# Boss Fires "Irresistible" Employee



## totallyunexpected (Nov 21, 2012)

I read this article today, and I realized how different my reaction to this article is today versus before spousal infidelity was a personal concern. I'm not totally sure where I stand, honestly - though my hunch is this is more dangerous for females.

Bosses can fire employees they find ‘irresistible’: Iowa Supreme court | World | News | National Post

Read it and comment if you'd like.


----------



## C-man (Oct 23, 2012)

So true. 3 years ago, if I had simply read the article as written, I would have thought that the fired employee had grounds for wrongful dismissal. But now I know that there is a lot more to the story than the article. Anybody reading it on this site would know the real situation.

I'm guessing that after the EA was discovered, the Disloyal Husband may have tried to cool things off with the OW. Since his wife is also an employee of the company it would have been a pretty toxic workplace environment. Or maybe they took it underground for a while to make it even more exciting. Then the OW started to dress more provocatively to keep the dying fires alive and to piss off the wife - because for the OW "taking" something right under the nose of the loyal spouse may have been a thrill in itself.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Really no choice. NC is required to stop an EA. Even if the EA is one sided. I suppose the dentist could close his pratice. But that is the not the same as changing jobs.

Besides folks get let go for much less reason than this like it or not.

What if she could sue him for all his money?

Then you would have predators getting involved with their boss and blackmailing them with their wives. Can't have that either.

The major companies I worked for have had a code of conduct and definitions for appropriate attire. I have seen people sent home to change due to their attire.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Very interesting article, and very interesting commentary on the article.
When all is said and done I think he did the right thing.
His marriage is important to him.

In any event, he owns the business, he hired the assistant and his wife was uncomfortable.
The assistant was seeking her own interests.
The dentist was also seeking his and his family's own interest.

No love lost.


----------



## totallyunexpected (Nov 21, 2012)

I feel like the woman is lying. I say this because if she considers him a "fatherly" figure then she would be a little creeped out by his comments that "her tight clothing was distracting" and might cause his pants to "bulge". Gross. I sure would not continue wearing tight clothes.

And moreover, why are they discussing each other's sex lives at the work place?! I think this comment below could be incorporated in the rationale for firing her. It wasn't just that she was attractive. Boundaries were being crossed in the way they talked and interacted. I feel like this should be considered in the court rule and not just that she was "irresistible."

From the article:

"He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, 'that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.'"


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

The guy is a freak and knows it. I wonder how long she worked there before his ball busting wife found out she's a knockout and put the squeeze on them?
I worked at a place that excluded women for decades simply because of chemical exposure wasn't good for their reproductive parts. When they hired them, they put them all on one shift and made it my job to lead them. There were two out seven that were better looking than most of the others, but I sure as hell wouldn't have considered putting back on the street because of it.
The only problem I ever had with any of them was they would cry if they had a difference of opinion with their fellow workers wheras the guys would just cuss each other out and get on with work.


----------

