Iowa SC says it's OK to fire someone who's too attractive...

[Daistallia 2104]

http://m.kcci.com/news/Court-Bosses-can ... index.html

tl; dr: A dentist fired a woman he found attractive, after his wife found it threatening. And today, the Iowa SC said that was OK.

Frankly, I think this sounds particularly stupid. I will wait before making a final judgement, though...

What say the great unwashed masses of NSG?

[Samuraikoku]

Knight's lawyer says the court's decision is "in favor of family values."

Family values?

<Insert amusingly appropriate image here with caption "Go home and be a family man>

Even if he technically had the right to fire someone, it's a stupid decision. Not to mention, maybe he should have had enough self-control so as not to think of this woman as a threat to her marriage.

[Caninope]

http://m.kcci.com/news/Court-Bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/-/16916438/17865692/-/ic3n6cz/-/index.html

tl; dr: A dentist fired a woman he found attractive, after his wife found it threatening. And today, the Iowa SC said that was OK.

Frankly, I think this sounds particularly stupid. I will wait before making a final judgement, though...

What say the great unwashed masses of NSG?

I say that he should be able to fire someone who works for him so long as it is not prohibited by law.

I am not familiar with anywhere in discrimination laws that covers the highly subjective attractiveness criteria.

EDIT: And I agree with the judge's ruling. The context of the case prevents it from being sexual discrimination, and I highly doubt the dentist is attracted to every woman he sees.

[4years]

http://m.kcci.com/news/Court-Bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/-/16916438/17865692/-/ic3n6cz/-/index.html

tl; dr: A dentist fired a woman he found attractive, after his wife found it threatening. And today, the Iowa SC said that was OK.

Frankly, I think this sounds particularly stupid. I will wait before making a final judgement, though...

What say the great unwashed masses of NSG?

I call sexual discrimination.

[Esternial]

It's funny because the sexist boss hired her because of the same reason.

Now they're giving him an excuse to fire her if she doesn't want to 'have fun'

[Miss Defied]

I think it's shitty. However, from a legal standpoint, if Iowa is a right-to-work state, then there you go, it's fine I suppose. This is another reason right-to-work is shitty; you can get fired for no legitimate reason. I'd like a bit more detail about how they avoided this being a sexual discrimination case. And the last line of that little article made me shudder,

Knight's lawyer says the court's decision is "in favor of family values."

[Miss Defied]

http://m.kcci.com/news/Court-Bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/-/16916438/17865692/-/ic3n6cz/-/index.html

tl; dr: A dentist fired a woman he found attractive, after his wife found it threatening. And today, the Iowa SC said that was OK.

Frankly, I think this sounds particularly stupid. I will wait before making a final judgement, though...

What say the great unwashed masses of NSG?

I say that he should be able to fire someone who works for him so long as it is not prohibited by law.

I am not familiar with anywhere in discrimination laws that covers the highly subjective attractiveness criteria.

EDIT: And I agree with the judge's ruling. The context of the case prevents it from being sexual discrimination, and I highly doubt the dentist is attracted to every woman he sees.

So you really believe that a person should be subject to termination because their boss's wife is jealous?

[San-Silvacian]

"Hey, thats a nice chest you got. gtfo of my office."

[Daistallia 2104]

I think it's shitty. However, from a legal standpoint, if Iowa is a right-to-work state, then there you go, it's fine I suppose. This is another reason right-to-work is shitty; you can get fired for no legitimate reason. I'd like a bit more detail about how they avoided this being a sexual discrimination case. And the last line of that little article made me shudder,

Knight's lawyer says the court's decision is "in favor of family values."

Just to point out, you're confusing right-to-work with at will employment. Not that they aren't both wrong and stupid.

[Caninope]

I say that he should be able to fire someone who works for him so long as it is not prohibited by law.

I am not familiar with anywhere in discrimination laws that covers the highly subjective attractiveness criteria.

EDIT: And I agree with the judge's ruling. The context of the case prevents it from being sexual discrimination, and I highly doubt the dentist is attracted to every woman he sees.

So you really believe that a person should be subject to termination because their boss's wife is jealous?

No, I don't think they particularly should, but I think the boss should have the right anyways.

In other words, bosses should be able to do this, but it's a dick move.

[Daistallia 2104]

I think it's shitty. However, from a legal standpoint, if Iowa is a right-to-work state, then there you go, it's fine I suppose. This is another reason right-to-work is shitty; you can get fired for no legitimate reason. I'd like a bit more detail about how they avoided this being a sexual discrimination case. And the last line of that little article made me shudder,

Knight's lawyer says the court's decision is "in favor of family values."

Just to point out, you're confusing right-to-work with at will employment. Not that they aren't both wrong and stupid.

[Sdaeriji]

She must still be able to collect unemployment, since she was terminated without cause. Unless "being hot" is now being considered cause, in which case what is this I don't even applies.

[Caninope]

I think it's shitty. However, from a legal standpoint, if Iowa is a right-to-work state, then there you go, it's fine I suppose. This is another reason right-to-work is shitty; you can get fired for no legitimate reason. I'd like a bit more detail about how they avoided this being a sexual discrimination case. And the last line of that little article made me shudder,

Knight's lawyer says the court's decision is "in favor of family values."

I can think of several reasons.

Firstly, I doubt the dentist frequently texts his other female employees outside of work on personal matters. Secondly, I doubt that he flirts with every woman. Thus the case is specific to this woman, and not all women.

[Souseiseki]

http://m.kcci.com/news/Court-Bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/-/16916438/17865692/-/ic3n6cz/-/index.html

tl; dr: A dentist fired a woman he found attractive, after his wife found it threatening. And today, the Iowa SC said that was OK.

Frankly, I think this sounds particularly stupid. I will wait before making a final judgement, though...

What say the great unwashed masses of NSG?

Would you give a fuck if he fired her because she was butt ugly? Be honest.

[Miss Defied]

I think it's shitty. However, from a legal standpoint, if Iowa is a right-to-work state, then there you go, it's fine I suppose. This is another reason right-to-work is shitty; you can get fired for no legitimate reason. I'd like a bit more detail about how they avoided this being a sexual discrimination case. And the last line of that little article made me shudder,

Just to point out, you're confusing right-to-work with at will employment. Not that they aren't both wrong and stupid.

Yes, you are correct. I guess I just always thought that at-will was part of most right-to-work policies.

[New Chalcedon]

I think it's shitty. However, from a legal standpoint, if Iowa is a right-to-work state, then there you go, it's fine I suppose. This is another reason right-to-work is shitty; you can get fired for no legitimate reason. I'd like a bit more detail about how they avoided this being a sexual discrimination case. And the last line of that little article made me shudder,

I can think of several reasons.

Firstly, I doubt the dentist frequently texts his other female employees outside of work on personal matters. Secondly, I doubt that he flirts with every woman. Thus the case is specific to this woman, and not all women.

The moment he started flirting with her, she was damned no matter what she did.

If she returned his flirtations (with or without intent to go beyond flirting is irrelevant), his wife gets him to fire her in a fit of jealousy.

If she didn't return his flirtations, he fires her. And sexual harassment dismissals are damned hard to prove - nine times out of ten they're "he said, she said" cases.

Poor girl.....but being fired for the offense of being an attractive female surely falls under some kind of sexual-discrimination laws. Also, Caninope, I've noticed that libertarians say that a lot: "I think it's a dick move for X to do it (and it will ruin at least one person's life), but it's better than letting the government stop them!"

It strikes me as a profoundly myopic approach to take.

[Caninope]

Just to point out, you're confusing right-to-work with at will employment. Not that they aren't both wrong and stupid.

Yes, you are correct. I guess I just always thought that at-will was part of most right-to-work policies.

At will employment is a fairly long standing doctrine of American law and seems to be one of the reasons why unemployment has normally trended below the Western European norm.

[Caninope]

Poor girl.....but being fired for the offense of being an attractive female surely falls under some kind of sexual-discrimination laws.

Not according to the (relatively limited) precedent in the US. Here's what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says on sexual discrimination.

Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person’s sex.

His argument would argue that it's not because of her sex, but rather because of her actions specifically.

Also, Caninope, I've noticed that libertarians say that a lot: "I think it's a dick move for X to do it (and it will ruin at least one person's life), but it's better than letting the government stop them!"

And I see at will employment as fairly important.

It strikes me as a profoundly myopic approach to take.

Not if one thinks that at will employment is more important than this.

[Miss Defied]

I can think of several reasons.

Firstly, I doubt the dentist frequently texts his other female employees outside of work on personal matters. Secondly, I doubt that he flirts with every woman. Thus the case is specific to this woman, and not all women.

The moment he started flirting with her, she was damned no matter what she did.

If she returned his flirtations (with or without intent to go beyond flirting is irrelevant), his wife gets him to fire her in a fit of jealousy.

If she didn't return his flirtations, he fires her. And sexual harassment dismissals are damned hard to prove - nine times out of ten they're "he said, she said" cases.

Poor girl.....but being fired for the offense of being an attractive female surely falls under some kind of sexual-discrimination laws. Also, Caninope, I've noticed that libertarians say that a lot: "I think it's a dick move for X to do it (and it will ruin at least one person's life), but it's better than letting the government stop them!"

It strikes me as a profoundly myopic approach to take.

There's no evidence of any kind of flirtation anyway, so it was wrong of Caninope to even bring it up. The woman was fired because the wife demanded it. I think it's dangerous to go down the road of allowing people to be fired because a business owner's spouse is unhappy with en employee in some way.

[Neo Art]

Sexual harassment is generally defined as making a positive employment situation contingent upon accepting, or making a negative employment situation retaliation for refusing to accept, sexual advances.

"You are fired because my wife is jealous of you" is not therefore a definition of sexual harassment. It's douchy, obnoxious, and certainly unethical. but it's not really protected.

[Caninope]

There's no evidence of any kind of flirtation anyway, so it was wrong of Caninope to even bring it up.

There's the texting about personal matters, which could fall under that umbrella, but sure.

The woman was fired because the wife demanded it. I think it's dangerous to go down the road of allowing people to be fired because a business owner's spouse is unhappy with en employee in some way.

I don't think so. The business owner is free to terminate employment as he wishes, and his spouse advised him on what to do.

[Esternial]

Sexual harassment is generally defined as making a positive employment situation contingent upon accepting, or making a negative employment situation retaliation for refusing to accept, sexual advances.

"You are fired because my wife is jealous of you" is not therefore a definition of sexual harassment. It's douchy, obnoxious, and certainly unethical. but it's not really protected.

"You are fired because you don't want to have sex with me."

[Neo Art]

Sexual harassment is generally defined as making a positive employment situation contingent upon accepting, or making a negative employment situation retaliation for refusing to accept, sexual advances.

"You are fired because my wife is jealous of you" is not therefore a definition of sexual harassment. It's douchy, obnoxious, and certainly unethical. but it's not really protected.

"You are fired because you don't want to have sex with me."

Yes that would absolutely and unambiguously be sexual harassment, that is true.

Now when did that happen here?

[New Chalcedon]

Poor girl.....but being fired for the offense of being an attractive female surely falls under some kind of sexual-discrimination laws.

Not according to the (relatively limited) precedent in the US. Here's what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says on sexual discrimination.

Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person’s sex.

His argument would argue that it's not because of her sex, but rather because of her actions specifically.

Not the approach his lawyer seems to have taken: from the source, the lawyer didn't argue that she had been flirting or "homewrecking" and was fired thereby, she was fired simply because his wife found out that the pair of them were having anything to do outside work and indulged in a fit of jealousy.

Why do you assume that she flirted with him? There's no evidence of that that I could find - in point of fact, there's scant evidence I could find that he was flirting with her! They'd been workmates in what was (probably) one of those small family medical practices, and had - as one does after a decade or more working side-by-side - started dealing with each other as human beings, rather than as cogs in a machine.

Also, Caninope, I've noticed that libertarians say that a lot: "I think it's a dick move for X to do it (and it will ruin at least one person's life), but it's better than letting the government stop them!"

And I see at will employment as fairly important.

Aah, well, I......don't. I value justice, and the employer - who by definition has more power over the employee than vice versa in 99% of cases - doesn't need the government's help to balance the scales. The employee, OTOH, does.

It strikes me as a profoundly myopic approach to take.

Not if one thinks that at will employment is more important than this.

If you are operating from that premise, true. As I noted above, I am not.

The woman was fired because the wife demanded it. I think it's dangerous to go down the road of allowing people to be fired because a business owner's spouse is unhappy with en employee in some way.

I don't think so. The business owner is free to terminate employment as he wishes, and his spouse advised him on what to do.

By "advised", you mean "delivered an ultimatum". Let's face it, if you were in his shoes - your spouse is demanding that you fire a friend - that's what it would take. Either that, or some fairly serious browbeating....

[Esternial]

"You are fired because you don't want to have sex with me."

Yes that would absolutely and unambiguously be sexual harassment, that is true.

Now when did that happen here?

Well, the problem is that the boss could just use the first argument (that she's too attractive) while the real motive is the one I mentioned.