Bosses Can Fire Hot Workers For Being 'Irresistible': All-Male Court

[Deleted]

This would be idiotic. And if something like this happens it's just a matter of time before someone sues for not being fired for being irresistibly attractive.

[Comby]

what'd you expect? A third world country that still believes in magic........ Nothing odd there. Praise Jebus.


Infracted.

[yurano]

Score one for men's rights!

More like score one for women's rights. Feminists are probably going to beat this story until its dead.

[TheOne]

More like score one for women's rights. Feminists are probably going to beat this story until its dead.

I don't know. I read this story almost two weeks ago and have heard nothing about it since then. Usually people like the ACLU and such jump on things like this relatively quickly.

[Repefe]

It's not a case for feminists ... male workers can be irresistible as well.

[Laize]

I can kind of understand what you're saying, but it sounds like an utter horseshit excuse. You can't concentrate on your work because you're too busy eye-fucking a coworker? Why should the attractive coworker get penalized for that, rather than the asshole that lacks some goddamned discipline?

Because the asshole who lacks some goddamned discipline is the owner and proprietor of the business in question.

---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 09:40 PM ----------

I hate to bring racism into this, but how far do you extend this line of thinking? What if the guy absolutely hates black people? It makes him angered and unproductive. He tries to work it out by hiring a very qualified person, but he cannot get over his rage. I mean, you can't possibly justify this, so why would you justify it based on attraction?

If someone hates black people they're never going to be able to get along. In the end, the black guy will still get fired, but it'll be because the owner can't get along with him rather than the fact that he's black. Of course, he won't be able to get along with him BECAUSE he's black but you'll have a hard time proving that if the owner in question doesn't say stupid shit like "Hey n*****, you didn't put those covers on your TPS reports".

[Grizzly Willy]

Because the asshole who lacks some goddamned discipline is the owner and proprietor of the business in question.

I'm surprised to see you call this man an asshole.

[Laize]

I'm surprised to see you call this man an asshole.

Of course he's an asshole. That doesn't mean I think he's wrong.

I'm perfectly entitled to flip off my neighbor for no reason whatsoever. That doesn't mean I'm not an asshole for doing it.

[therayeffect]

In this situation I think it's fair. It wasn't just "she's too attractive or too pretty", it was "I can't control myself and she seems to not mind it, so to save my marriage I'm gonna come up with an excuse and fire her". If she had beaten back his advances a little bit seriously instead of play around and be flirty with him she might still have her job. This is a 2 party problem of idiocy imo. I'm pretty sure appearance can be grounds for removal from businesses for many reasons. Violation of dress codes, not representing the business properly, wearing politically charged clothing, among other things. I'm sure her appearance fell under the cloud of "negatively affecting his business" because his wife got mad and probably threatened to divorce his ass. There's irony in everyone blaming the guy when this was going on for 10 years until his wife found out. Nothing women hate more than other women.

[theredviola]

Except you shouldn't unless it is relevant to their ability to fill the position they are applying for. Which is also why I am against mandatory drug test for employees - I don't give a shit if you're a stoner unless it impacts your work.

I agree. But, people aren't always hired on ability to do their job. Your ability to get a job is ranked first by who you know, then by how you look, then if it even matters, your ability to do the job. I'd LOVE to live in a world where people would always be hired (and subsequently fired) on ability of job performance alone, but that won't happen.

[Neazy]

This is a situation with only shitty outcomes and the court picked the less shitty one. Sucks for her, but it would have been much worse if she was kept on and had an affair with this guy.

[Powerogue]

That just seems ridiculous. If they're worried that the clothing their wearing is too revealing, then they should say that to her. Anything past that is a weird inverted discrimination for being attractive.

[FusedMass]

This is a situation with only shitty outcomes and the court picked the less shitty one. Sucks for her, but it would have been much worse if she was kept on and had an affair with this guy.

In the article she states that she didn't find him sexually attractive at all. Actually shes happily married. Its the guy who kept having dirty thoughts about her around the office. He was concerned that he might do something. Doesn't always mean she would have reacted to him. Cheating is wrong but I think this is more of a case when the boss cannot control himself of his own sexual advances.

How she didn't manage to sue him for sexual harassment. Even though that's almost text book what he was doing. Is beyond me. My personal point of view is that if you need to fire someone to dodge having sex with them. How are you in the future going to let people down. If you cannot handle someone who works with you.

[jbhasban]

In the article she states that she didn't find him sexually attractive at all. Actually shes happily married. Its the guy who kept having dirty thoughts about her around the office. He was concerned that he might do something. Doesn't always mean she would have reacted to him. Cheating is wrong but I think this is more of a case when the boss cannot control himself of his own sexual advances.

How she didn't manage to sue him for sexual harassment. Even though that's almost text book what he was doing. Is beyond me. My personal point of view is that if you need to fire someone to dodge having sex with them. How are you in the future going to let people down. If you cannot handle someone who works with you.

Fused, she clearly went along with the sexual banter and seemed not to find the atmosphere oppressive. This is not text book sexual harassment. She never said stop nor did she complain. Making sexual advances to your employees is not unlawful. Making crude comments is not unlawful. It becomes unlawful when the employee makes it known that she/he doesnt appreciate it or the employer should reasonably know the employee doesnt like it and the employer continues.

[FusedMass]

Fused, she clearly went along with the sexual banter and seemed not to find the atmosphere oppressive. This is not text book sexual harassment. She never said stop nor did she complain. Making sexual advances to your employees is not unlawful. Making crude comments is not unlawful. It becomes unlawful when the employee makes it known that she/he doesnt appreciate it or the employer should reasonably know the employee doesnt like it and the employer continues.

Show me where she went along with it. From the article everything that posted on the first page is what he said to her how can a person tell a woman that they will know if their clothes are too tight because she will see a giant bungle in the front of his pants not in a way flirting or at least sexual harassment. I may have overlooked something. Where did she exactly go along with it?

From my understanding she texted and talked to him about work. He was afraid it was going turn into an affiar. From the article it states she had no feelings towards him at all. His wife is the one who caught the texts and made him fire her out of jealously. I agree she didn't seem find it oppressive enough to make a complaint they seemed to be friends.

An all male court decided. Its illegal fire someone based on their gender but legal fire someone if you think you will act on impulse and hormones and not control your own body around them. That outdoes seem right.

[jbhasban]

Show me where she went along with it. From the article everything that posted on the first page is what he said to her how can a person tell a woman that they will know if their clothes are too tight because she will see a giant bungle in the front of his pants not in a way flirting or at least sexual harassment. I may have overlooked something. Where did she exactly go along with it?

From my understanding she texted and talked to him about work. He was afraid it was going turn into an affiar. From the article it states she had no feelings towards him at all. His wife is the one who caught the texts and made him fire her out of jealously. I agree she didn't seem find it oppressive enough to make a complaint they seemed to be friends.

An all male court decided. Its illegal fire someone based on their gender but legal fire someone if you think you will act on impulse and hormones and not control your own body around them. That outdoes seem right.

Personally, I find the fact that they had been exchanging personal information in text and the fact that she viewed him as a father figure tends to suggest she did not find him horrible. Unless her father raped her as a child, in which case I suppose her understanding of what a father figure is is sort of warped.

And as you just stated, she seemed to not find it oppressive enough (or at all) to make a complaint and they seemed to be friends.

[FusedMass]

Personally, I find the fact that they had been exchanging personal information in text and the fact that she viewed him as a father figure tends to suggest she did not find him horrible. Unless her father raped her as a child, in which case I suppose her understanding of what a father figure is is sort of warped.

And as you just stated, she seemed to not find it oppressive enough (or at all) to make a complaint and they seemed to be friends.

She says she saw him as a father figure. That it came out of the blue from no where. People co workers often exchange information they were both married. She was texting him about work etc. Its really not uncommon for people to do that. Or even to be married and have friends that not of the same gender without falling for him. truely believe.

I'm just speaking on behalf of myself. Everyone is entitled to what they think. That either

A: They were really flirting and it might have turned into an affiar.

B: They were friends and he had grave misunderstanding that he might do something with her

In either of these cases. In my mind it shouldn't be legal to fire someone not because of anything they did. But because you couldn't control yourself around them. Women have sued for sexual harassment in work place and they are awarded a generous amount of money. She could have not made a complaint because where is it going to go..

[jbhasban]

She says she saw him as a father figure. That it came out of the blue from no where. People co workers often exchange information they were both married. She was texting him about work etc. Its really not uncommon for people to do that. Or even to be married and have friends that not of the same gender without falling for him. truely believe.

I'm just speaking on behalf of myself. Everyone is entitled to what they think. That either

A: They were really flirting and it might have turned into an affiar.

B: They were friends and he had grave misunderstanding that he might do something with her

In either of these cases. In my mind it shouldn't be legal to fire someone not because of anything they did. But because you couldn't control yourself around them. Women have sued for sexual harassment in work place and they are awarded a generous amount of money. She could have not made a complaint because where is it going to go..

When I find someone oppressive or offensive, I tend to keep my business with them strictly business. I do not share personal information with people I think are sexually harassing me. I imagine you dont either.

Do you think you can fire someone who has inflammatory bowel syndrome when it makes your life at work miserable? Why should this man have to tolerate someone he doesnt want to tolerate at work? Would it be better had he fired her within a month of hiring her? The fact that it took him 10 years to like her romantically suggests that he is not shallow, not someone who is focused solely on looks. The guy did the best thing he could have done in his position. Part of self control is separating yourself from temptations that you fear you will give in to. Yeah, she could have rejected him. But should his wife have to rely on that possibility? Ideally you would want him to just suffer through it but you cant fault an alcoholic for not wanting drinks to be served at his office.

[FusedMass]

So you cant fire someone who has inflammatory bowel syndrome when it makes your life at work miserable?

Actually no. If they make you miserable at work then it can be considered a hostile work place and you can actually sue for that. I hardly think she was making him miserable. In fact it suggests that she might have been seen as something he rather enjoyed looking at. The only reason this case won because he did not fire her for her gender or making him miserable.

It does bring up an interesting question since this is built from emotions. If a person you do not like at work. Can you legally fire them because you simply do not like them.

[Joey Ray III]

buahahahahahah

now i've seen everything