What's new

Attractive People Can Be Fired In Iowa

I believe Iowa is right to work. Employee can be terminated for any reason or no reason so long as the person civil rights are not violated.
 
I believe Iowa is right to work. Employee can be terminated for any reason or no reason so long as the person civil rights are not violated.

Right to work has nothing to do with this case. She was an employee at will, and thus could be terminated for any reason, or no reason at all. Unless, of course, her termination was due to discrimination against a protected class. She claimed that her termination was an example of gender discrimination, as the dentist would not have terminated her if she was male. The court rejected that view. The dentist terminated her not because she was a woman, but because he had the hots for her.
 
BONERGATE?



In a non RTW state, a non unionized employee is awarded the same protections jobwise as a RTW state.

Only difference would be if they were unionized.
 
Right to work has nothing to do with this case. She was an employee at will, and thus could be terminated for any reason, or no reason at all. Unless, of course, her termination was due to discrimination against a protected class. She claimed that her termination was an example of gender discrimination, as the dentist would not have terminated her if she was male. The court rejected that view. The dentist terminated her not because she was a woman, but because he had the hots for her.
My mistake. I used the terms At Will and Right to Work interchangeably.
 
I beleive the woman pursued the wrong case. She could easily have won a sexual harrasment case. Of course we would have never known about it because it would have been settled long before any court proceeding.

People like that guy are almost always repeat offenders, so building a case would have been fairly simple.

It sounds like the Iowa Supreme Court ruled appropriately on the merits of this case (after only a cursory review of the merits on my part).
 
I beleive the woman pursued the wrong case. She could easily have won a sexual harrasment case. Of course we would have never known about it because it would have been settled long before any court proceeding.

Doesn't look like it from your story:

She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight's conduct may not have risen to that level and didn't particularly offend her, Fiedler said.
 
Doesn't look like it from your story:
From "my" story?

I read the linked story. She still could have pursued the sexual harassment case. Any lawyer could have built that case even if she initially found that it did not "offend her". I would almost guarantee that there are others that did/do find his behavior offensive.
 
From "my" story?

I read the linked story. She still could have pursued the sexual harassment case. Any lawyer could have built that case even if she initially found that it did not "offend her". I would almost guarantee that there are others that did/do find his behavior offensive.

Maybe....but from what was stated as far as sexual harassment goes, was rather light weight. Its not finding others who view his behavior offensive its convincing a court of it. I'd bet he could have filed against her too.
 
Betcha' the dentist's OL' LADY MADE the wuss DO IT.

BINGO!

It goes without saying that if she was a problem because she was attractive, why did he hire her in the first place.

Wife visits. Compares. Can't stack up. Get rid of her or I'll divorce you...and take everything you got!!! 🙄
 

Latest posts

Back
Top