Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Iowa Supreme Court: OK to fire 'irresistible' worker

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I know it's CNN so don't shoot me.


Ridiculous? Absolutely.

Fired for being too sexy. Now that's a new one.

www.cnn.com...

(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.


Ok, nothing to do but laugh at this part:

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."



So, does it work both ways? If a woman boss finds herself getting weak at the knees and unable to control herself around a man, will he be fired?

What the hell is the World coming to?

And why is this man such an idiot? An attractive woman in the work place is always a plus. Not being sexist but it's just the way it is. If he can't keep his business in his pants, that's his problem and she shouldn't have to be the one to pay for it.

Peace

edit on 22-12-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Hahaha! Damn, I can't believe they didn't show the dental assistant...i'm curious



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I don't really see any problem with this. A business owner should be able to decide who they do or do not want to employ, whatever the reason is. It should not be up to courts, or public opinion, or the employee, or anyone other than the owner.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Yeah, that s dentists for you. Too much mercury and/or nitrous oxide


Why did he hire her in the first place? Bet the wife wasn t involved in the hiring process.


running with the wolves



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
He shouldn’t have hired her in the first place. It seems pretty screwed up to me. It is his fault in the first place. What a scumbag.
edit on 22-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by chagahunter
reply to post by jude11
 


Yeah, that s dentists for you. Too much mercury and/or nitrous oxide


Why did he hire her in the first place? Bet the wife wasn t involved in the hiring process.


running with the wolves


Yeah, that Mercury poisoning can get to you.

I once knew a girl that had all her mercury fillings removed but the only thing it seemed to do was increase her sex drive...


Peace



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
He shouldn’t have hired her in the first place. It seems pretty screwed up to me. It is his fault in the first place. What a scumbag.
edit on 22-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


I'm thinking that maybe he hired her for her looks and then the wife got a look at her...


All of a sudden, wife isn't so happy.


Peace



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
He shouldn’t have hired her in the first place. It seems pretty screwed up to me. It is his fault in the first place. What a scumbag.
edit on 22-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


So he is a scumbag for firing her and not trying to sleep with her? Interesting viewpoint you have there.

As to hiring her, having a beautiful assistant/receptionist increases business, that's why she was hired.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Grimpachi
He shouldn’t have hired her in the first place. It seems pretty screwed up to me. It is his fault in the first place. What a scumbag.
edit on 22-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


So he is a scumbag for firing her and not trying to sleep with her? Interesting viewpoint you have there.

As to hiring her, having a beautiful assistant/receptionist increases business, that's why she was hired.



So he hires her for her looks and because he can’t control himself he fires her. Yup he fits the definition of a scumbag.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 

Thanks for this, Jude. After the last 36 hours and food poisoning
for a whole week had my first laugh. Bumped for sure, and hope
CNN keeps living up to it's tabloid reputation with even greater frequency.
Most outlandish of all, can any say WHY the Iowa Supremes HEARD it?
I went to the web site worried that some of Beez's bath salts got in the punch.
Not you, me. "What?"



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Grimpachi
He shouldn’t have hired her in the first place. It seems pretty screwed up to me. It is his fault in the first place. What a scumbag.
edit on 22-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


So he is a scumbag for firing her and not trying to sleep with her? Interesting viewpoint you have there.

As to hiring her, having a beautiful assistant/receptionist increases business, that's why she was hired.



So he hires her for her looks and because he can’t control himself he fires her. Yup he fits the definition of a scumbag.


So he should do what, hire ugly people? Or simply have sex with them? I love how his desire to remain faithful to his wife makes him a scumbag in your book. He didn't do a single thing wrong, so long as the firing is legal, which it is.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
There is a faceshot of her here. Not my type. So for me this is much ado about nothing. Maybe a case of the insecure wife?

As for firing her. Yeah, I guess. It's his business.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave0davidson
I don't really see any problem with this. A business owner should be able to decide who they do or do not want to employ, whatever the reason is. It should not be up to courts, or public opinion, or the employee, or anyone other than the owner.


No business owner has any right whatsoever to decide who they want to employ or fire based on anything other than their qualifications and performance of the job, nor should they. As George Costanza would say, "We're living in a society here!" The business being his doesn't matter. His decisions affect the basic rights of others. Should he also be allowed to beat his employees mercilessly for under-performing? No, being a business owner doesn't make you the dictator of your own sovereign nation. If the business is run in this country then yeah, it should be up to the courts if an issue arises.

Unfortunately, the courts got it wrong in this case. If she had been a man then a heterosexual man wouldn't have had an attraction. So by extention she was fired because of her gender, fired over something beyond her control. How is that fair?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
The decision would be unlawful, violate human rights and fair employment laws. So the judge made an illegal and improper ruling.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
The decision would be unlawful, violate human rights and fair employment laws. So the judge made an illegal and improper ruling.


It does none of those things. What human right is violated? What fair employment law?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave0davidson
I don't really see any problem with this. A business owner should be able to decide who they do or do not want to employ, whatever the reason is. It should not be up to courts, or public opinion, or the employee, or anyone other than the owner.


Wth


So because someone can't control their urges another has to be suffer because of their lack of control just because they just happen to be good looking? This is utter BS. It IS discrimination!

I will never live in Iowa.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I can't see how the court determined this.
Isn't it borderline reverse discrimination?

How can someone be fired because of their looks?
If the boss can't have enough self-control around that person...
Then the boss may have bigger issues to contend with.

I've dated my share of gorgeous women, and worked with them too.
Most of the time, they would always make more money...a plus for the company.
I know most men, like myself, were just outright smitten around them.
But I didn't allow it to affect my work, or outside relationships.
Looks are definitely NOT everything.
I could write a thread on just that topic alone.
(Some womens obsession with: their looks = the world)

I guess some people have more self-control than others.
(Or some folks have uber-jealous wives....
)







posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Unless there is something like bribery going on, by definition, a judge can't make an illegal ruling.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
so the premise is she's so hot, it's a distraction and causes problems

the thing is

she isn't



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


The story is more complicated than that. The hygenist had been working for the dentist for 10 years prior to her termination. She also is married and has a kid. By all accounts she was a solid worker.

The problem is the wife found some text messages between the hygenist and the dentist. The texts weren't damning, but it caused the wife to feel jealous.

The jealous wife, of course, impacts the small business. So they made the case that her attractiveness and flirty nature had the potential negative impact on their business if the dentist couldn't keep his pecker in his pants, so they had grounds for termination. The Iowa Supreme Court simply affirmed it.

It's not so much that she is pretty and would have an affair with him, it's a ruling based on business owners having the right to make decisions concerning employees that would be potentially detrimental to their financial well-being, including the potential of an affair.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join