The dentist, given his human weakness, together with his determination to remain faithful to his marriage promises, had other options. He could close down his practice and retire. He could close down his practice, move to another place, and start anew there.

He could see where his own faults were leading. He could see that he wasn’t going to master them as a better man would have.

Now what?

His best option probably was to have done what he did, but give her six months severance pay rather than one.

But the court was correct. The decision will be upheld on appeal, if it’s appealed. A mirror-image case in which the dentist was married to another man, and dismissed a male employee for similar reasons, would be decided the same way. It’s not “sex discrimination” to avoid a specific person to whom one is sexually attracted to the point of making a professional, businesslike relation impossible.