In Iowa you can be fired for being too pretty

Hurray for right to work. Fired for ANY reason...too fucking bad for you!

Can you show me what part of the Constitution gives you a right to a job?

Never said there was one. I think it's great! Fire the ugly people! Fire the pretty people! Fire the ______ people...until it's you being fired for being _____. (none of which has anything to do with your job performance)
 
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.

Correct – nor race or religion. Being attractive is a universal trait, unique to no specific class of persons. And being attractive does not constitute a specific class of persons.

But to terminate based on race, religion, or gender is unlawful, thus it is not true employers may fire employees for any reason they wish.
 
Well, that is good news for most liberals since most of them are ugly ass freaks.....especially those in the NOW crowd because they can't find any man to touch them.
 
Hurray for right to work. Fired for ANY reason...too fucking bad for you!

Can you show me what part of the Constitution gives you a right to a job?

It does not need to part of the constitution to be the LAW.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967[4]
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990[5]
California Fair Employment and Housing Act[6]
Civil Rights Act of 1871[7]
Civil Rights Act of 1964[8]
Civil Rights Act of 1968
Civil Rights Act of 1991
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Equal Pay Act of 1963
Executive Order 11478[9]
Executive Order 13166 – “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency”
Fair Employment Act of 1941
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 - enables qualified employees to take prolonged unpaid leave for family and health-related reasons without fear of losing their jobs. For private employers with 15 or more employers
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965
Lloyd – La Follette Act (1912)
No-FEAR Act
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
 
Code:
............................................________ 
....................................,.-'"...................``~., 
.............................,.-"..................................."-., 
.........................,/...............................................":, 
.....................,?......................................................, 
.................../...........................................................,} 
................./......................................................,:`^`..} 
.............../...................................................,:"........./ 
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../ 
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../ 
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/ 
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....} 
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../ 
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../ 
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-" 
............/.`~,......`-...................................../ 
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__ 
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-, 
.....`=~-,__......`,................................. 
...................`=~-,,.,............................... 
................................`:,,...........................`..............__ 
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==`` 
........................................_..........._,-%.......` 
...................................,
 
how can the court expect him to control his Johnson?


the employee should have gained wieght and dressed in eskimoo garb if she cared about her job.
Buisness owners do not owe anyone a job. And if his marriage is important to him, a Man will do anything to save it.. even if its something as lame as this. I feel sorry for the Lady who was fired, but she had no right to work there if the owners didnt want her there. There is no law against jealousy last I checked.
 
how can the court expect him to control his Johnson?


the employee should have gained wieght and dressed in eskimoo garb if she cared about her job.
Buisness owners do not owe anyone a job. And if his marriage is important to him, a Man will do anything to save it.. even if its something as lame as this. I feel sorry for the Lady who was fired, but she had no right to work there if the owners didnt want her there. There is no law against jealousy last I checked.

She will win her civil suite in federal court against the idiot dentist.
 
Last edited:
December 22, 2012
by Jazz Shaw

One of the wilder stories from the judicial branch to cross our desk in some time popped up this weekend. Our tale takes place in an Iowa dentist’s office, where an attractive, married woman works as a dental assistant. After ten years on the job providing what the dentist himself described as “stellar” performance, she was fired because she was too attractive and represented a threat to the owner’s marriage. There was no affair. There was no allegation of an affair. But the dentist’s wife also worked there and, after discovering some personal (not sexual) text messages between the two, she wanted the woman gone. The assistant went to court claiming unjust termination. There’s no way that one holds up, right? Wrong.

AttractiveSecretary.jpg

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.

An attorney for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight said the decision, the first of its kind in Iowa, is a victory for family values because Knight fired Melissa Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman.​

Someone I frequently turn to when I need to understand the byzantine maze of the legal system, Dr. James Joyner, seems to feel that this was pretty much the correct call.


As weird and embarrassing as this case is, it’s a reasonable decision in the narrow case of a sole proprietorship. Should the boss be able to work with women he finds attractive and resist crossing boundaries of professionalism? Sure. But, if it’s his shop, he should have the right to remove the temptation.

This obviously becomes more problematic in a larger firm, especially when the supervisor isn’t also the owner. In those cases, asking for reassignments or just moving on to another firm are more appropriate solutions. But that’s unreasonable if it’s your firm.​

In Iowa you can be fired for being too pretty « Hot Air
i bet they have a low unemployment rate .:badgrin:
 
how can the court expect him to control his Johnson?


the employee should have gained wieght and dressed in eskimoo garb if she cared about her job.
Buisness owners do not owe anyone a job. And if his marriage is important to him, a Man will do anything to save it.. even if its something as lame as this. I feel sorry for the Lady who was fired, but she had no right to work there if the owners didnt want her there. There is no law against jealousy last I checked.

She will win her civil suite in federal court against the idiot dentist.
Good luck to her.
 
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.

Correct – nor race or religion. Being attractive is a universal trait, unique to no specific class of persons. And being attractive does not constitute a specific class of persons.

But to terminate based on race, religion, or gender is unlawful, thus it is not true employers may fire employees for any reason they wish.

the judge says it was not because of her sex.

I guess the dentist is Bi
 
how can the court expect him to control his Johnson?


the employee should have gained wieght and dressed in eskimoo garb if she cared about her job.
Buisness owners do not owe anyone a job. And if his marriage is important to him, a Man will do anything to save it.. even if its something as lame as this. I feel sorry for the Lady who was fired, but she had no right to work there if the owners didnt want her there. There is no law against jealousy last I checked.

She will win her civil suite in federal court against the idiot dentist.

She has no grounds for a federal lawsuit.
 
Thats cool, I didn't know you can fire someone for that reason, I am going to fire a bunch of blacks tomorrow because they are a threat to MY marriage because them Niggs got bigger dicks, and MY wife just might get tempted to do one of them.
 
*shrugs*

Hey... You can't control who you are attracted to right?
 
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.

Correct – nor race or religion. Being attractive is a universal trait, unique to no specific class of persons. And being attractive does not constitute a specific class of persons.

But to terminate based on race, religion, or gender is unlawful, thus it is not true employers may fire employees for any reason they wish.

the judge says it was not because of her sex.

I guess the dentist is Bi

However legal, the termination was clearly capricious and unwarranted. It’s incumbent upon employers to treat their employees with respect and conduct themselves in a professional manner. This employer acted in an unprofessional manner.

Just because one can do something, doesn’t mean he should.
 
Isn't the business a partnership with his wife? Maybe she is the one that got rid of the woman that wore overly tight clothing to work....... maybe it was the wife that felt that the assistant was hitting on her husband. It's assumed it's all the guy's fault.......why?
 
Thats cool, I didn't know you can fire someone for that reason, I am going to fire a bunch of blacks tomorrow because they are a threat to MY marriage because them Niggs got bigger dicks, and MY wife just might get tempted to do one of them.

I think your stereotyping will lose you the case.
 

Forum List

Back
Top