Iowa Supreme Court rules you can be fired for being attractive

[SilentPanda]

I know I know... it's not about guns... sorry.

http://thegazette.com/2012/12/21/bus...e-court-rules/

A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an “irresistible attraction,” even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.

"Why were you let go from your last job?" "Because I'm attractive."

Jokes aside, this seems like a pretty poor ruling to me. I understand that it's legal as Iowa is an "at-will" state. I just think the ruling is poor.

[quagmire]

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

I know I know... it's not about guns... sorry.

http://thegazette.com/2012/12/21/bus...e-court-rules/



"Why were you let go from your last job?" "Because I'm attractive."

Jokes aside, this seems like a pretty poor ruling to me. I understand that it's legal as Iowa is an "at-will" state. I just think the ruling is poor.

Utter stupidity.

I can't believe any judge could support that ruling, much less have it come out 7-0.

[Mac'nCheese]

Why'd he hire her in the first place?

[SilentPanda]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

Why'd he hire her in the first place?

My summary of the judgement...

He hired her in 1999. He fired her in 2010. It sounds like they were friends, he seemed to initiate some mild flirtatious contact (she didn't really respond to it), his wife found out (who also worked at the dentist), then he along with his wife and pastor decided it would be good to fire her so as to prevent the possibility of him having an affair. She says she wouldn't have been fired if she wasn't a female. He says almost all of his staff is female so he's not firing based on gender. He also asserts she's an excellent employee. They are both married and have kids. Of course this is my summary based on memory. Feel free to read the judgement (it's not that long).

I somewhat understand the ruling. But that seems like a crappy reason to be able to fire somebody. "I might want to have an affair with you, and I don't know if you're even willing, but my wife agrees we should fire you as to prevent that temptation."

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

My summary of the judgement...

He hired her in 1999. He fired her in 2010. It sounds like they were friends, he seemed to initiate some mild flirtatious contact (she didn't really respond to it), his wife found out (who also worked at the dentist), then he along with his wife and pastor decided it would be good to fire her so as to prevent the possibility of him having an affair. She says she wouldn't have been fired if she wasn't a female. He says almost all of his staff is female so he's not firing based on gender. He also asserts she's an excellent employee. They are both married and have kids. Of course this is my summary based on memory. Feel free to read the judgement (it's not that long).

I somewhat understand the ruling. But that seems like a crappy reason to be able to fire somebody. "I might want to have an affair with you, and I don't know if you're even willing, but my wife agrees we should fire you as to prevent that temptation."

Thanks for the info. It sounds like this woman just got a crap deal all around; hopefully someone will get her a better a job.

[APlotdevice]

One can only hope such an idiotic ruling is overturned by a higher court.

[NickZac]

I always figured that this would be an issue but in the reverse... Look at college professors...they have nice, young, attractive TAs. Tons of them. Y'all know the obesity rate is rampant here in the States so it isn't like this is happening by coincidence.

A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

WTF? I figured the ruling would be 'hooray boobies!'

[Orange Crane]

I'd hire someone who just got fired for being hot, assuming they weren't a moron or something.

[Don't panic]

she should have got at least a better severance package

[iStudentUK]

Thank God I don't work there, my job would be at serious risk.

Ok seriously, this is why "at will" employment is a ridiculous idea. We have "casual labourers" here in the UK (for example I worked in a shop during uni holidays as a casual labourer) but they still have employment rights!

[SilentPanda]

Although the ruling seems poor in general, it was ruled as such because it was found to not be discrimination based on gender. I think most of us will agree she should not have been fired (or at least given a very good severance package), but do you guys think it was discrimination based on gender? If it had been that, she would have won the court case.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

Although the ruling seems poor in general, it was ruled as such because it was found to not be discrimination based on gender.

Firing—provided we're not talking about economics—should be based on one thing only: performance.

IMO, anything not connected with performance is in itself unfairly discriminatory and should not be lawful.

I can only hope a higher court overrules this.

[VideoFreek]

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

Although the ruling seems poor in general, it was ruled as such because it was found to not be discrimination based on gender. I think most of us will agree she should not have been fired (or at least given a very good severance package), but do you guys think it was discrimination based on gender? If it had been that, she would have won the court case.

The termination was highly unjust, but no, I don't think it was discrimination based on gender. As the defense pointed out, the good doctor employs an all-female workforce, and he replaced her with another woman, so I see no support for the idea that she was fired merely because she is a woman. She was fired because she is hot, and the dentist could not contain his growing attraction to her; gender is quite incidental. Had he been gay and fired an attractive male employee for the same reason, would anyone be talking about gender discrimination?

Nevertheless, the firing was grossly unfair because she did nothing wrong. In the long run, however, Ms. Nelson will be better off far away from her lecherous former boss. As a highly competent dental assistant, I'm sure she'll find a new job quickly, and I sincerely hope a lot of Dr. Knight's patients follow her to her new employer.

[Andeavor]

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

Although the ruling seems poor in general, it was ruled as such because it was found to not be discrimination based on gender. I think most of us will agree she should not have been fired (or at least given a very good severance package), but do you guys think it was discrimination based on gender? If it had been that, she would have won the court case.

It is discrimination based on gender because if it was an attractive male assistant, there would be no reason for him to fire the employee.

Instead of firing her, he could've gotten her transferred to another dentist's practice. Just because he doesn't want to be tempted to cheat on his wife doesn't mean the assistant should draw the short one and lose her job, her pay and her benefits. That's unfair and unprofessional.

[NickZac]

...I mean, boo..er.. pics

[Ariii]

What about the modeling industry? Isn't appearance a huge part of some industries ?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Ariii

What about the modeling industry? Isn't appearance basically the whole point of some industries ? Even acting could be affected.

Are you really confused?

Do you really believe the modeling industry will somehow be affected by this?

[mrkramer]

Originally Posted by Macaroony

Instead of firing her, he could've gotten her transferred to another dentist's practice.

How? If he has a private practice it's not like he can go to another dentists office and tell them to hire her...

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

I know I know... it's not about guns... sorry.

http://thegazette.com/2012/12/21/bus...e-court-rules/



"Why were you let go from your last job?" "Because I'm attractive."

Jokes aside, this seems like a pretty poor ruling to me. I understand that it's legal as Iowa is an "at-will" state. I just think the ruling is poor.

While I think this ruling is terrible, unfortunately in "at will" states you can fired for no reason. However, this is trumped by Federal discrimination laws which say you can't be discriminated against based on your race, your religion, or your SEX, of which I would say this definitely applies. Send it up to the next court.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

I know I know... it's not about guns... sorry.

http://thegazette.com/2012/12/21/bus...e-court-rules/



"Why were you let go from your last job?" "Because I'm attractive."

Jokes aside, this seems like a pretty poor ruling to me. I understand that it's legal as Iowa is an "at-will" state. I just think the ruling is poor.

I read this and thought I guess this is what they mean by "The Good ol' Boys".

By the way SilentPanda, my granddaughter Jasmijn thinks your Panda Avatar is super cute.

[SilentPanda]

Originally Posted by NickZac

...I mean, boo..er.. pics

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/22/us/iow...html?hpt=hp_c2

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/22/us/iow...html?hpt=hp_c2

According to that article, she was the best assistant he ever had. But he had to fire her because, I guess, he was so weak, he could not control himself and she would have led to the downfall of his marriage. Forget the fact that even if this pos had so little self control that if she stayed, he would have hit on her, who is to say that we would have had an affair with him, anyway? All she has to do is say no and marriage is fine! Poor guy, he's so wonderful that any chick would want to be with him. Poor guy, he can't stand to be around beautiful woman or else he has no control. Probably love to live in Muslim countries where women are smart enough to cover themselves from head to toe because if they don't, all the men would be unable to control themselves. Hope this guy looses every single patient he has.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by SilentPanda

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/22/us/iow...html?hpt=hp_c2

Pretty girl. She has great teeth

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

According to that article, she was the best assistant he ever had. But he had to fire her because, I guess, he was so weak, he could not control himself and she would have led to the downfall of his marriage. Forget the fact that even if this pos had so little self control that if she stayed, he would have hit on her, who is to say that we would have had an affair with him, anyway? All she has to do is say no and marriage is fine! Poor guy, he's so wonderful that any chick would want to be with him. Poor guy, he can't stand to be around beautiful woman or else he has no control. Probably love to live in Muslim countries where women are smart enough to cover themselves from head to toe because if they don't, all the men would be unable to control themselves. Hope this guy looses every single patient he has.

And the fact the seven Supreme Court Justices couldn't understand this is ... mind boggling.