中國時報【鍾玉玨╱綜合報導】
美國愛荷華州一名卅二歲牙醫助理因穿著太火辣撩人，被醫師和醫師娘認定恐危及兩人婚姻，遂炒了她魷魚。全由男性法官組成的最高法院合議庭廿一日裁定，牙醫師的行為並未違反愛州民權法。
女助理尼爾森替牙醫師奈特工作超過十年，卻因衣著火辣而丟了飯碗，一狀告上法院。但愛州最高法院七名法官以七比○一致認為，老闆若認為員工構成「無法抵擋的吸引力」，就可開除員工，即便員工並未越軌和上司調情或做錯任何事。
法官曼斯菲德表示，光憑這點就把人炒魷魚，或許不公平，但並未違反愛州民權法，因為老闆的動機是出於感情，而非性別，所以不構成非法歧視。
奈特的律師表示，這項判決開愛州先例，也是家庭價值的勝利，因為奈特開除員工是想保全自已的婚姻，而不是單純因為員工是女性。
但尼爾森的律師說，這些法官對女性在職場經歷的性別歧視根本無法感同身受。此外，判決等於告訴愛州女性，若老闆控制不了自己的欲望，就可以合法開除女性下屬。
Melissa Nelson: Dentist Fires 'Irresistibly Attractive' Assistant, Iowa Court Finds Firing Sexy, 'Threat to Marriage' Workers Legal
BY Danica Bellini,Mstarz reporter | Dec 22, 2012 02:06 PM EST
-
- Is firing an assistant for being "too sexy" illegal? Not in Iowa. (mock image).
Apparently 32-year-old Melissa Nelson is way too attractive to be a dental assistant in the Fox Dodge practice of 53-year-old D.D.S. James Knight - her sexy, good looks are what ultimately got her fired. And in a judgment made by an Iowa Supreme Court on Friday (Dec. 21), Knight's decision to fire Nelson for being too "irresistibly attractive" and therefore a "threat to his marriage" was totally legal. That's right, firing someone for being too attractive is not considered gender discrimination or harassment in the state of Iowa (even though Nelson never directly made any improper or sexual advances toward her older boss).
According to recent reports, Nelson had been a loyal, dedicated assistant in Knight's dental practice for ten years. She was unexpectedly dismissed from her position because as Knight and his wife puts it, she was a potential threat to the health of their marriage. Nelson was given a month's severance, and she quickly filed a lawsuit in Iowa court for gender discrimination.
Although allegations of sexual harassment weren't mentioned in the lawsuit, reports confirm that Nelson and Knight (both married with children) would exchange casual text messages from time-to-time - Nelson ultimately viewed Knight as somewhat of a father figure. Knight apparently thought differently - he allegedly once complained that his assistant's tight clothing ensembles were especially distracting. He also supposedly remarked about Nelson's infrequent sex life by once stating, "That's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."
Nelson insists she was blindsided by the firing - apparently Knight's wife (who also works at the practice) made the ultimate resolution to terminate Nelson after she discovered the friendly text messages exchanged between assistant and boss.
Knight agreed with his wife's decision - he supposedly confided to Nelson's husband that he feared he was getting too personally attached to his young and attractive assistant, and therefore worried he would eventually try to start an affair with her.
In the gender discrimination lawsuit filed by Nelson, she claims that she would not have been terminated form her position if she was a male.
But it turns out Knight's decision to fire Nelson because her "attractiveness threatened his marriage" was totally legal. An Iowa court found that bosses can indeed dismiss employees that they see as a dangerous "irresistible attraction" (even if the employees never engaged in flirtatious or inappropriate behavior).
The Iowa court (led by Justice Edward Mansfield) took into consideration that Knight had an all-female staff, and the fact that Nelson had been replaced by a female. According to the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Knight's actions were motivated by feelings and emotions and not gender - therefore they cannot be considered unlawful discrimination.
Nelson and her attorney Paige Fielder strongly disagree with the judgment handed down by the all-male high court, insisting that many women cope with discrimination in the work place regardless of attractiveness everyday - "These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don't think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires and that Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and control their bosses' sexual desires," Fiedler said. "'If they get out of hand, then the women can be legally fired for it."
But according to Knight's attorney, Stuart Cochrane:
"While there was really no fault on the part of Mrs. Nelson, it was just as clear the decision to terminate her was not related to the fact that she was a woman... The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage... I don't view this as a decision that was either pro-women or opposed to women rights at all. In my view, this was a decision that followed the appropriate case law."
So what do Mstarz readers think - do you agree with the Iowa court's decision to uphold Nelson's firing because she's considered "too attractive?"
Read more at http://www.mstarz.com/articles/7233/20121222/melissa-nelson-dentist-fires-irresistibly-attractive-assistant-iowa-court-finds-firing-sexy-threat-to-marriage-workers-legal.htm#fVk0CGf1STp8DfIp.99
By Daniel Politi
|
Posted Saturday, Dec. 22, 2012, at 6:28 AM ET
An Iowa dental assistant was too good-looking for her own good
Photo Illustration by Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Women in Iowa beware: If your boss thinks you’re really really ridiculously good looking, he can fire you. And it’s perfectly legal. The all-male Iowa Supreme Court refused to reinstate a lawsuit Friday, noting that a dentist didn’t break the law when he fired an employee who had worked for him for 10 years because he and his wife saw her as a threat to their marriage, reports the Associated Press. Melissa Nelson, the 32-year-old dental assistant was by all accounts a stellar employee. But her boss, James Knight, complained of her tight clothing, “once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing.”
In a unanimous ruling, the justices ruled that having an “irresistible attraction” is enough of a justification enough to fire someone. It doesn’t matter if the person has not engaged in any kind of inappropriate or even flirtatious behavior and wouldn’t consider touching her employer with a 10-foot pole. Sure, that may not be exactly fair, conceded the justices, but it doesn’t constitute unlawful discrimination. Knight insisted Nelson wasn’t fired for her gender. It’s just that her employment threatened his marriage. And that conduct isn’t illegal because “it was based on specific emotions tied to a specific relationship and not based solely on a person’s gender,” notes the Des Moines Register.
=====================================
http://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E9%8C%AF%E5%9C%A8%E5%A6%B3%E5%A4%AA%E8%BE%A3-%E8%80%81%E9%97%86%E9%96%8B%E9%99%A4%E4%B8%8D%E9%81%95%E6%B3%95-213000940.html
摘錄網友的留言：
美國也有恐龍法官！
當然開除，一個女的這樣穿，醫生怎麼專心看牙。
意思是說如果他沒開除她的話他就會忍不住上她就對了。
看到鬼~世界上就是有這樣不公平的法律和規定~老闆忍不住~就說是員工的錯~今天只是開除他而已~若改天是強姦他~這樣也是員工的穿著問題引起的????這樣人權在哪裡????
我覺得應該是以不適任為由遣散,不能用開除的方式..
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
老娘觀點：
這個牙科助理已經在那診所工作超過十年，從22歲花樣年華，到現在32歲熟女。難道是最近才穿著太火辣撩人？
其醫師僱主是否有提供不火辣撩人的工作服給員工在上班時穿著，而她拒穿保守的工作服？
其醫師僱主是否有勸過她改善而她置之不理？
若以上皆是，一個男牙醫的女助理穿著太火辣撩人，叫男醫生怎麼專心看牙？我覺得應該是以《危害病人安全》為由開除，才比較不會引起爭議。
