It's OK to fire a woman because she's just too hot

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Well, at least in Iowa...

 

(CNN) -- Can a boss fire an employee he finds attractive because he and his wife, fairly or not, see her as a threat to their marriage?

Yes, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

 

"The question we must answer is ... whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction," Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote for the all-male high court.

 

Such firings may not be fair, but they do not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the decision read, siding with a lower court.

 

...

 

The case concerns her client's employment as a dental assistant. Nelson worked for James Knight in 1999 and stayed for more than 10 years at the Fort Dodge business.

 

Toward the end of her employment, Knight complained to Nelson her clothing was tight and "distracting," the decision read. She denied her clothes were inappropriate.

 

At one point, Knight told Nelson that "if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing," the decision read.

At another point, in response to an alleged comment Nelson made about the infrequency of her sex life, Knight responded: [T]hat's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

 

During the last six months of Nelson's employment, Nelson and Knight, both married with children, started sending text messages to each other outside of work. Neither objected to the texting.

 

Knight's wife, who was employed at the same dental office, found out about those messages in late 2009 and demanded he fire Nelson.

In early 2010, he did just that. In the presence of a pastor, Knight told Nelson she had become a "detriment" to his family and that for the sakes of both their families, they should no longer work together, the decision read. Knight gave Nelson one month's severance.

 

In a subsequent conversation between Knight and Nelson's husband, Knight said Nelson had done nothing wrong and that "she was the best dental assistant he ever had," the decision read.

 

Nelson filed a lawsuit, contending that Knight fired her because of her gender. She did not say he committed sexual harassment.

 

In response, Knight argued that Nelson was fired because of the "nature of their relationship and the perceived threat" to his marriage, not because of her gender. In fact, he said, Knight only employs women and replaced Nelson with another female employee.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/justice/iowa-irresistible-worker/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[redtodd 7]

Have you seen the typical woman in Iowa?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Have you seen the typical woman in Iowa?

 

Nope, never been.

[frank 2,316]

[naomi 356]

It's a silly situation, but on principle I don't have a problem with the fact that the employee can be let go because her presence, even if no fault of her own, makes things complicated. On a personal level it sucks (and this is giving her the benefit of the doubt...the text message part is a little suspicious)...the boss and his wife should be ashamed of themselves.

 

There are other scenarios besides physical attraction where something could come up and a set of people can no longer co-exist together smoothly. As long as the outgoing employee is fully compensated and won't appear to have been let go for something related to his/her actual performance in the job, it should be the employer's prerogative.

 

Under Iowa law it sounds like it's okay to fire a guy for being too hot too, so there's that.

[SUXBNME 1,563]

 

Under Iowa law it sounds like it's okay to fire a guy for being too hot too, so there's that.

Can't tell you how many times I got fired for that very reason when I lived there.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,511]

Can't tell you how many times I got fired for that very reason when I lived there.

 

 

I thought you got fired for sticking your tater into to many tailpipes.

[TheBlade 3]

Can't tell you how many times I got fired for that very reason when I lived there.

Yeah, but you got fired for being too hot of a female....

[MedStudent 56]

i don't see what the difference between this and someone firing a black guy because they fear blacks and they can no longer concentrate at work or the wife demands the husband fires the black guy because she fears for his life.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Yeah I think it's bullsh!t. It isn't her fault she's hot. I mean, if she were being inappropriate in some manner of behavior then I could see it. But here it just sounds like her boss wanted to d!ck her and she might let herself be d!cked so the boss's wife made him fire her. Maybe the boss should just learn some self-control, or divorce his wife if he's so eager for some strange.

[Strike 5,748]

I started a new job a couple of months ago. The following is an excerpt from the offer letter:

 

You should be aware that your employment with the Company is for no specified period and constitutes

at will employment. As a result, you are free to resign at any time, for any reason. Similarly, the Company

is free to conclude its employment relationship with you at any time, with or without cause, and with or

without notice.

 

OMFG. They can let me go if they want and I can quit if I want. Oh, the horror!!!!!! I bet you people would be fine if the chick quit because her boss was hot and her husband told her to though.

[MDC 7,590]

I'm surprised at the outcome of the case but I have no real problem with it. He didn't fire this woman because of her gender. He fired her because an inappropriate workplace relationship that he willingly engaged in became a distraction, if he'd been sexually harrassing her the outcome would be different.

[BufordT 436]

If she was the one who cleaned my teeth twice a year I'd be p!ssed and would take my business elsewhere just out of spite.

 

I'm sure the Dentist will survive but I wonder if his business takes a hit?

[SUXBNME 1,563]

I started a new job a couple of months ago. The following is an excerpt from the offer letter:

 

 

 

OMFG. They can let me go if they want and I can quit if I want. Oh, the horror!!!!!! I bet you people would be fine if the chick quit because her boss was hot and her husband told her to though.

I'm not sure about the laws in CO, but in Cali, those words aren't worth the piece of paper their written on.

The workers here have WAY to many rights. No wonder employers are leaving us in droves.

 

Last time I checked, having a job was a privilege, not a right. (At least it's supposed to be)

[MDC 7,590]

I'm not sure about the laws in CO, but in Cali, those words aren't worth the piece of paper their written on.

The workers here have WAY to many rights. No wonder employers are leaving us in droves.

 

Last time I checked, having a job was a privilege, not a right. (At least it's supposed to be)

 

I don't think a company should be able to can an employee it hired for reasons unrelated to job performance.

[SUXBNME 1,563]

I don't think a company should be able to can an employee it hired for reasons unrelated to job performance.

Neither do I, but I have seen kids get fired for theft, punching the boss, not showing up for work for 3 days in a row and still collect unemployment.

I'm telling you, in this focked up state, the employees have all the rights. Pretty sad.

 

ETA: 'unrelated to job performance' is a pretty slippery saying.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

OMFG. They can let me go if they want and I can quit if I want. Oh, the horror!!!!!! I bet you people would be fine if the chick quit because her boss was hot and her husband told her to though.

 

 

I'm not sure about the laws in CO, but in Cali, those words aren't worth the piece of paper their written on.

The workers here have WAY to many rights. No wonder employers are leaving us in droves.

 

Last time I checked, having a job was a privilege, not a right. (At least it's supposed to be)

 

 

You guys sound like abused housewives. "It's not the employer's fault nobody can find a job, it's my fault because I demanded some rights!"

[Strike 5,748]

You guys sound like abused housewives. "It's not the employer's fault nobody can find a job, it's my fault because I demanded some rights!"

 

It's just that you and I have a different definition of "rights." Apparently Iowa's view is closer to my definition. And if you can't find a job it's not your fault for demanding rights. It's your fault for being horrible at your chosen profession. I've never had a problem finding a job. Apparently I'm pretty good at mine.

[Strike 5,748]

I'm not sure about the laws in CO, but in Cali, those words aren't worth the piece of paper their written on.

The workers here have WAY to many rights. No wonder employers are leaving us in droves.

 

Last time I checked, having a job was a privilege, not a right. (At least it's supposed to be)

 

I don't care about laws. This isn't about laws. It's about what a private employer should be able to do. This isn't even a public corporation we're talking about here. It's s small dentists office. Why the fock shouldn't a small, private employer be able to make his own choices as to who he employs and who he doesn't? I mean, what if he just focking hated this chick. He owns the company but he should have to work side by side with someone he focking hates? That would just be retarded.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

It's just that you and I have a different definition of "rights." Apparently Iowa's view is closer to my definition. And if you can't find a job it's not your fault for demanding rights. It's your fault for being horrible at your chosen profession. I've never had a problem finding a job. Apparently I'm pretty good at mine.

 

Of course it's easy for you to find a job. There's a McDonalds on damn near every street corner these days. And the fryolator doesn't care if you're a drunken antisocial dbag.

[SUXBNME 1,563]

You guys sound like abused housewives. "It's not the employer's fault nobody can find a job, it's my fault because I demanded some rights!"

WTF are you talking about?

[Strike 5,748]

Of course it's easy for you to find a job. There's a McDonalds on damn near every street corner these days. And the fryolator doesn't care if you're a drunken antisocial dbag.

 

Wow, good one coming from a guy who can't even afford to live where he wants.

[SUXBNME 1,563]

I don't care about laws. This isn't about laws. It's about what a private employer should be able to do. This isn't even a public corporation we're talking about here. It's s small dentists office. Why the fock shouldn't a small, private employer be able to make his own choices as to who he employs and who he doesn't? I mean, what if he just focking hated this chick. He owns the company but he should have to work side by side with someone he focking hates? That would just be retarded.

I don't care that you don't care about laws.

 

Still have to abide by them or pay the consequences.

[Strike 5,748]

I don't care that you don't care about laws.

 

Still have to abide by them or pay the consequences.

 

And this guy did. Yet we still have this thread.

 

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Wow, good one coming from a guy who can't even afford to live where he wants.

 

[Strike 5,748]

 

You're the one who said it, not me. I can afford to live where you've stated you would live if you could aford it. Apparently being a public defender for the Feds doesn't even pay as well as McDonalds.

 

But back on topic. What if this dentist just flat out hated this woman. He hired her but over time he came to just despise her. But he has to work alongside her every day since it's a small dentist office. Do you think he should be forced to keep her on in that situation?

[SUXBNME 1,563]

You're the one who said it, not me. I can afford to live where you've stated you would live if you could aford it. Apparently being a public defender for the Feds doesn't even pay as well as McDonalds.

 

But back on topic. What if this dentist just flat out hated this woman. He hired her but over time he came to just despise her. But he has to work alongside her every day since it's a small dentist office. Do you think he should be forced to keep her on in that situation?

Easy way to do it to starve her. Sorry, hon...Don't need you all week. If she's on salary, then it's as simple as laying her off asnd eating the unemployment for a few.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

You're the one who said it, not me. I can afford to live where you've stated you would live if you could aford it. Apparently being a public defender for the Feds doesn't even pay as well as McDonalds.

 

But back on topic. What if this dentist just flat out hated this woman. He hired her but over time he came to just despise her. But he has to work alongside her every day since it's a small dentist office. Do you think he should be forced to keep her on in that situation?

 

I don't know a lot about employment law, so I can't really say what the answer is for your hypothetical. If she's great at her job then I'd say maybe not. However if he had some reason for hating her, like she's some awful person who rubs every one of her coworkers the wrong way, then yeah I guess he should be able to can her for creating a toxic work environment.

 

That's not the situation here though.

[SUXBNME 1,563]

 

 

That's not the situation here though.

How do you know? Did you work with her ?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Easy way to do it to starve her. Sorry, hon...Don't need you all week. If she's on salary, then it's as simple as laying her off asnd eating the unemployment for a few.

 

Do you know how unemployment works?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

How do you know? Did you work with her ?

 

Did you read the article?

[MDC 7,590]

Neither do I, but I have seen kids get fired for theft, punching the boss, not showing up for work for 3 days in a row and still collect unemployment.

I'm telling you, in this focked up state, the employees have all the rights. Pretty sad.

 

ETA: 'unrelated to job performance' is a pretty slippery saying.

 

I don't know where you live but an employer can contest a former worker's UC benefits if the worker was fired for cause, and demonstrating cause really isn't that hard.

[Strike 5,748]

I don't know a lot about employment law, so I can't really say what the answer is for your hypothetical. If she's great at her job then I'd say maybe not. However if he had some reason for hating her, like she's some awful person who rubs every one of her coworkers the wrong way, then yeah I guess he should be able to can her for creating a toxic work environment.

 

That's not the situation here though.

 

His wife works there too. I'm pretty sure this chick is making the work environment toxic for the wife.

[SUXBNME 1,563]

I don't know where you live but an employer can contest a former worker's UC benefits if the worker was fired for cause, and demonstrating cause really isn't that hard.

Mebbe the 2 employers I'm talking about were too stupid or scared contest the 3 employees benefits.

 

When I got 'laid off' after 18 years, the manager at the time tried to contest my UC benefits. Pretty comical, really.

[SUXBNME 1,563]

Did you read the article?

Skimmed over it. Doesn't change the fact that you are just going by what is in print, versus knowing for a fact by having worked with her.

[SUXBNME 1,563]

Do you know how unemployment works?

Let's assume she's hourly. I'd be willing to bet that she is. What fault do you see in my plan to make her quit on her own terms?

In my industry it happens all the time.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Skimmed over it. Doesn't change the fact that you are just going by what is in print, versus knowing for a fact by having worked with her.

 

So what's your point? Nobody is qualified to comment on tgmhe article unless they worked at the dentist's office?

 

Dumb.

[SUXBNME 1,563]

So what's your point? Nobody is qualified to comment on tgmhe article unless they worked at the dentist's office?

 

Dumb.

Your exact werds were "That's not the situation here". That's an absolute. Without knowing all of the facts, I don't like to give absolutes.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Your exact werds were "That's not the situation here". That's an absolute. Without knowing all of the facts, I don't like to give absolutes.

 

Is this really GOTY material?

[SUXBNME 1,563]

Is this really GOTY material?

Did you vote for me? If you did, there's an option to delete your vote.