Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275
|
Hm, having read the "Reasons for Judgement" -- based on the direct question of law posed to the Supreme Court, I understand their findings.
Remember, the lawsuit specifically queried whether he discriminated against her on the basis of her gender. The lawsuit was a gender discrimination one. What we have at issue here is a "question of law" not a "question of fact" ..
And I quote from the judge's findings (typos and all):
Quote:
|
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.
|
Now, if she had sued him for "wrongful termination due to sexual harassment" she'd have cause and could sue for damages. The law (usually) isn't that complicated. It's just a simple matter of facts and case law. Obviously though, she would have to prove sexual harassment did occur ..
Oh news articles and the ability to sensationalize everything..
