Should a Christian Dentist Fire His Too-Hot Hygienist?
— Monday, March 11th, 2013 —
Usually questions here are submitted by readers, but this time the question was posed by a journalist. In the March issue of Christianity today, Ruth Moon asked several of us to weigh in on a court case in Iowa in which a Christian dentist was found to be within his rights to fire his female hygienist because he feared he was too attracted to her and might be tempted to have an affair with her. The magazine asked whether this action was right.
You can read my response here, and weigh it along with the others. I said “no,” that I didn’t think firing her was the right way to go. I wanted here to give a fuller sense of why I think the way I do. I believe the issue is bigger than the particulars of this court case.
First of all, I’m no anti-dentite. I have nothing but commendation for the dentist for recognizing, early on, his point of temptation. The first step in overcoming temptation is finding one’s own points of vulnerability and finding the way of escape Holy Scripture promises us is there (1 Cor. 10:13). The dentist is right to take action in his life as soon as he realized he is hot-for-hygienist and he is right that his marriage is more important than his practice.
If the hygienist were pressing for a relationship or actively seeking to be sexually provocative, I think he has the right to fire her, if she won’t end it. That’s unprofessional behavior and puts him in a situation in which it is impossible for either of them to do their jobs. It would be a kind of reverse sexual harassment.
But, if not, I think there are other means for keeping his integrity intact.
He could have acted to his own economic hurt, rather than to hers. I know of Christian professionals who cut their own salaries in order to hire more than one staff member, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. He could have made sure that he was only in the office when there were others there, or, when that was impossible, his wife or a friend would accompany him.
Jesus said “If your eye offends you, gouge it out.” He didn’t say “If you find your neighbor’s eyes are too sexy, gouge them out.” It isn’t a just society when women are hired only if they meet certain standards of “sexiness,” as in our “Mad Men” celebrated recent past. It also isn’t a just society if women are fired because some man finds them attractive on those same terms.
At the root of this is, I fear, a kind of misogyny which identifies women themselves as the problem rather than one’s own lust and self-control. That’s not what the Bible teaches.
What would happen if this standard were enforced on a wide scale? What happens when, for instance, a new hygienist gets a new hairstyle and a new pair of glasses and, suddenly, the dentist starts noticing her in a new way? Is she fired too? And what happens across the board when women can be fired at will by men who can simply proclaim, “You’re too sexy for this office.”
The dentist is right to maintain his marriage and his integrity, but I think there are better, more just ways of doing that.
Remember to send me your real-life ethical dilemma at questions@russellmoore.com.
I agree that unless the woman was pushing for an affair, or even opening the door for him to push open, the root of the issue lies with the man and not the women. As a man, we cannot hide from every attractive woman we come in contact with.
That said, I applaud this man for recognizing a weakness within himself and putting his marriage above anything else. He chose his wife over temptation. The current state of marriage in this country would be a lot better if more spouses made this decision.
His action is a bit like shooting your neighbor’s dog because you’re afraid your dog might attack it.
What he’s saying in firing her is that he cannot control his actions. He does not trust himself when it comes to keeping the most important of earthly vows. So the question is: how does ANY woman EVER sit in his dental chair, again? Particularly if there’s anesthesia involved?
How does anybody, really, go to a professional who says, himself, that he cannot be trusted to act in a professional manner?
@Bob Cleveland, fortunately in this case, the issue wasn’t simply that she was an attractive female who happened to wander into his domain. Other female employees of the office (where his wife also works) and female patients need not worry about this man - unless they are also developing an inappropriate relationship with him that transcends the professional relationship they ought to maintain.
I agree that this man should not have fired this woman. I also agree that the appropriate action would have been for him to take the financial harm rather than the hygienist. At the very least, he should have found her another job. This woman was not the source of this man’s troubles and was a blameless victim in all this. Had I been the judge, I would have ruled in her favor and not in favor of her employer, even if this incident took place in a right-to-work state.
@Job, when two people enter into a consensual, flirtatious relationship involving text messages of a personal and/or sexual nature, it does not appear that either party is a blameless victim. For more information, see the court ruling I linked in my comment below.
I agree with Dr. Moore that the issue is bigger than the particulars of the court case, but the particulars of the court case do seem to indicate this was a necessary step for this man. The ruling can be found online here:
http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20121221/11-1857.pdf
Apparently the dentist’s wife did work in the office with him, and he has other assistants in the office as well. His relationship with the hygienist in question had already progressed well beyond the “danger point” in that they were texting outside of work regarding personal and even sexual matters. This indicates the safeguards Dr. Moore suggests as alternatives to firing were already in place and did not prevent them from developing an inappropriate relationship.
It seems clear that the problem here wasn’t simply her appearance (though she did dress to impress and elicit lewd, but apparently not undesired, comments from the dentist as a result) but the relationship she had built with the dentist. He can and should have ceased texting her immediately (as opposed to communicating with her while on vacation with his children). However, once you have such a relationship, I cannot believe it would have been dialed back to an appropriate level for continued close association via employment.
I agree with other commenters on the story that this story could have turned out better for everyone involved had he sought to place her in a new office as opposed to just giving her one month’s severance. But then again, she could have asked for referrals instead of taking the matter to court, too.
I’d be mortified to have as a matter of public record the things they texted back and forth, and I pray they are able to work through the issues they must not be dealing with with the support of their pastors. Good for them for being willing to serve as witnesses in the firing / post-firing meetings.
This is nuts, poor girl. This is absolutely someone who is ignoring a deeper seated issue, taking it out on this girl, taking her livelihood from her. Shameful, and in the”name” of good character. As if.
Russell,
Here’s a recent article by Ron Unz, “How Social Darwinism Made Modern China,”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/
that everyone is going to be talking about.
It seems to make similar claims as a recent article by Geoffrey Miller, “Chinese Eugenics”:
http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838
…
I have to disagree with you on this one Dr. Moore. You neglect in your analysis that the dentist (doctor, or chiropractor) is the business and often operates as a solo practitioner, as appears to be the case here. He already had his wife working in the office, and “another dental assistant” (see ruling in comment above), so adding another employee to the mix would not have helped. He also could not transfer her to another office/dentist because he worked alone. The only other way for the dentist to have “acted to his own economic hurt” would have been to quit practicing. This however would have taken the job away from the “too sexy” assistant and the other assistant as well.
There may have been opportunities earlier to prevent this from occurring, but having reached this juncture he had only one real course of action: fire the assistant. All other alternatives are imaginary.
I have to agree. I think that this whole story revolves on a man in leadership and authority who has weaknesses but the female becomes a scapegoat. I think taking a financial hit or getting his wife to help her find a new job could have been more christ like. Tough situation regardless. We don’t like receiving help though:
http://www.un-learning.org/thisblogsucks/#more-966
I understand all the implications of the original posting by Dr. Moore and the responses. These speak to the issues almost comprehensively. However, I believe the most important thing going on now in our over-regulated and litigious society is the deterioration of the right of any business person in charge of any professional or business situation to hire and fire as he or she sees fit without government interference. In this case, a man has done what he sees is best to preserve his own integrity and relationships and ought to be left alone by governmental powers who wield the authority of the gun. Coercion of this type is now destroying the freedom of the people to practice their faith as they see fit outside the walls of the church. We are well down that road, and it may be inevitable that we cannot return to the liberty we once had. This “little” situation is the root from which forced provision of abortion and birth control has grown.
I am a Christian woman who has been an Executive Admin for a male CEO for 3 years. Putting myself in this situation, the responsibility should be on both parties.
1 - The woman should be responsible for conducting herself in an absolutely professional, non-familial way with any man that is her superior. She is to make sure that she does not agree to any one-on-one time with him, but is clear that their relationship is purely professional.
2 - She should dress conservatively. IE, if debating whether or not to wear the “cute” form fitting red dress, go with the slacks and jacket.
3 - The dentist should reciprocate with absolutely professional conduct towards her - he may be kind, but purely professional - deferring to another woman in the business for handling any personal issues she has like dressing provocatively.
My guess is that one of these factors was not, or could not have been implemented in this case. In that case, it would have been better to have a frank conversation with her, give her the opportunity to quit on her own, and then give her a stellar recommendation for another office so that her reputation is not tarnished.
Ms. Nelson worked for Dr. Knight’s practice for 10-years and her termination seems to have been hinged on Mrs. Knight finding out the scope of the inappropriate relationship between her husband and the hygienist. The only victim seems to be the wife in this particular case.
With that said, the Knight’s should have a say about employment in their practice, but the event should not have been to bring in the pastor for the notification of her termination — smells of hypocrisy. The wife and husband should have the right to remove Ms. Nelson, but it could have been handled so much better — this goes way beyond a “business decision”. Ask what David would have done if he were in this position and what the consequences were for an earthly king, let alone a dentist.
Thank you Russell Moore for some common sense discussion about this.
Of course a woman has a responsibility to be modest. But the man also has responsibility for DISCIPLINING HIS MIND. . .
I could be wearing a mumu and if a man does not discipline his thoughts and learn to self control/thought control (as you stated), all manner of things could be going through it!
Bravo, Mr. Moore!