Hot guy flirts with his boss for ten years, sends “personal” text messages and then gets fired when the boss’s husband gets wind of the situation.

23 Dec

So, personally, I think the guy is just average looking, but apparently Melissa Nelson has different tastes.  Melissa Nelson is a dentist in Iowa, and for ten years, she worked with her dental assistant, James Knight.   James is a married with children and so is Melissa, and it seems like an average working situation took on some sort of sexual undercurrent over the course of the years.  Melissa says James wore “tight clothing” to work that showed off his shape, discussed his lack of a sex life with his wife and he was becoming a bit of a distraction.

 

James says he just wore scrubs, like all the other assistants.

 

-2

 

Melissa’s husband, who didn’t exactly win the lottery in the looks department, was snooping through his wife’s phone and found some “personal” messages that Melissa had exchanged with James.  Melissa’s husband was not impressed, and requested that James be removed from his wife’s workplace, and since she owns the dental practice, she is well within her rights to do just that.  Or is she?

 

Melissa admitted that while nothing had happened YET, there was a real risk with James, and since she valued her marriage and her religious beliefs that do not permit adultery, she fired James and gave him one month’s severance pay.

 

James sued.  He felt he had been wrongfully dismissed on the basis of his gender, and admitted NO wrongdoing.  He had never flirted with Melissa, he was happily married and he was not interested in any kind of relationship with Melissa and those text messages? Oh, oops.  We’ll just ignore those.

 

A panel of all female judges decided James was full of shit.  They agreed that Melissa, as a business owner, has the right to hire and fire any one she pleases, and that James was not fired on the basis of his gender, but rather because Melissa had feelings and James was a threat to her marriage.  Melissa had a right to honor her husband’s wishes that James be removed from the office.

 

Agree with that decision?  I do.  If Melissa had worked for a government agency or a large corporation, and needed to remove James from her life before he became a real threat to her happiness, then the onus would be on her to get transferred or find a new job.  But because Melissa OWNED the business, those options were not on the table.  Melissa’s husband, no fool, knew from the text messages that the relationship was more than just professional and suspected, quite rightly, that perhaps James was hoping to become Husband 2.0 to a wealthy dentist.

 

-1

 

So it was goodbye James and score one for traditional marriage.  And more importantly, score one for the rights of individual business owners to decide whom they hire and whom they fire.  James had to scuttle his not that cute butt off to some other dental practice.  And Melissa and her husband will now carry on, as best they can.

 

And of course, this decision is horribly offensive to women and feminists everywhere.  Why, human rights have been set back 100 years in Iowa!  Why on earth should an attractive man be fired just because he sent some text messages to his boss and her husband found out?  Why should HE lose his job because SHE found him attractive?

 

Outrageous!

 

Nope.  Not outrageous.  Not in the slightest.  Melissa has every right to honor her husband’s wishes and to remove herself from a tempting situation.  As a private business owner, the only way to do that was to fire James.

 

Everything about this situation remains true, even though Melissa is the assistant and James is the dentist.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252135/Is-woman-sexy-dental-assistant-Judges-married-dentist-fired-aide-said-irresistibly-attractive-threat-marriage.html

 

There’s the door, Melissa.  Don’t let it hit you in the ass on the way out.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

 

 

17 Responses to “Hot guy flirts with his boss for ten years, sends “personal” text messages and then gets fired when the boss’s husband gets wind of the situation.”

  1. Emma the Emo December 23, 2012 at 14:38 #

    Totally agree with the decision, although I feel the attorney is assigning false blame-the-victim mentality to James and saying he isn’t taking responsibility for his sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is not a choice, IMO, and he is very responsible.

    Like

  2. Emma the Emo December 23, 2012 at 14:50 #

    (I mean he’s acting responsibly about his attraction)

    Like

  3. judgybitch December 23, 2012 at 14:58 #

    I agree 100%, and I highly doubt the lady in question is completely innocent.

    Like

  4. princesspixiepointless December 23, 2012 at 15:01 #

    Whenever I have received inappropriate texts from colleagues, I’ve either ignored them
    or told them I wasn’t interested. If they were flirting and either afraid of hurting their marriage,
    they both should have deleted said texts, or stopped texting, ego stroking with your workers or colleagues is trouble.

    Like

  5. princesspixiepointless December 23, 2012 at 15:01 #

    and by uninterested, I mean ‘fuck off creep’, just to clarify.

    Like

  6. Andrei December 23, 2012 at 15:20 #

    The comments on that article make me cringe.

    Like

  7. judgybitch December 23, 2012 at 15:22 #

    Yep. Innocent, darling woman fired by mean stupid man. Blah blah blah. She totally wasn’t trying to trade up for her hot boss. Nope.

    Like

  8. Andrei December 23, 2012 at 16:01 #

    Take for example, this top rated comment apparently:

    “The real reason why she was sacked was because she wouldn’t have an affair with him. The wife was jealous because obviously there are major problems between her and her husband, but if she thinks that by sacking this lady it’s going to help them, I don’t think so. What a creep.”

    There’s NO way a woman can POSSIBLY try to seduce her boss, nooooo, the “creep” must’ve been hitting on her for years all the while she would refuse him since she’s a woman and therefore a perfect representation of a family-first person.

    This was up-voted by over 4000 people….

    Like

  9. judgybitch December 23, 2012 at 16:23 #

    Yeah, she was totally NOT trying to bag the dentist at all.

    Like

  10. Anonymous December 23, 2012 at 18:35 #

    guess he knew what a divorce could do to him

    Like

  11. Erudite Knight December 24, 2012 at 22:34 #

    The problem with this story is the male/female dynamic. Do I agree a business can/should be able to fire anyone for any reason? Totally, NO questions.

    But that is NOT how our world is. Women can sue male bosses, and do, all the time for being fired because of her sex. Just in the news was a women fired for being ‘too hot’. I think this decision is fine, but I would argue very strongly that if this was reversed sexes, a male firing a female it would be a very differnt story.

    Like

  12. Keanu December 25, 2012 at 17:16 #

    Wow JB, you totally got me with the surprise ending…I literally need to digest this for a little while before I opine on it.

    Well done.

    Like

  13. Liz December 25, 2012 at 21:55 #

    I believe the “too hot” firing is exactly what JB is alluding to in the story (reversing roles).

    Iowa’s Supreme Court unanimously said “yea”. And well done, IMO.

    Like

  14. Anonymous December 25, 2012 at 22:01 #

    I was reading this thinking no no no. It’s the other way around, how can you get this mixed up so bad. lol nice blog.

    Like

  15. Anonymous January 15, 2013 at 15:21 #

    You left out the part where “Melissa” admits she’s so out-of-control that she’s certain she’ll commit some sort of act of sexual violence (anything from further verbal sexual harassment to rape/murder — Melissa isn’t being specific on how deep her mental illness goes) against “James.” “Melissa” belongs in a psych ward, and “her” patients need to take their “irresistible” children to someone who’s sane enough to be able to obey the law.

    Like

  16. judgybitch January 15, 2013 at 15:35 #

    Nice spin. You’re full of shit.

    Like

  17. Erik Norén October 22, 2013 at 03:28 #

    I do not agree with it. Not “for any reason”. I think they should only be able to do it for breaking the preset rules. Those however can be largely anything and can be changed over time.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: