Do you think an employer has a right to fire an employee that may jeopardize marriage?
Related Stories
The Iowa Supreme Court building in Des Moines.
The Iowa Supreme Court says a dentist did not commit sex discrimination when he fired an attractive female assistant he viewed as a threat to his marriage.
The court ruled Friday that a boss can fire an employee he considers an “irresistible attraction,” even if the employee has done nothing wrong. The decision is the first in Iowa, but in line with rulings elsewhere.
Justices rejected a discrimination lawsuit filed by Melissa Nelson, who was fired by Fort Dodge dentist James Knight in 2010.
Nelson had worked in Knight’s office for 10 years. She and Knight eventually started texting outside work about personal matters. Knight’s wife, who also worked at the office, found out and demanded Nelson’s firing.
Knight’s lawyer says the court’s decision is “in favor of family values.”
What do you think of the ruling? Should an employer have a right to fire an employee he or she perceives as a threat to his or her marriage?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
An employer should be able to fire or hire whomever they want. Does government know no boundries?
Any employee without a contract works “at will” in Iowa. They can be fired at any time and no justifying reason needs to be given. Yes, an employer has the right to fire an employee in this situation.
The employer has the right – - but is it right? It would seem like reasonable adults could have resolved this issue in a less severe manner.
This seems to be a good call on the part of the court, assuming that the facts are as presented. There are no crimes or victims here, just two adults demonstrating poor judgement, a fact which apparently came out in the court proceedings.
The Iowa Supreme Court is horribly wrong. Maybe that’s one of the problems of having an all-male court. This decision makes me embarrassed to be an Iowan.
The owner of a company should be able to do anything they wish to insure the company is profitable. If the employees don’t like the rules of employment, they are free to work elsewhere.
the supreme court ruling is so wrong for many reasons but what else can be expected from a court who has to worry about whether the next ruling will upset some people. And there was boundaries set on companies hiring and firings when civll rights laws came into being on whether a company really has a right any longer to just pick and choose and discriminate from some just because they want to.
this reminds me of some middle east countries. The men can’t control themselves so they make women to ware berkas to hide themselves from mans evil thoughts.
The question posed is: “do you think an employer has a right to fire an employee that may jeopardize marriage?”
I see no mention of gender in the question. This could apply just as well to a female business owner who fires a male employee who is threat to her marriage.
Heck, knowing the Iowa Supreme Court this would apply to a guy a gay male employer finds attractive who threatens his so-called “marriage”.
The fact that Dr Knight’s wife was that upset by text messages indicates that their marriage has more serious problems than an “irresistibly attractive” employee.
I don’t think I appreciate the good dentist dumping a ten year employee in the middle of a recession. Don’t we have enough people unemployed without this kind of nonsense