|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, December 22 2012 @ 03:30 PM EST |
Actually, I think the court made the right call. The
question was, legally, simple: the plaintiff had
claimed gender discrimination. That was the flaw
in her case.
If the dentist had been homosexual, for example,
then it absolutely could have happened in exactly
the same way that he'd fire an enticing male
dental assistant.
So there was no *gender* discrimination in the picture.
And there is an undercurrent too, this part: "The two had texted each other
with what could be considered sexually suggestive messages." And the wife
noticed that the
dental assistant liked to stay late so it was only her
and the dentist in the office at night for hours.
I think the wife was on target, that this was a problem
getting to the point that it was only a matter of
time before something happened, and she took action.
So then the husband, to his credit, in my view, listened
to his wife's concerns and realized he was going over
the line, and he decided to act. If he was the employee,
he'd have quit to avoid the situation. But he couldn't.
He was the employer, so he did what he did.
I say, good for him.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|