Iowa’s All-Male Supreme Court: Firing Of Woman For Being Too Attractive Was Legal

[kpete]

Source: Talking Points Memo

RYAN FOLEY JULY 12, 2013, 12:23 PM 1848
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday stood by its ruling that a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant because he found her too attractive and worried he would try to start an affair.

Coming to the same conclusion as it did in December, the all-male court found that bosses can fire employees they see as threats to their marriages, even if the subordinates have not engaged in flirtatious or other inappropriate behavior. The court said such firings do not count as illegal sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings, not gender.

The ruling upholds a judge’s decision to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit filed against Fort Dodge dentist James Knight, who fired assistant Melissa Nelson, even while acknowledging she had been a stellar employee for 10 years. Knight and his wife believed that his attraction to Nelson — two decades younger than the dentist — had become a threat to their marriage. Nelson, now 33, was replaced by another woman; Knight had an all-female staff.

The all-male court issued its revised opinion Friday in the case after taking the unusual step last month of withdrawing its December opinion, which had received nationwide publicity, debate and criticism.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/iowas-all-male-supreme-court-firing-of-woman-for-being-too-attractive-was-legal.php?ref=fpblg

[hlthe2b]

1. I suppose thefive Misogynists on the US Supreme Court, would, if given the chance

concur.

Nonetheless, I hope, if it can be appealed, that it will be. So much for any sense of "equal protections" under the law.

And, yes, I hope some female CEO will provide a similar test case.... I'm guessing with the shoe on the other foot, these cretins might well feel differently.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Employment laws that need to be rewritten

Nobody should be able to be fired without cause. If they're doing their job satisfactorily, and the job is going to continue, then you should have to continue employing them. Your own personal failings shouldn't come into it.

[mbperrin]

10. Yes, TEN years on the job and suddenly, she's a threat?

I teach high school, and one of the life lessons we throw in concerns impulse and sexual behavior.

Teen boys tend to think that they "couldn't help it" or their "hormones made them" do whatever creepy or unwelcome act they did.

Here's the thing: this is all under our conscious control. IF boys or so-called men really could not control sexual impulses because of beauty, smell, or sounds, there would not be a perfume counter at JCPenney, because the colognes would drive male customers so mad that they would leap the counter and rape the salesperson there.

Has never happened in the history of the world, so ... men must be in charge of their own emotions, feelings, attractions, and actions.

Imagine.

Apparently the Iowa school system is inadequate or this dentist and these judges were all piss-poor students.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

39. Her replacement is a woman. Is her replacement younger?

[JDPriestly]

17. Muriel, you are so right.

This is an unfair blow to pretty women all over Iowa and maybe the US.

Hey! Talk about Sharia law.

If she had worn some kind of hood over her head so that you could only see her eyes and a long flowing black gown, would she have been allowed to keep her job?

Men need to have a little self-control, and so do their wives.

This is outrageous.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. Wait . . .

HE worried that SHE would start an affair? And the poor little piece of seaweed would have no other choice but to engage in said affair even though she was not guilty of any untoward behavior. And that's NOT sexual discrimination?

Iowa, really?

[cstanleytech]

41. No, he was worried he would start an affair with her because "he" was attracted to her.

I would hope he would have had the integrity atleast to try to find her another position with another dentist since it wasnt her fault he found her attractive as it would shitty thing for him not to try to do that and to just fire her.

[Akoto]

4. I ask this purely because I find myself curious about the answers ...

Let us say you were hypothetically in this man's position, and that his claim is genuine. You're a guy (or a woman) who is seriously attracted to an employee, to the point that you feared you might attempt to start an affair with them. What action would you take?

Having asked that, I note that I am on Ms. Nelson's side. She was an excellent employee by the dentist's own admission, and she did not deserve what happened to her in any way. The dentist should've come clean to her to get it out of the way, or just learned to exercise self-control.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. As you say - I would learn to exercise self control

I wouldn't say anything to her, either - it would be personally embarrassing for her (if you lust after a friend, but one of you is in a committed relationship, it could well spoil the friendship), but, more importantly, being her boss would mean I'd put her is a really bad position - is she meant to reply "well, if you weren't married, I would", do her job pretending you're not daydreaming about sex with her, or what?

I do find it hard to imagine what it's like thinking you're a person who cannot contain their lust just because someone is physically attractive. I know that I can, and I can't really believe that anyone without psychological problems can't. I'm not saying his yearning and lust would go away; just that we know that a normal person is always in control enough to not do something physically if they don't actually want to. And I wouldn't think my hormonal frustration should come above her livelihood.

[JDPriestly]

19. I'd see a marriage counselor.

It is not a woman's fault if she is pretty. Nature just made her that way.

It is the man's (or woman's if the roles are reversed) fault if he cannot refrain from trying to have an affair with a woman. We are each responsible for our own actions.

A married man in that situation should see a marriage counselor. There is something wrong in his marriage.

[crim son]

42. It's not unusual for there to be an attraction in the workplace.

Most people deal with it w/out resorting to bullsh**.

[REP]

48. Why is everyone so sure that SHE would be interested in banging Dr McFeely?

Just because he has the hots for her doesn't mean she'd just fall into his arms because he wanted her. Women are autonomous beings! We don't bang everyone who thinks we're hot!

[RainDog]

50. I think he wanted to punish her

because she wasn't interested in an affair with him.

and his lie was that he was afraid he would be successful if he had an affair - when really, it was sour grapes that she wasn't interested.

either way, it's punishing a female for a male's unrequited desire.

what an asshole.

[wordpix]

55. I agree this is probably his thinking

Also, his wife felt threatened and said the younger employee had to go

[olddad56]

5. Our courts, and all of our political offices need more female represenation.

Could a man be fired for being too handsome? I doub't it.

[ladym55]

6. OMG

This is mind-boggling. I suppose good dentist and family man Knight could fire a female employee for being too homely, too, or maybe too old. That, too, could make the atmosphere in the office uncomfortable. I guess he needs a staff of June Cleaver clones with modest outfits and pearls, serving cookies to his patients.

Let's see. I'm puzzling about how this isn't gender discrimination. If good dentist and family man Knight had acted on his attraction to his employee, that would be sexual harassment, what with him wishing to engage in sexual relations with a subordinate.

Did we misplace the second half of the 20th century someplace?

[jmowreader]

49. I can just imagine the lawsuits that would result from his assistants serving cookies

"Dr. Nodickcontrol gave me these cookies made out of molasses, honey, raisins, prunes and gummi bears that caused my extensive tooth decay. I'm suing for a complete course of treatment from a less-horny dentist."

[curlyred]

7. These are the judges who replaced the ones who said gay marriage was OK

Of course, they're dinosaurs. Unbelievable. What's next, burkas?

[Iliyah]

8. Well ladies, in order to keep

your job you must first ugly up, then your boss if male won't consider you a threat to his pecker.

[JDPriestly]

20. Wear a burka to the office.

As a protest, iowa women should start wearing burkas to the office. I don't know where you get them, but they should be easy to sew except the part covering all the face but the eyes.

If she had worn a burka, this poor woman probably would have been fired for scaring the patients or customers.

This is simply an outrage.

[Ilsa]

9. Then he should hire more male staff if he's afraid

His dick is going to fall into an employee's vagina.

[truthisfreedom]

12. He may be afraid of turning gay as well.

Seems like a fearful feller.

[Ilsa]

36. "turning gay" I Love It! LOL nt

[PatrynXX]

11. rolling eyes yeah removed the ruling

So they can give us Iowans another black eye. do'h Mind you it is Iowa's fault because we voted out the original supreme court over the homosexual ruling. Which was illegal to vote them out in the first place. so it's only fair.

[sakabatou]

13. WTF?!

[truthisfreedom]

14. This sounds like it was a case of jealousy. A serious one.

I've been there. Some women are completely afraid of the women their partners spend time with.

[cbdo2007]

15. He should have said he fired her so he could hire more men to even out his work staff...

then nobody would bat an eyelash and everyone here would be praising him for being so progressive.

[truthisfreedom]

16. On another note, can airlines fire flight attendants for being too old and/or out of shape?

Because that type of firing could easily be described as being based on "feelings" as well. "Mrs Smith, we feel that you simply don't fit in here anymore. It's just a feeling we have."

[DWinNJ]

21. Can she now bring a lawsuit for sexual harassment?

She must feel totally grossed out that she spent all this time in the presence of someone leering at her. How much sleep will she loose. In retrospect were all those trips to the bathroom because of his bladder?

[Locrian]

22. talk

So why do all these weak people think that "it's all about personal responsibility, moral character, etc"?..... *except* when they just can't help themselves?

They talk a bunch of bullshit... but they can't follow it.

[Ezlivin]

23. Good ruling

But when I turn on the television, see a magazine or go out in public I'm confronted by astonishingly beautiful women.

It's too hard to resist them and so I fear my marriage could be in jeopardy.

When will the court give me some relief?

[Broken_Hero]

24. Man, I thought this was a joke

I first heard about this on the Tosh.0 show, and I took it as a joke...I didn't realize it was a real case. What a fucked up country we live in.

[valerief]

25. Amazing, isn't it? And just imagine being the "ugly" one that replaced the fired employee.

I can just see the want ad.

Must have 5 years experience.
Must have Dental Assistant degree.
Must be so ugly I wouldn't want fuck you with a 10-foot pole.
Must be organized and punctual.

[Broken_Hero]

26. I cannot even begin to find the words

to describe how fucked up this ruling is, how the fuck can you get fired for such bullshit? I hope she finds better employment elsewhere, and I hope she can sue the fucker.

[valerief]

30. I wish the goddam fucked up court could be sued and prosecuted. nt

[orleans]

46. people

like those judges never fucking get it & never fucking care about anyone else until it effects them or their family.
only until their wives, daughters and granddaughters lose their jobs for this bullshit excuse will those assholes behind the bench "get it"

maybe.

[PassingFair]

62. I hope his business suffers. Really, would you like to be a woman in HIS chair?

If he knocked me out, would he be able to control himself?

Doesn't sound like it.l

[L0oniX]

27. So I guess getting fired for being ugly is ok too now.

[JoePhilly]

35. I feel bad for the person who replaces her ...

Imagine the interview ...

"Hi. Welcome to the interview. I see by your resume that you have all of the knowledge, skills, and experience I'm looking for. And WOW are you ugly. That's definitely a plus."

In all seriousness, this guy's wife better keep an eye on him.

[Stargazer09]

28. Sickening

Are women really that scary? As a woman, I can't understand the point of view here.

Is the guy so afraid of his penis that he has to fire a competent worker to avoid cheating on his wife? He can't just learn to control his impulses, like most other human beings learn to do?

Shame on the courts for allowing that discrimination to stand.

[MADem]

31. There are cultures that regard the woman as "temptress" who leaves men unable to

control themselves.

I just didn't think they predominated in the USA...

[valerief]

34. The US is definitely a God state. Organized religions hate women. nt

[MADem]

56. Not all of them. Many enjoy seeing women in an inferior position, but not all.

As women gain more economic power, I expect to see that script flipped. Sooner would be nice. Organized religions run on money, and they need to please the people with the cash--not piss them off.

[chervilant]

53. Christianity is predicated on that premise.

Misogyny is so NORMALIZED by the patriarchal precepts reinforced by these religions that sexists on this forum vociferously deny their misogyny.

[MADem]

54. All the Abrahamic/Ibrahimic faiths have this problem.

Christianity is hardly first in line--they don't have sex through holes in the sheets because touching women is "unclean," and they don't put women in beekeeper suits so that no one looks at them--those are two examples of faiths going "over the top" on the whole 'patriarchy' (I dislike that word, it doesn't convey a real sense of gender brutalization and discrimination, which is what is happening) thing.

That said, there are evolved branches of all three of the Ibrahimic/Abrahamic faiths that don't buy into that bullshit; they're just tough to find because no one comments about situations where everything is fine and mellow.

[MADem]

29. Unbelievable--so now, apparently, if he hires an ugly old dude to take her place, he can

claim he has developed "feelings" for the guy and needs to fire him to save his marriage, as well? Or if he hires an 85 year old granny, he can say he is drawn to her and he fears he might want to cheat with her?

That's what this ruling seems to be saying--you can fire anyone if you claim that you're "falling in love" and it could ruin your marriage.

Why not just call it what it is...."right to fire, for any halfassed reason." It would at least be honest.

[SaveAmerica]

32. All women and children should leave his practice if he has no self control

If I lived in the city I would lead the charge to another dentist, preferably wherever Ms. Nelson works.

[Paladin]

37. +1000. (nt)

[A Little Weird]

33. Crazy

If I were his patient, I would find a new dentist because if he can't handle being around a female employee then why should anyone believe he can control himself around his patients?

[tanyev]

38. Sounds like legalistic argle-bargle to me.

[christx30]

40. If like to see how the

verdict had been different if the doctor had been gay and he fired a straight man for the same reason.

[burnodo]

44. Absolutely!

Something tells me they wouldn't have reached the same conclusion.

[Rebl]

45. Or

If it had been a female boss that fired a male employee because she found him to attractive. Would the judges have ruled the same way? I doubt it.

[burnodo]

43. Sounds like what Muslims do with regard to female clothing

"COVER UP, DAMMIT! I MAY BE TEMPTED TO CHEAT ON MY WIFE AND ITS YOUR FAULT IF I DO!!"

[blkmusclmachine]

47. "Right To Work."

[ejpoeta]

51. so you can fire someone because you can't keep your eyes to yourself?

of course only women, right. how is it this woman's fault.... she's just doing her damned job. if this couple's marriage is in trouble then that should not allow them to take it out on this employee. was she hitting on the dentist? was she throwing herself at him and trying to assault him????

[happyslug]

58. But add to that making sexual comments to your boss makes in sexual not sex discrimination

Read the actual case, the woman was NOT innocent, she was NOT fired for her looks, she was fired for passing a note to her employer of a sexaul nature. This exchange of sexual charged comments had been common between these two person and finally the wife found out and demanded that it ended. The Employer decided the best way to end it was to fire the woman. Thus the court had to decided if the employer had good cause, other then the sex of the employee, to fire her. The Plaintiff's looks were a minor concern of the court it was the exchange of sexually charged notes that was most critical:

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. Both parties initiated texting. 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. At the same time, Nelson admits that a coworker was “jealous that we got along.” At one point, Nelson texted Dr. Knight that “[t]he only reason I stay is because of you.”

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.

In late 2009, Dr. Knight took his children to Colorado for Christmas vacation. Dr. Knight’s wife Jeanne, who was also an employee in the dental practice, stayed home. Jeanne Knight found out that her husband and Nelson were texting each other during that time. When Dr. Knight returned home,

Jeanne Knight confronted her husband and demanded that he terminate Nelson’s employment Jeanne Knight insisted that her husband terminate Nelson because “she was a big threat to our marriage.” According to her affidavit and her deposition testimony, she had several complaints about Nelson. These included Nelson’s texting with Dr. Knight, Nelson’s clothing, Nelson’s alleged flirting with Dr. Knight, Nelson’s alleged coldness at work toward her (Jeanne Knight), and Nelson’s ongoing criticism of another dental assistant. She added that

[Nelson] liked to hang around after work when it would be just her and [Dr. Knight] there. I thought it was strange that after being at work all day and away from her kids and husband that she would not be anxious to get home like the
other [women] in the office.

Sorry, the court had more to go on then the assistant's good looks, it appears to be a case of sexual relations not sex discrimination, as those terms have been used in previous Sex Discrimination cases.

[ejpoeta]

60. from what you posted, it seems he was part of that. if he is saying things about his pants bulging,

then he sounds like he was equally as culpable. he didn't just say this is inappropriate attire for work or such. he was ok with the texting. he was party to it. it's not like she was texting him against his will. it sounds like they had a consensual relationship through texts and once his wife found out and confronted him and made him fire her then it was said to be something else.

[happyslug]

63. But remember the legal concept, an employer has the right to fire an employee for ANY OR NO REASON

The Sole exception is if the employee can show she was terminated for an illegal reason. The burden is on the employee to show that the reason she was fired was illegal, not the employer to show he had a legal reason to terminated the employee.

When I pointed out that the employee only has to show a prima facia case of illegal discrimination before the employer has to show a legal reason, that relates to who has the burden of proof as to WHY someone was terminated NOT if that reason was illegal. The burden to show that the reason was illegal is still on the employee.

The courts have always tried to narrow these exceptions to the general rule that an employer can fire an employee for any or no reason. The classic case was when the Supreme Court ruled that an employer of a Member of the National Guard did not have to arrange his schedule so he did not lose work hours due to his National Guard Service. The court ruled that all that Congress passed was a law that the Employer could NOT fire the employee, not that the employer arrange their employee work schedule around an employee's National Guard monthly drill dates.

Notice the narrow construction given to the statute, and that was to encourage National Guard Membership. This same narrow construction of the law applies to any of the general rules. In this case the narrow exception based on discrimination due to one's sex is a narrow exception to the general rule that an employer can terminate an employee for any or no reason

Side note: The big exception to the general rule is if the employee has a contract or is subject to a contract. Thus unionized people can NOT be terminated unless under the terms of the Contract are satisfied. Such Contracts generally requires some sort of illegal activity or other willful misconduct for an unionized employee to be terminated OR a general layoff due to lack of work and then only by the terms set forth in the contract. .

[Frustratedlady]

52. So, with the dr's fear of being able to control himself...

does he also refuse to expose himself (pun intended) to attractive clients? After all, the client is in a rather awkward position when lying in the dental chair. He might not be able to finish the job without exciting himself to the point of embarrassment.

I wonder if he has ANY clients left after this ridiculous situation.

I can't believe this came out of Iowa. Shame on them.

[happyslug]

57. Here is the actual opinion,

http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20130712/11-1857.pdf

The Court had a difficult decision to make, is it sex discrimination when someone's wife demands he fire a woman he had employed for ten years? Basically the employer was given a choice by his wife, either a divorce or terminate the "other woman" even if no actual affair had occurred by the wife feared that such an affair could occur?

No one disputes the facts in the case, no actual affair, but the Dentist and his assistant and passed sexually charged notes between themselves and these were found by the Dentist's wife. The wife told her husband he had a choice, the Assistant or her. He decided to keep his wife.

The Court held that under Iowa law, you can NOT discriminate against women due to they sex, but what happened here was NOT sex discrimination. The Dentist had an independent reason to terminate the woman, and that included his desire to perserve his marriage.

Can a male employer terminate a long-time female employee because the employer’s wife, due to no fault of the employee, is
concerned about the nature of the relationship between the employer and the employee? This is the question we are required to answer today. For the reasons stated herein, we ultimately conclude the conduct does not amount to unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act. We emphasize the limits of our decision.

The employee did not bring a sexual harassment or hostile work environment claim; we are not deciding how such a claim would have been resolved in this or any other case. Also, when an employer takes an adverse employment action against a person or persons because of a gender-specific characteristic, that can violate the civil rights laws. The record in this case, however, does not support such an allegation.

Basically the court ruled that the Civil Rights Acts that prohibit discimination because of Sex, was aimed at sex of a person NOT that person's sexual activities. Citing other cases, where risque notes were exchanged or actual sexual activity were an issue and noting none of those cases were ruled to be sex discrimination cases, the court ruled that in this case it was making of sexual comments by the Plaintiff that was the reason for the termination, not that the Plaintiff was a woman and as such NOT Sexual discrimination.

[Sunlei]

59. she collect unemployment for this? some boss can have 'feelings' for 50 employees,fire them all?

Not every boss is some sane, honest person about their employees.

Seems like such a shallow, silly!! decision by a Court. Let an employer use thoughts as a basis for firings.

[happyslug]

61. She gets unemployment, she committed no willful misconduct

The issue is NOT unemployment Compensation, from these facts the Plaintiff did get unemployment. The issue in front of the court was sex discrimination NOT willful misconduct. Willful misconduct is the only grounds to be denied unemployment if one is fired. Since the Plaintiff was fired, and both sides admit to no willful misconduct by the employee, she was entitled to unemployment.

This is NOT an unemployment insurance case, but a sex discrimination case. Remember an employer can fire anyone for any reason or no reason provided it is NOT an illegal reason. An illegal reason is sex discrimination. In a sex discrimination the employee has to first show she has A Prima facia case of Sex discrimination. By the term "Prima Facia" the employee does NOT have to show she has enough evidence to show sex discrimination, but she had enough evidence to show it MIGHT be a reason. Then the burden shifts to the employer to show he has a valid legal reason to terminate the employee.

In this case both sides agree that the reason was the sexual banter between the two. Thus there was no real issue of fact, the only issue is one of law, i.e. does this contact raise to the level of sex discrimination. The court ruled that sexual banter is NOT sex discrimination and thus legal grounds to terminate an employee.

I posted the actual case above, and it was more then a case of thinking about the employee, they was some back and forth verbal action between the two and the Court ruled that was a good non-sex discrimination reason for termination. The court also cites some federal cases where sexual relationships were part of the relationship between the employee and employer and Federal courts in those casea had also ruled that termination due to the ending of a sexual relationship is NOT illegal sex discrimination.

[GreedIsGood]

65. Maybe only one out of the 50 was very "attractive".

I think you get my point. Not all women are very attractive (if you know what i mean)

[happyslug]

67. Read the actual case, attractiveness was NOT an issue.

The issue was did a Dentist who owned and ran his own office, have the legal right to terminate an employee when after exchanges of a sexual banter nature is discovered by his wife and the Wife demands termination of the Employee due to the nature of the banter. That the banter was based on the attractiveness of the Dental Assistant is the reason this has taken on the route it has on the net, even through it is clear the court did not address the issue of attractiveness in their opinion, only mentioning the banter the attractiveness caused. It was the banter that lead to the termination NOT her Attractiveness and that was the basis of the decision of the court.

Side note: If attractiveness had been an issue, independent of the banter it caused, then that would be clearly Sex Discrimination and even the Court Acknowledged that. Attractiveness is a Characteristic of one's sex and thus a sign of discrimination due to one's sex. The courts make a distinct difference between sexual relations and sex discrimination. Sexual relations can be grounds for termination of employment for it is NOT discrimination based on one's sex. The Court separate sexual relations and one' sex. If one is being discriminated based on one's sex, including attractiveness, that is sex discrimination, but if one is terminated for having had sex with an employer, that is sexual relations and NOT sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Acts and as such NOT a protected activity. That has long been the law, the Court only expanded that rule to include sexual banter between employer and employee as opposed to actual sex.

Yes, it sounds like someone cutting hairs, but it is important hairs when it comes to Civil Rights.

[LanternWaste]

64. Two people, equally guilty of the same thing. One remains in his position, the other fired.

Two people, equally guilty of the precise same thing. One remains in his position, the other fired.

Good thing the all-male court the issued this opinion doesn't think there's a war on women...

[happyslug]

66. Do you want the employer to fire himself????

Remember this is a Dental Office, with the Employer being the Dentist who hires everyone else in the office. The only way the Dentist can fire himself is to close the office, i.e. lay EVERYONE off. Thus the Court has to balance between two options, one to permit the employer to fire ONE employee, or to force the Employer to fire himself AND LAY OFF ALL OF THE OTHER EMPLOYEES. The court decided to rule in favor of just one employee losing her job.

Now, it is clear the employee did not want the Employer to quit or close the office, the only question was a lost of income. That is what the Employee was after, and the court ruled that since the grounds for termination was NOT the sex of the Employee, but her banter about sex with the Employer that was NOT sex discrimination. Given no discrimination due to the sex of the Employee, the Employer had the legal right to fire her and as such the Employee is NOT entitled to any compensation due to her lost of income.

You may reject that line of logic, but it is the line of logic of the court in this case and thus termination of the Employer/Dentist was never an option, the only issue was lost of income due to an illegal termination. Given that the Court ruled the Employer had the legal right to terminate the employee no illegal termination took place and thus the Employee is NOT entitled to any compensation.