This transcript is automatically generated
And fired for being -- to some.
Too attractive -- -- in Iowa fired his dental assistant because he says her beauty threatened his marriage and I was all they'll Supreme Court.
Just ruled he was justified here to discuss potential applications -- defense attorney and Fox News contributor.
Camera I think the most important thing here is that.
I try to get through this that without saying an inappropriate Joker hitting on you in -- -- so first of Dallas.
What do you think of this the idea that a court said it's okay to fire -- being too attractive.
Well here's the problem what the court dead or what the woman did when she filed her complaint was that she said it was only because of her gender and what she should've done which should have filed an additional complaint that this had to do with sexual harassment.
So that's really the problem because this -- need to -- -- comments to her.
He was a married -- their relationship morphed over the course of ten years.
And that but she didn't seem to think that we -- it was wrong it was just that he fire.
Her because she was -- should the fact that -- worked for him for ten years alone have been reason enough to get rid of -- hot.
Reason purpose of united -- you've been around them in ten years.
Seems like they should -- -- -- -- here want C I thought yeah and the first year it's custody that your you find them attractive and then over ten years yes hello million.
I think like every marriage -- get fit flop yeah our relationship well and also isn't it true that in most cases employers generally.
Almost have a right to finalist for anything pretty much pretty -- Action unless you are a contract employee which she -- issues just an act will -- so yes you can fire somebody pretty much for any reason -- that falls under.
Civil rights claim -- title seven claim something like that you can't fire somebody because -- a woman you can't fire me because there.
Black or Hispanic or something.
Mom and heat and he had other women -- all woman stack.
Right so is so -- Admits he is heterosexual not homosexual.
He would not have felt this about any man that was in his -- he could not -- so why wasn't he plaintiffs' argument that this wasn't some -- gender based.
Why does that hold.
Water Walt because if you actually -- great point imagine if it was.
Homosexual man who work for him and now this and yes.
Deep feelings for this person yes OK and if he fires him what -- the guy going to claim he fired me because.
I was a man.
No it was because of the relationship between the two.
Had changed in the attraction to each other had changed man or woman he did not fire her because she was a woman it was because of the relation.
OK and left -- -- anything wrong with the court's decision in which they're -- deciding that a Boston employer can't just sort of resisted temptation that instead he has the right to fire so they don't have to try to resist.
While I think that's a personal problem because clearly he tried to resist and you know he he brought in -- Pasteur.
Yeah he met with her husband so he clearly tried to resist and just her hot as -- so overbearing that he couldn't.
Yeah Boyle came -- is who's gonna happen to the ranks of News Corp.
and the various fox networks -- thanks for being with us camera holder and I think CN happy holidays.