The all-male Iowa Supreme Court said Friday that it would reconsider its 2012 ruling that a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage.
Melissa Nelson, who had sued the dentist for gender discrimination, had fought against the court’s decision.
"Not only does this breathe new life into her court case, it eliminates what many of us believed was a harmful legal and misguided precedent," her lawyer told ABC News.
A Des Moines lawyer with no role in the case told the network that the justices will likely issue a new opinion.
"There really is no reason to grant rehearing six months after the decision was made unless someone is seriously considering changing their mind," Ryan Koopmans, the lawyer, told ABC News. "I think we'll definitely see at least one opinion in favor of Melissa, the question is whether it is the majority opinion or dissenting opinion." (read more)
Urban dictionary Dickwad, The tissue (kleenex) used to catch and mop up the ejaculate after masturbating. The tissue is then wadded into a ball and disposed of.
The UD didn't also say that it means someone is a total jerk?
Yes it did :) I was interested in the etymology though
lol funny @ Unseen & Strega
Well she does 'seem' cute, but blaming her for having nice teeth, seems like not hiring people because they are 'over qualified', which should be coded as, 'will get my job in a heart beat'.
I remember a satirical movie from the 70's, with one scene, where the prevailing power elite tried to please the 'common folk' by legalizing mandatory empediments for people that were 'just too good'. As an example, forcing dancers to wear heavy weights on their arms and legs that would cause them to lumber around with no art or grace.
I think I would have been willing to wear something a little 'off', just to keep the job. My problem is not beauty sadly....
Hay the story has no other pictures!
The business world is ruthless, where money is first priority than the people they exploit..
First, the main purpose of any business is to make money for its owners, not to provide jobs for anybody. This isn't ruthlessness, it just recognizes the realities of investment and competition. The owners have invested their own cash (or cash they borrowed on their own credit and risk) and have probably invested many unpaid hours to run the business before it inched into the black. Think about this before accusing business of being ruthess.
Secondly, any business who fires a good employee for a frivolous reason is harming itself.
That is why this planet is going to pot, due to the lack of empathy and respect for life, which is people, fauna and flora, and the planet, since money and competition is first priority.. its a rat race, something enough to trigger off drama, anxiety, stress, wars, and so on so forth.,
I agree it does harm itself, but as well as the person they fired, because they have bills etc to pay off and so on... its a nightmare.
The dude fucked her over. Is it okay? No. It's operating in bad faith. After ten years you think that there would be some indication that employment would continue provided it made business sense and her performance remained up to standards. The reality? He would (and did) fire her arbitrarily. Money and job security are important in this age. While there is no such thing as perfect job security in life, employers and employees have to have some mutual understanding of dependability or if it's a situation where there can be none, that much has to be made clear. When I worked on a probation period, I knew my employment could be terminated without being provided a reason. I lived differently as a result. The one with the issue is the dentist's wife, yet the one suffering the lion's share of damages is the assistant.
Should it be illegal? I don't know. It would be so much easier if we could live in a world in which people stop being dicks. I think she is entitled to more than one month's severance after ten years of service. Was that in her contract or is it part of labour laws? Apparently not, but does everything have to be legislated down to the bone? That's the fallout of operating without trust or decency. We have to take one another down to the letter of contracts or the law. It's just no way to live.
Often people find that being let go was the best thing that ever happened to them. People often stay at their job due to inertia. Being laid off or fired breaks that spell.
It's possible, but incidental. Often it just results in immediate financial losses and stress. He didn't fire her for her own good, and even if he did, he is not her custodian with the right to make decisions on her behalf. He made a decision to terminate employment on his behalf for his needs. The law (thus far) holds that this is his right, but 'can' ≠ 'should'.