It’s Thursday! This weeks topic by Sara is regarding the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision upholding a Iowa Dentist’s decision to fire his Dental Assistant of more than a decade for what the headlines said “for a woman being too attractive.”
First, I have to say I’m NOT one to pay attention the media anymore because they try to wrap up complex stories and present them in a wrapped up bow tied format which leads to so much being out of context of misrepresented, they are biased, way too sensationalized, puppeteered by the corporations that run them, and twisted and churned for many reasons, too many to list in a blog post. But those are a few worthy enough for me not to watch. (This coming from a former news ‘addict’!) A complete loss of integrity in news reporting.
That being said, the headline isn’t misleading to begin with. There’s more too it than her just being physically ‘attractive’ as implied by so many of the headlines. The stories always run deeper than the news media both televised and printed can or will do, and I’m a digger.
I wanted to read the entire decision handed down by the Iowa Supreme Court, but only found summaries. But in the decision, it seems to me what they stood upon was that he had ‘feelings’ for her, and cited with religious ‘reasons’, not separation of church and state, and not based on gender (the gender and lack of separation of church and state are common denominators that this decision was unjustly made.) How and why the justifications they came across that conclusion is a huge problem, oh and did I mention the Iowa Supreme Court consists of all males?
You see, they HAD to say it was about feelings and NOT gender, because in their decision it slammed the door shut on Equal Opportunity Laws, and also possible litigation for violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which predominantly began as a movement to stop sexual harassment in the work place. This law protects and prohibits employment discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin or religion.
The man had ‘feelings’ for this woman, which he himself said she was a stellar employee for over ten years. However, these ‘feelings’, he had for her were putting his marriage in jeopardy. Cases such as these are rarely phrased as “feelings”. Feelings are abstract and are not listed in any of the laws that would support this finding.
Here is where the Iowa Supreme Court is wrong in their decision. If he began having “feelings” for this woman after over a decade of employment, that was HIS problem to address with his wife and Pastor, who served as a witness in the trial, not the employees problem!
Such a primitive decision handed down by the Iowa Supreme Court leaves much concern over future cases resulting in leaving the door wide open for a multitude of false claims of having ‘feelings’ for another and unjust employment terminations. This poses a disconcerting problem that we all need to monitor.
Remember, the decision said nothing about the sex of the individual, but we all can read between the lines, can’t we?
One also has to consider demographics, we live in middle America, conservative America, and I highly doubt if the same case would have produced the same results on the East or West coast.
Religion came into play in an unworthy way to support this case, citing the religious sanctity of marriage. Our country is based on the belief championed by Thomas Jefferson of separation of church and state. Given the role religion has played in modern history, I’m very fond of the practicality and sensibility of separation of church and state. They’ve crossed the line in a most harmful way toward women in this country to further base bogus claims and cite this case to further harass women.
Shame on you Iowa State Supreme Court for such a primitive decision and not placing fault and responsibility where it lies. Between the man who had ‘feelings’ for another woman, his wife, and their pastor.
Let’s see what my comrades have to say about this decision! Click on their links below to compare! Our group is wonderfully diverse so you will get many opinions!
Sidenote: Challenging topic Sara, by choosing a topic worthy of debate in the most prestigious law schools in the country.