editorials

The dentist is obviously completely in the wrong, and there is no excuse at all for his firing of the woman. However, nowhere in the stories that predate this editorial, did it say the dentist "lusted for" the woman.

So, this fool can't control his thoughts or deal with his sexual feelings. SHE gets fired. How is this different from morality police making women cover themselves so they don't tempt men. If he were my dentist I would fire him!

Does this mean a female boss can fire a male employee because of "irresistible attraction?" It is more like a Hostile workplace with text messages that are of the sexual nature.

I appreciate the thought Strib, but I dont need legal protection.....OK?

how can it be sexual *discrimination* if he hires all women, and fired one woman to replace her with another women? she was fired because she was a woman? ?? sexual harassment via text messages? sure. but discrimination? i'm not seeing it.

I'd fire that dentist's butt, as well. Unspeakably ridiculous ruling.

Gopherfanz....could that be you exhibiting a sense of humor? Awesome!

Just happy I don't fall into the irresistible category.

If a A is fired for being an 'irrestible' woman and replaced with B, a 'restible' woman, how is that sex discrimination???

Why do I feel like there are some parts missing? For one, why can she not get another job as a hygienist? She did not take offense at his comments? Any woman I have known in the last 30 years would not have put up with it. Anyone know more details than what has been printed?