….Thanks to Charlie Pierce for this apt phrase….
Here’s a bit of ‘setting the scene’ as TBOGG would say:
A female assistant works for a dentist for about 10 years when he suddenly wakes up to the fact that she is ATTRACTIVE, oops make it TOO ATTRACTIVE and not only that, she is a THREAT: wait, what you ask…yup, threat indeed, to his marriage. So he fires her, she sues him for discrimination and he testifies to the court that the firing was not due to performance but due to her attractiveness. And the court rules……
“It is abundantly clear that a woman does not lose the protection of our laws prohibiting sex discrimination just because her employer becomes sexually attracted to her, and the employer’s attraction then becomes the reason for terminating the woman once it, in some way, becomes a problem for the employer. If a woman is terminated based on stereotypes related to the characteristics of her gender, including attributes of attractiveness, the termination would amount to sex discrimination because the reason for termination would be motivated by the particular gender attribute at issue.”
Despite this admission, the justices claimed Nelson was fired not because of gender attributes but because of facts surrounding her relationship with Knight, including several comments he made about her clothing and the fact that the two would text each other outside of work hours.
So if a woman is attractive and her married boss makes comments about her clothing and texts her outside of work hours, he is RIGHT to fire her!
D’oh de dum da, d’uh de dum da, d’uh de dum da, d’uh de dum da, d’uh de dum da….