Worker Fired For Being Too ‘Irresistible’

Worker Fired For Being Too 'Irresistible'Can a boss fire an employee he finds attractive because he and his wife, fairly or not, see her as a threat to their marriage? Yes, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday. Such firings may not be fair, but they do not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the decision read, siding with a lower court.

‘Distracting’

An attorney for Melissa Nelson, the fired employee, said the decision was wrong. The case concerns her client’s employment as a dental assistant. Nelson worked for James Knight in 1999 and stayed for more than 10 years at the Fort Dodge business. Toward the end of her employment, Knight complained to Nelson her clothing was tight and “distracting,” the decision read. She denied her clothes were inappropriate.

During the last six months of Nelson’s employment, Nelson and Knight, both married with children, started sending text messages to each other outside of work. Neither objected to the texting. Knight’s wife, who was employed at the same dental office, found out about those messages in late 2009 and demanded he fire Nelson.


‘Perceived threat to his marriage’

In early 2010, he did just that. In the presence of a pastor, Knight told Nelson she had become a “detriment” to his family and that for the sakes of both their families, they should no longer work together, the decision read. Knight gave Nelson one month’s severance. Nelson filed a lawsuit, contending that Knight fired her because of her gender. She did not say he committed sexual harassment.

In response, Knight argued that Nelson was fired because of the “nature of their relationship and the perceived threat” to his marriage, not because of her gender.

In your opinion, was it right for James Knight to fire Melissa Nelson for being “irresistible”? Would you have done the same if you were in his shoes?

Source: Dana Ford, CNN

Image: News.com.au

Women Should Stop Wearing Heavy Makeup At Age 59

Women Should Stop Wearing Heavy Makeup At Age 59There is a time to start aging gracefully, and UK beauty product company Nurture Replenish Skincare surveyed 2,000 women age 45-plus and found out that most of you think that’s at age 59. This is the age that women thought it was time to ditch high heels, red lipstick, tight clothes and false nails and try to look “more natural.”

‘Confronting age’

Women shouldn’t wear baseball caps or apply a fake tan after age 40, respondents said. Miniskirts and leather pants are off the rack at 41, knee-high boots and even conservative tight tops should be retired by age 45. And tattoos start to look bad by the mid-50s.

Every woman has had her own moments of confronting age in fashion and beauty trends. We’d say that some looks expire much earlier than 40—such as braids (only in your earlier 20s), maxi skirts, pants that say “pink,” or anything, for that matter, on the butt, certain light, short, flimsy dresses as the upper thighs…change…with age, and so on.


‘Worst violation’

And we’ve all seen the stereotype of the too-youthful older woman, in leather pants, animal prints, a mask of heavy makeup, giant jewelry and—this is the worst violation in our opinion—wrinkled cleavage. Still, we at Shine like to see appropriately dressed older women with bright lipstick, bright nails and beautiful fabrics and colors. Appropriate being the key word.

Women surveyed seemed to agree that they felt beautiful at any age, with 74 percent saying they were happy to let nature take its course without resorting to extreme anti-aging measures. Fifty-nine percent said they looked younger than they actually are, and only a quarter would consider cosmetic surgery. Also, only 1 in 10 thought that heavy eyeliner was inappropriate past age 50.

What items do you still have in your wardrobe that you think are already inappropriate for your age? Are you a victim of these age-inappropriate fashion styles?

Source: Yahoo Shine

Image: You’ve Got Face