امریکا | اخراج قانونی دستیارخوشگل، به دلیل ترس از لغزش دندان پزشک ۲۴ اسفند ۱۳۹۱

امریکا | اخراج قانونی دستیارخوشگل، به دلیل ترس از لغزش دندان پزشک

دکتر جیمز نایت، دندان پزشک اهل فورت دوژ ایالت آیوا، پس از این که خود و همسرش نگران شدند که مبادا به خاطر جذابیت خانم ملیسا نلسون، دستیار مطب، دکتر به نحوی به او وصل شود و بخواهد رابطه ویژه ای با او به هم بزند، این کارمند خود را پس از پرداخت یک ماه حقوق اضافی اخراج کرد و خانم دیگری را استخدام و جایگزین او نمود. خانم نلسون از دکتر شکایت کرد و طی دادخواستی، مدعی شد که به خاطر زن بودن، مورد تبعیض قرار گرفته است و این اخراج تنها به این دلیل که زن بوده اتفاق افتاده است.

هفت قاضی مرد دادگاه عالی آیوا با هفت رای از هفت نفر، اقدام دکتر را تایید کرده و گفتند که این اخراج، قوانین حقوق شهروندی ایالتی مبنی بر تساوی حقوق زن و مرد را نقض نکرده است.

وکیل این دندان پزشک به خبرگزاری آسوشیتدپرس گفت که "این تصمیم یک پیروزی برای ارزش های خانوادگی بود زیرا دکتر نایت، خانم ملیسا نلسون را به خاطر زن بودن اخراج نکرده بلکه برای حفظ خانواده خود این کار را کرده است."
 
در خبر دیگری آمده که دادگاه عالی ایالت آیووا، حکم داد که یک مرد دندان پزشک، قانونن این اجازه را داشته که خانم دستیار جذاب خود را اخراج کند، به این دلیل که "دکتر و همسرش نگران هستند در آینده یک رابطه عاشقانه بین او و دکتر برقرار شود". دادگاه گفت این دندان پزشک که ابتدا با کشیش مشورت کرده، مرتکب تبعیض جنسیتی نشده است.

مرور نظرات چند صاحب نظر درباره این اتفاق:

"مالکین (صاحب کارها) نباید ناچار شوند بین حفظ شغل و ازدواج خود یکی را انتخاب کنند و قوانین نباید مشکلی در مسیر مردانی ایجاد کند که می خواهند وسوسه های خطرناک برای زندگی خانوادگی خود را حذف کنند. کارکنان زن بایستی این احتیاط را در نظر داشته باشند که ممکن است در چنین شرایطی واقع شوند."
براد داکوس، موسسه قضایی پاسیفیک

"ما باید از وسوسه دوری کنیم؛ ما نباید این قدر شرایط را طولانی کنیم که ناچار شویم چنین موضوعاتی را به دادگاه بکشیم. بهترین کاری که می توان کرد این است که اشتیاق و دلسوزی خود را برای کمک به خانم برای یافتن یک کار دیگر نشان دهیم که در نتیجه از اخراج خود لطمه ای نبیند."
مایکل مک مانوس، رییس موسسه حفظ ازدواج


"این دندان پزشک تصمیم درستی گرفت که برای حفظ زندگی زناشویی خود جنگید. اما ما باید این را به عنوان اخطار در نظر بگیریم. با تعیین حد و مرزهایی در محیط کار، چنین شرایطی بروز نمی کند که یک دستیار به ناچار شغل خود را از دست بدهد."
گِرِگ اسمالی، مدیرعامل تشکل ازدواج و خانواده، مسوول تمرکز برخانواده

"اگر کسی با تعدادی زیاد عوامل خطر مواجه است، این مهم است که رفتارش را طوری تنظیم کند که از روابط زناشویی خود محافظت نماید. اما صاحب کار اگر حس می کند که توانایی او در کنترل رفتارش کمتر از میزان مقاومت لازم در مقابل هوس هایش هست، انتخاب های فراوان دیگری هم دارد."
جنیفرریپلی، دکترای روان شناسی و مدیر برنامه در دانشگاه ریجنت ویرجینیا

در یک خبر دیگر، در مورد این اتفاق چنین آمده:
دندان پزشک مسیحی، جیمز نایت، بیش از یک دهه با خانم دستیار خود، ملیسا نلسون کار کرده است. رابطه آن ها رسمی و  احترام آمیز بوده اما دکتر نتوانسته با جذاب بودن خانم دستیار کنار بیاید. این که بعد از ده سال و نیم دکتری دستیار خوب خودش را که کارش را درست انجام می داده اخراج کند، آن هم به خاطر این که نمی تواند خود را کنترل کند، در واقع مشکل در فکر دکتر است نه در این خانم! قرائن نشان دهنده این است که هیچ خطایی در رفتار خانم نلسون نسبت به دکتر رخ نداده است.
جالب است که صاحب نظرانی که در این مورد حق را به جانب دکتر داده اند، هیچ دلیل قانونی نیاورده و تنها نلسون را مشکل اصلی دانسته اند.

مسیح گفته "اگر چشمتان شما را اغوا کرد، چشم خود را بیرون بیاندازید*"، نه این که اگر دیدید چشمان همسایه تان سکسی است، آن ها را بیرون بیاندازید!! همه آدم ها دچار وسوسه می شوند. تا زمانی که خانم دستیار، دکتر را برای یک ارتباط نامشروع تحت فشار نگذاشته بود، دکتر بایستی راه دیگری برای حفظ سلامت معنوی خود پیدا می کرد.

* پس، اگر چشمی كه برایت اینقدر عزیزاست، باعث می شود گناه كنی، آن را از حدقه درآور و دور افكن. بهتر است بدنت ناقص باشد، تا این كه تمام وجودت به جهنم بیفتد.

برای خواندن دادخواست دستیار دندان پزشک و حکم دادگاه عالی اینجا کلیک کنید

دکتر دندانپزشک دستیارش را به دلیل "جذابیت زیاد" اخراج کرد

In 1999, Dr. Knight hired Nelson to work as a dental assistant in his dental office. At that time, Nelson had just received her community college degree and was twenty years old.
Over the next ten and a half years, Nelson worked as a dental assistant for Dr. Knight. Dr. Knight admits that Nelson was a good dental assistant. Nelson in turn acknowledges that Dr. Knight generally treated her with respect, and she believed him to be a person of high integrity...

January 3, 2013
Dentist Who Fired Attractive Assistant to Prevent Adultery Did Not Discriminate, Court Says
Melissa Steffan

Iowa Supreme Court votes 7-0 to allow employers to fire employees for 'irresistible attraction.'

The Iowa State Supreme Court ruled last week that a male dentist who fired his attractive female assistant did not discriminate against her or violate the state's civil rights law.
James Knight, a dentist in Fort Dodge, Iowa, fired dental assistant Melissa Nelson after he and his wife became worried that, in response to Nelson's attractiveness, Knight was "getting too personally attached to her" and "feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road." Nelson filed suit, alleging that Knight had discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and arguing that her situation arose only because of her gender.
However, the all-male state Supreme Court voted 7-0 in Knight's favor, finding that Knight did not violate the Iowa Civil Rights Act, which ensures equal treatment for employees regardless of their gender.
"Even taking Nelson’s view of the facts, Dr. Knight’s unfair decision to terminate Nelson (while paying her a rather ungenerous one month’s severance) does not jeopardize that goal," the decision stated. "This is illustrated by the fact that Dr. Knight hired a female replacement for Nelson."
According to the Associated Press, Knight's attorney called the decision "a victory for family values because Knight fired Melissa Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman."
CT recently reported on concerns over purity practices for coed leadership in the modern workplace.

SOURCE

 3/4/2013
Should an Iowa Dentist Have Fired his Attractive Assistant?
He feared he would try to have an affair. Did he do the right thing?
by: Ruth Moon

Iowa's Supreme Court ruled 7-0 that a male dentist was within his legal rights to fire an attractive female assistant because he and his wife "feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road." The court said the dentist, who consulted his pastor first, did not discriminate based on gender.

What experts said (starting with "yes" and moving to "no"):
"Owners should not have to choose between keeping their business or marriage, and laws should not make it difficult for men to remove temptations that threaten their marriage. Employees do have some discretion over whether they find themselves in this situation."
Brad Dacus, president, Pacific Justice Institute
"We have to walk away from temptation; we just cannot court it, which would be happening if she had remained. The best thing to do would be to show compassion and help the woman find another job so she's not hurt by the firing."
Michael McManus, president, Marriage Savers
"The dentist made the right choice in fighting to save his marriage. But we should take this as a cautionary tale. By establishing boundaries at work early on, the situation would not have gotten as far, and that assistant would not have lost her job."
Greg Smalley, executive director of marriage and family formation, Focus on the Family
"If someone has many risk factors, then it's important to adjust behavior to protect the marriage relationship. But the employer would have many other options if he feels that his self-control is going to be stretched beyond his ability to stop himself."
Jennifer Ripley, doctoral psychology program director, Regent University (Virginia)

SOURCE

March 5, 2013
Why Would Anyone Defend the Dentist Who Fired His Attractive Assistant?
 By Hemant Mehta

Back in December, the Iowa State Supreme Court made a unanimous and absurd decision (regardless of whether or not there was a legal basis for it).
The backstory is this: Christian dentist James Knight worked for over a decade alongside his female assistant, Melissa Nelson. Their relationship was purely platonic, but Knight couldn’t deal with the fact that she was attractive (PDF):
    On several occasions during the last year and a half when Nelson worked in the office, Dr. Knight complained to Nelson that her clothing was too tight and revealing and “distracting.” Dr. Knight at times asked Nelson to put on her lab coat. Dr. Knight later testified that he made these statements to Nelson because “I don’t think it’s good for me to see her wearing things that accentuate her body.” Nelson denies that her clothing was tight or in any way inappropriate.
    During the last six months or so of Nelson’s employment, Dr. Knight and Nelson started texting each other on both work and personal matters outside the workplace. Neither objected to the other’s texting. Both Dr. Knight and Nelson have children, and some of the texts involved updates on the kids’ activities and other relatively innocuous matters. Nelson considered Dr. Knight to be a friend and father figure, and she denies that she ever flirted with him or sought an intimate or sexual relationship with him.
    Dr. Knight acknowledges he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing. On another occasion, Dr. Knight texted Nelson saying the shirt she had worn that day was too tight. After Nelson responded that she did not think he was being fair, Dr. Knight replied that it was a good thing Nelson did not wear tight pants too because then he would get it coming and going. Dr. Knight also recalls that after Nelson allegedly made a statement regarding infrequency in her sex life, he responded to her, “[T]hat’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.” Nelson recalls that Dr. Knight once texted her to ask how often she experienced an orgasm. Nelson did not answer the text. However, Nelson does not remember ever telling Dr. Knight not to text her or telling him that she was offended.
Feel free to analyze that relationship however you want. But all I’m getting from it is that the dentist just can’t accept that his assistant is anything but a mental sex object for him. It’s creepy, unprofessional, and almost entirely in his own mind (since it seems very clear that she’s not lusting after him).
Anyway, after a decade of working together, Knight fired her because he “feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road.”
As if that was her fault.
As if she had any intention of having an affair with him.
As if he has no control over what his penis does.
Nelson eventually sued him for gender discrimination. She argued that Knight fired her because she was a woman and he never would have done so if she were a man.
After a lengthy explanation of why this wasn’t really gender discrimination and how they’re not condoning Knight’s actions, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against Nelson:
    As we have indicated above, the issue before us is not whether a jury could find that Dr. Knight treated Nelson badly. We are asked to decide only if a genuine fact issue exists as to whether Dr. Knight engaged in unlawful gender discrimination when he fired Nelson at the request of his wife. For the reasons previously discussed, we believe this conduct did not amount to unlawful discrimination, and therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Knight’s own lawyer called it “a victory for family values because Knight fired Melissa Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman.”
Right… cue the celebration…
Why do I bring this up now, months later?
Because Christianity Today asked a variety of “experts” (they use that word loosely) whether or not Knight should have fired Nelson.
What’s amazing is that there were people who said yes — not for any legal reason, mind you, but because Nelson was clearly the problem:
    “Owners should not have to choose between keeping their business or marriage, and laws should not make it difficult for men to remove temptations that threaten their marriage. Employees do have some discretion over whether they find themselves in this situation.”
    Brad Dacus, president, Pacific Justice Institute
    “We have to walk away from temptation; we just cannot court it, which would be happening if she had remained. The best thing to do would be to show compassion and help the woman find another job so she’s not hurt by the firing.”
    Michael McManus, president, Marriage Savers
    “The dentist made the right choice in fighting to save his marriage. But we should take this as a cautionary tale. By establishing boundaries at work early on, the situation would not have gotten as far, and that assistant would not have lost her job.”
    Gary Smalley, executive director of marriage and family formation, Focus on the Family
Talk about treating women horribly… They’re blaming Nelson for getting herself fired. They’re assuming an affair would have happened just because Knight imagined one, as if Nelson would’ve gone along with it the moment he made a move. They’re suggesting that laws should make it easier for men to fire any women they want the moment they have any improper thoughts about her.
This is the same sexist mindset that says you can’t be alone with another woman, even a stranger (especially a stranger), because the moment that happens, BOOM! Sexytimes. Even if the only person tempted is yourself.
….
I understand that there could be temptation in these situations. But if the employers are the only ones feeling tempted, it’s on them to fix the situation by fixing themselves.
As one of the more rational Christian “experts” noted:
    “Jesus said ‘If your eye offend you, gouge it out,’ not ‘If you find your neighbor’s eyes to be too sexy, gouge them out.’ Every person will face temptations. Unless the assistant were pressing for a relationship, he should have found other means to keep his integrity intact.”
    Russell D. Moore, dean, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Finally, someone with common sense.
Even if the Court avoided the moral question by answering a legal one, what the dentist did was pathetic. In his view, it only takes one person to have an affair… and the best solution is to punish someone else for his own misgivings.

SOURCE
ترجمه: سیما


Tags: دستیار دندان پزشک, حقوق شهروندی, تبعیض جنسیتی
منبع:  blog.christianitytoday.com | christianitytoday.com | patheos.com

بازگشت به فهرست


 
متن پیام*
Upload files and imagesDrag files here to upload
Drag files here
هیچ نوشته ای یافت نشده است.
Send Cancel
محافظت در مقابل ربات اسپم (کپچا)
بارگذاری تصویر