Um, so... Didn't the boss and the employe talk about the situation? Couldn't they have agreed about quitting in a way that's okay for both of them?

Or the woman wasn't just a poor a victim? Or am I just too simple minded?

wouldn't this be considered wrongful termination?

I agree that it probably wasn't gender discrimination, but it defiantly isn't a valid reason to fire someone imo.

From what I understand from the news in OP's link he did not used her attractiveness as reason to fire her. He stated, in his own way, that the work relationship was not healthy anymore.

He doesn't have to say that fired her because she is a woman and attractive. He can simply put that she, as a person, is no longer a good fit for the job.

he also stated that she was pretty much the best worker he's had, so why did he fire her? because he apparantly didn't have enough will power to not think of her in such a manner(or at least his wife thought he didn't). isn't that wrongful termination if you fire some one without a valid working reason? How is it her fault that her boss isn't able to keep things professional, and why should she be out of a job because of this.

personally, to me the worst part is:

In fact, he said, Knight only employs women and replaced Nelson with another female employee.

that's not only admitting to gender discrimination, hell, any guy that's applied for the position can probably now bring up gender discrimination on him from that line alone.

but let's ignore that, and think of what's going to happen 10 years from now when he has to fire this new girl because of the same shit.

Hmm after reading the article, the woman is anything but a victim. She played the discrimination card, after deliberately trying to seduce her boss. That's what I read in the article. Call me chauvinist

personally, to me the worst part is:

In fact, he said, Knight only employs women and replaced Nelson with another female employee.

Um.... are there many male dental assistants out there?

He apparantly didn't have enough will power

According to the article, the woman refused to change her clothing style after more requests from the employer. If you have the will power to resist an attractive woman who you work with for 8-10 hours a day (in a closed room constantly in each others personal spaces) and be 100% concentrated on your concentration demanding job at the same time, than you must be a Jedi knight.


And to sum it up: isn't the inability to work together with somebody is a reason enough to stop working each other?

If the dress code were changed during employment, then she'd be suing for that maybe.

What about cut-back? Can't you fire someone for that reason?

I'm an employee, so I'm with employee rights. But not with exploiting this, which seems to be the case here (we can't see the background. Maybe they had an agreement, and firing was the best decision for both of them to solve the issue).

Is she really was simply fired, than the employer is the bad guy.

As far as "Only Employing Women" for gender discrimination, I had the fun of doing much of the leg work at my previous job for a similar claim of discrimination. A woman tried to sue the company for discrimination as she wasn't hired for the position, and we had a staff ratio of about 8:1 males to females. However, we were able to demonstrate that the applicants for various positions in our company were in the order of 40:1 males to females, and that based on that a woman actually had a statically higher chance of being hired than a male.

Male dental assistants are very rare. More so than medical nurses last I had heard. And it sure isn't because people don't hire males for the position, it simply is that they so rarely take the training. I've had the chance to stop by a few dental assisting classes over the years, and I've seen One male student.



And as for the issue of "Firing your best employee", I've also seen that happen in one company, and it was the owner's own son. Dude was a brilliant programmer, and could bang out solutions in no time, and basically did a few of the projects by himself. However, he was arrogant, hard to work with, and highly demoralizing to the rest of the company. He was fired, and the next year profits were down more than three quarters. But everyone was happier, and as of today (a few years later) the company is doing far better than when the annoying son was there and has nicely restructured itself. He too tried to sue, but it was shown that he was creating a problem within the company, and that it was in the business's best interest to cut ties.