In Iowa you can be fired for being too pretty

[konradv]

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.

She might. If she was too attractive, wouldn't that have been apparent before she'd been working for ten tears? Men usually determine that in minutes. Put together the right jury and in a civil suit it could be slam dunk in her favor. Her only problem may be in showing harm, if she's able to quickly get a new job at a comparable salary.

 

[J.E.D]

An employer should be able to terminate an employee's employment at any time for any reason they choose.

He is the owner, he can do as he pleases.

So, if the two of you worked for me, and I fired you because I just don't like the way you look, or I don't like your political persuasion, you would say that's completely fair?

 

[rdean]

I think I may have been fired for being too handsome.

 

[Meathead]

I think it's an intricate conspiracy to get pretty women to vote Democrat.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Hell yea I like this ruling, I am now going to hire some people, when they buy houses I will wait until the value goes up significantly, then I will buy the bank note on the property, and then fire those employees so they default on there mortgage, so I can repo there houses when the value is up, but I need to fire them for a reason that would prevent them from getting another job, so Ill hire some secret shoppers to claim they were sexually harassed by them.

 

[Samson]

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.

Really, Perry Mason?

She's female.

She was not fired for being an attractive man.

Sexual Discrimination should be a slam dunk in Federal Court.

Maybe you should read a few Federal Statutes

 

[Papageorgio]

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

She has no grounds for a federal lawsuit.

Really, Perry Mason?

She's female.

She was not fired for being an attractive man.

Sexual Discrimination should be a slam dunk in Federal Court.

Maybe you should read a few Federal Statutes

In federal court, you may have a good case, it depends on how the defendants lawyers argue the case.

 

[Plasmaball]

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?

had you read the article you would have read that he was sending her dirty texts and commenting about his bulge in his pants.

But hey why read right?

 

[sitarro]

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?

had you read the article you would have read that he was sending her dirty texts and commenting about his bulge in his pants.

But hey why read right?

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.

I read the article ace, did you? Where did you read about "dirty" texts?

 

[Noomi]

An employer should be able to terminate an employee's employment at any time for any reason they choose.

I don't agree. The woman had done nothing wrong, the dentist wanted her gone because he couldn't stop getting a hard on around her. He's an idiot - and so are the male judges who agreed with him.

 

[The Professor]

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.

Blacks are members of a protected class and pretty people are not. There are laws that protect Blacks, but none that protect the class of pretty people. Before you make any decisions, make sure you know the law.

 

[The Professor]

An employer should be able to terminate an employee's employment at any time for any reason they choose.

I don't agree. The woman had done nothing wrong, the dentist wanted her gone because he couldn't stop getting a hard on around her. He's an idiot - and so are the male judges who agreed with him.

Here is the part of the judges' decision I find to be incredibly intellectually offense:

“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.”

I think that is idiotic to attempt to separate feelings towards a woman from her gender when her gender is the basis of those feelings. From a logical perspective, there is not one bit of difference between the court's decision in the present case and one which would allow the termination of Blacks based upon the fact that Whites couldn't concentrate in their presence or the employer's wife is afraid of Blacks. After all, the Blacks would not be fired because of their race but because of certain feelings and emotions against them.

God, in His infinite wisdom made most women attractive and sexually desirable (I think it was because of that “be fruitful and multiply” thingy). Sadly, if a woman can be fired because of her extreme beauty, what's to stop an average looking woman from being fired if the males around her cannot concentrate in her presence or the employer's wife is jealous? Feminine beauty by definition is limited to the feminine gender, and that which is so closely associated with the class of women deserves to be protected from discrimination. After all, what kind of fool would say it's illegal to discriminate against women, but legal to discriminate against those things which define them?

Putting the blame on his wife's desires does not relieve the employer of liability. If his wife told him not to hire any women or any Blacks, does he get a pass because he refused to hire an entire class of protected individuals just to please his wife? That's certainly not the law as I know it to be. As Mr. Brownlow said, "If the law suppose that, then the law is an ass" (from Oliver Twist).

I am not a fan of unions; however, there is one thing I like about them. Almost all union contracts have a provision which states something to the effect that “No employee can be terminated or disciplined without just cause.” I'd love to see an employer try to convince a labor arbitrator that the jealousy of his wife was “just cause” for a beautiful employee's termination. It ain't never gonna happen. Count on it.

 

[Shelzin]

An employer should be able to terminate an employee's employment at any time for any reason they choose.

I don't agree. The woman had done nothing wrong, the dentist wanted her gone because he couldn't stop getting a hard on around her. He's an idiot - and so are the male judges who agreed with him.

I disagree. Well... I disagree with both of you.

If you can hire or fire someone because there appearance isn't good... Then the opposite MUST be true as well. If a person is going out of their way to be a distraction... Well... *shrugs*

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think that is idiotic to attempt to separate feelings towards a woman from her gender when her gender is the basis of those feelings. From a logical perspective, there is not one bit of difference between the court's decision in the present case and one which would allow the termination of Blacks based upon the fact that Whites couldn't concentrate in their presence or the employer's wife is afraid of Blacks. After all, the Blacks would not be fired because of their race but because of certain feelings and emotions against them.

The difference is that the certain feelings and emotions against blacks would still be predicated upon their race, blacks are a particular class of persons perceived suspect by the courts.

That’s not the case with being ‘attractive.’

Attractive persons can be found in all races and genders, being attractive is not a particular class of persons.

The termination is therefore lawful, not moral, ethical, or appropriate, but lawful nonetheless.

 

[Katzndogz]

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

She has no grounds for a federal lawsuit.

Really, Perry Mason?

She's female.

She was not fired for being an attractive man.

Sexual Discrimination should be a slam dunk in Federal Court.

Maybe you should read a few Federal Statutes

The court has already determined that she was not fired for being female, as a matter of law. The determination has already been made, decided, that she was not fired for sexual discrimination. There is no sexual discrimination case.

It would be impossible for her to prove sexual discrimination since she would have to prove that the dentist would hire NO females. That is patently untrue. So she's out of luck.

 

[Katzndogz]

What seriously sank this woman's job was that after ten years of employment she started sending texts to her employer. Innocent texts, but texts nonetheless. It was after she started exploring outside of the employment arrangement, the wife saw the writing on the wall and put her foot down. Had she not started being more invitational, she would still have her job. After all, she didn't suddenly become a raving beauty after ten years of employment. Whatever she looked like before, she looked the same way when she got fired, but ten years older. What changed was her reaching beyond the employer-employee arrangement.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Well at least they will not have to fire any Iowa natives.

Fucking idiot, let me Google that for you...

https://www.google.com/search?q=miss+iowa+winners&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=XsW&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ZYLYUOTxKoe72QWwzIGYCg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAA&biw=1173&bih=627

 

[Samson]

She has no grounds for a federal lawsuit.

Really, Perry Mason?

She's female.

She was not fired for being an attractive man.

Sexual Discrimination should be a slam dunk in Federal Court.

Maybe you should read a few Federal Statutes

The court has already determined that she was not fired for being female, as a matter of law. The determination has already been made, decided, that she was not fired for sexual discrimination. There is no sexual discrimination case.

It would be impossible for her to prove sexual discrimination since she would have to prove that the dentist would hire NO females. That is patently untrue. So she's out of luck.

STATE court decided her termination had nothing to do with her gender. This will not be the first time state law is poorly written, and Federal Law will allow the decision to be over-turned.

Whether or not the dentist would hire another female is immaterial: The firing was based on his attraction to a FEMALE AND NOT ANY MALES.

I'm refering to what will happen in FEDERAL Court.

 

[The Professor]

I think that is idiotic to attempt to separate feelings towards a woman from her gender when her gender is the basis of those feelings. From a logical perspective, there is not one bit of difference between the court's decision in the present case and one which would allow the termination of Blacks based upon the fact that Whites couldn't concentrate in their presence or the employer's wife is afraid of Blacks. After all, the Blacks would not be fired because of their race but because of certain feelings and emotions against them.

The difference is that the certain feelings and emotions against blacks would still be predicated upon their race, blacks are a particular class of persons perceived suspect by the courts.

That’s not the case with being ‘attractive.’

Attractive persons can be found in all races and genders, being attractive is not a particular class of persons.

The termination is therefore lawful, not moral, ethical, or appropriate, but lawful nonetheless.

I disagree. Attractive women are members of a protected class called women. But since we are both reasonable chaps and reasonable men can disagree, I will give you the last word.

Have a great day, and Merry Christmas.

 

[Sunshine]

Actually she pissed off the boss's wife. Nothing in the Constitution about that. I know a doctor in Nashville who brought his unfulfilled bimbo wife in to work in his office to give her something to do. The seasoned employees who worked there weren't big on her ordering them around. But doctor's wife didn't like their retorts and disobedience. Guess who had to leave! Here, I will give you a hint.......it wasn't the doctor's bimbo wife!