If she was as blameless as some seem to imply why was she, a married woman, texting a married man about non-business related matters?
Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight's wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.
If you are a married man, would you approve of your wife texting another man about your personal family life, especially he has an implied degree of control over her as her boss?
If you are a married woman, would you approve of your husband texting another woman about your personal family life, especially if she has an implied degree of control over him as his boss?
Another point.
Laws may have changed since I was last involved with right to work laws. At the time, here in NC, "right to work" meant that both the employer and the employee equally had the right to terminate a job for any reason. I was entangled in a case against an employer based on both age and gender discrimination. The employee had some evidence to support the suit which would have been tried in federal court. After review, both the state of NC and the attorney for the employee advised to settle rather than go to trial. The case would be dismissed in federal court because NC was a right to work (At will) state.
I don't know the fine points of Iowa's right to work laws. If they are like what NC's were at the time mentioned, "fairness", as it's being discussed here, has nothing to do with the situation. Being fair means that it is equally fair for both the employer and the employee to have the same right to terminate employment at any time for any reason. (Edit: signed employment contracts excluded, as the terms of the contract would be applicable, unless ruled invalid by a court.)
Justice is supposed to be blind. That's what we expect, when we face a judge, regardless of which side of the isle we sit. Do we expect the judge to peek under the "blindfold" and rule in the favor of the other side because he deems that's the most "fair" way to resolve the case? Or, do we expect him to rule on the basis of the law without bringing in his personal opinion of fairness towards the other side of the isle?
Life isn't fair. Neither the Constitution nor God promised that everything in life our life, here on earth, would be fair according to our expectations.
Just my 2-cents this rainy morning.
