Knight acknowledges he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing. On another occasion, Dr. Knight texted Nelson saying the shirt she had worn that day was too tight. After Nelson responded that she did not think he was being fair, Dr. Knight replied that it was a good thing Nelson did not wear tight pants too because then he would get it coming and going. Dr. Knight also recalls that after Nelson allegedly made a statement regarding infrequency in her sex life, he responded to her, "[T]hat’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it." Nelson recalls that Dr. Knight once texted her to ask how often she experienced an orgasm. Nelson did not answer the text. However, Nelson does not remember ever telling Dr. Knight not to text her or telling him that she was offended.

I also note that the wife was also an employee at the same practice, so it's not like the dentist and employee had many opportunities to sneak around (though the wife says they stayed late together, but since she was aware of it it doesn't seem an ideal cheating environment.) And the dentist and his wife were advised by their pastor to fire her and he fired her in the presence of a pastor - gets a big from me. That's pretty crappy Christian counselling IMO.

However, all that being said, looks as if she lost because her lawyer picked the wrong argument. Her lawyer argued that she would not have been fired if she were a man. Fine, that's true, but without a more sophisticated analysis of all the gender discrimination and stereotypes at play, that's not going to be enough, and it wasn't. So it's not fully the judge's fault if lawyers don't bring good arguments - they can only rule on what is in front of them.

These arguments were her response to the dentist and IMO should have been her primary arguments, especially argument #2, fleshed out appropriately.

She argues that any termination because of a boss’s physical interest in a subordinate amounts to sex discrimination: "Plaintiff’s sex is implicated by the very nature of the reason for termination." Second, she suggests that without some kind of employee misconduct requirement, Dr. Knight’s position becomes simply a way of enforcing stereotypes and permitting pretexts: The employer can justify a series of adverse employment actions against persons of one gender by claiming, "My spouse thought I was attracted to them." Third, she argues that if Dr. Knight would have been liable to Nelson for sexually harassing her, he should not be able to avoid liability for terminating her out of fear that he was going to harass her.

The court says:
If Nelson could show that she had been terminated because she did not conform to a particular stereotype, this might be a different case. But the record here does not support that conclusion.

So, this is what her lawyer failed to argue.



wild~hair and curlypearl like this.
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali












Last edited by Amneris; 12-29-2012 at 10:47 AM.
Ugh, such disgusting behavior from this scumbag.

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com