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

[Masark]

Yes, and as the appellate court, they are the final decision on the matter. Not even the US Supreme Court will see it at this point. The case is solid.

The SCOTUS is also an appellate court, though the likelihood of them bothering to hear the case is unlikely.

[Letmesleep]

I think it was fine to fire her. I'd probably fire a woman I knew I was in danger of falling for as well. I'm of the opinion that you should remove yourself from any situation that puts your marriage in jeopardy. If it wasn't his practice, I'd have just seen him remove himself but since he owned the business firing her was the next best option. I don't think any of us can determine how either of them truly felt, but his wife was justified in her jealousy. He made a commitment to her for life and the aide was a threat to that. Marriage > employment imo.

[Seegtease]

I think it was fine to fire her. I'd probably fire a woman I knew I was in danger of falling for as well. I'm of the opinion that you should remove yourself from any situation that puts your marriage in jeopardy. If it wasn't his practice, I'd have just seen him remove himself but since he owned the business firing her was the next best option. I don't think any of us can determine how either of them truly felt, but his wife was justified in her jealousy. He made a commitment to her for life and the aide was a threat to that. Marriage > employment imo.

I agree with the value of marriage as much as you do, believe me, but he should have laid down some ground rules, professionally. If she didn't follow them, then he could fire her on the basis of not following the rules of the job (his business, his rules). Doing it because he can't control himself is terrible. He doesn't have the right to possibly financially ruin someone else on that basis. If he did, he'd need to give her an obscenely large severance package. It's HIS responsibility, not hers (assuming she wasn't attempting to be a homewrecker or something, then he's well within his rights to fire her).

[Letmesleep]

I agree with the value of marriage as much as you do, believe me, but he should have laid down some ground rules, professionally. If she didn't follow them, then he could fire her on the basis of not following the rules of the job (his business, his rules). Doing it because he can't control himself is terrible. He doesn't have the right to possibly financially ruin someone else on that basis. If he did, he'd need to give her an obscenely large severance package. It's HIS responsibility, not hers (assuming she wasn't attempting to be a homewrecker or something, then he's well within his rights to fire her).

I don't know enough about the situation to claim her firing was cut and dry/done well, but I think ultimately it was for the best. It was my understanding that this was somewhat of a two-way relationship, not just him skeezing on her. I think it'd be great for him to give her a severance package and not just leave her out in the cold.

In any case, I think the man knew himself well enough to know it was better for him to cut her out than try to set boundaries because the boundaries seem to have already been breached. I thought I read that he said something to the degree of "somewhere down the line we would have had an affair". So I believe they share equal responsibility in a relationship that was turning into something it shouldn't have been, but that doesn't mean he should have just left her with nothing.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear. I think there relationship needed to end at all costs but that he should have either A: given her some time to find another job or B: given her a large severance package as you suggested.

[PizzaSHARK]

once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

wat.

Just, wat.

[Eats Compost]

If someone's appearance has an actual effect on the business, then I think the employer has every right to lay them off if they so choose. For the same reason that they'd want to hire a well-qualified person, an employee would be a bad thing to keep if their appearance was causing problems, whether or not it was because they were too good-looking or ugly.

Businesses are trying to turn a profit and have absolutely every right to try and employ the most suitable people that they can find, and if physical appearance comes into this, that's completely fair. They are not charities that exist to hand out wages; that's just a fortunate consequence.

I say this in relevance to the statement that someone can be fired for being too irresistible, rather than in reference to this specific case. In reference to this case, even if it's a bit iffy that someone would be so affected by having an employee like that, they should still have the right to lay them off if it's causing them legitimate distress. We shouldn't presume an obligation to employ someone.

[PizzaSHARK]

If someone's appearance has an actual effect on the business, then I think the employer has every right to lay them off if they so choose. For the same reason that they'd want to hire a well-qualified person, an employee would be a bad thing to keep if their appearance was causing problems, whether or not it was because they were too good-looking or ugly.

Businesses are trying to turn a profit and have absolutely every right to try and employ the most suitable people that they can find, and if physical appearance comes into this, that's completely fair. They are not charities that exist to hand out wages; that's just a fortunate consequence.

I say this in relevance to the statement that someone can be fired for being too irresistible, rather than in reference to this specific case.

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?

[Eats Compost]

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 owner owns the business. If the two have an altercation, it'll be the employee that loses out. It isn't particularly fair, but they aren't of equal standing.

I completely agree that the reason given is sketchy, though. What I say assumes that it really is causing the owner problems, and that the owner can't just "get over it'. I can't say that such is truly the case, and this may just be an excuse to fire her in absence of other legitimate grounds.

[Squeezus]

That's a very debatable point, though. If she weren't female then this wouldn't be happening. I completely agree with your main point that the court can only rule with respect to protected classes. I just don't think it's as cut and dry with respect to sex discrimination as you're making it out to be.

It really is. The law has to apply equally. Basically meaning, what if this guy was bisexual? Or what if a bisexual person did the same thing? The sex of the individual would then not matter at all as to the attractiveness that he found in them. There would be no equal way to apply the law in that case other than to say, hey, the straight guy is only attracted to people of one gender so he's screwed, but the bisexual guy can fire whoever he wants for the same exact reasons.

The other part would be if he would have fired a non attractive female as well. Considering the reasoning for the firing was her being attractive and not the fact that she was simply female that wouldn't have happened. You can't be discriminatory of a group if you aren't discriminatory of a group.

[PizzaSHARK]

Because the owner owns the business. If the two have an altercation, it'll be the employee that loses out. It isn't particularly fair, but they aren't of equal standing.

I completely agree that the reason given is sketchy, though. What I say assumes that it really is causing the owner problems, and that the owner can't just "get over it'. I can't say that such is truly the case, and this may just be an excuse to fire her in absence of other legitimate grounds.

Honestly, I'd think this is the worst possible grounds to fire someone under. Hell, they even took it to court! Attorneys ain't free. If there's another reason you're firing her, why not use that one? Firing someone for incompetence or underperformance will be a lot less likely to get your ass sued than firing them because you can't tear your eyes off their sweet little ass.

[Eats Compost]

Honestly, I'd think this is the worst possible grounds to fire someone under. Hell, they even took it to court! Attorneys ain't free. If there's another reason you're firing her, why not use that one? Firing someone for incompetence or underperformance will be a lot less likely to get your ass sued than firing them because you can't tear your eyes off their sweet little ass.

Which is one of the reasons I'm hesitant to say that they're bullshitting. If they're sticking to their guns and insisting that this is the case, despite taking it so far, it seem like his concerns about the effect that her attractiveness is having on him may be legitimate. Unless I'm mistaken, there isn't any other stated reason as to why he may have wanted to fire her.

Edit for typos.

[jetriot]

His business, his rules. Who is anyone to say who he can fire/hire in his PRIVATE business? I don't tell you what stores you have to make purchases from or who you have to choose to hire to do work on your home/car/whatever. This is no different. It is a simple trade between two willing adults. Wouldn't want to work for the sleazebag anyway.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Harass? Maybe I've misread something but to me it looks like she hasn't been harrased at all. More so, she thought of him as some kind of father figure. He called it quits before he actually made the moves on her and began any kind of harassment. The messaging was mutual, too. The only difference was that he was interested in more, she wasn't; however, it was only his wife who demanded her being fired. You can blame him for being a tool of his wife, but not really for harassment.

I am sure he has written her an excellent employer's reference, and he gave her one month severeance. That's more than most people get. The reason for being fired is also not the worst future killer that I've ever head of. If anything, it must be one the best reasons so far... Too good looking for this working place. Rofl.

You can even go as far as to say that it was a good thing in the end that she got fired from that place before things got really awkward. He would have tried to make the move on her, she would reject him, he would get angry, fire her for some other dumb reason, his wife would find out everything, divorce him, he would lose his job due to depression, and finally he'd kill himself.

Okay, a bit far fetched but it's not like things like that never happen.

Saying things like "when my pants are bulging your clothes are too tight" or "that's like having a Lamborghini and not driving it" (in reference to her infrequent sex) is pretty inappropriate. It's not like he just backed off, either. This started a few months before she was fired and culminated in her being fired, it wasn't like he asked her out, she didn't see him that way, he backed off, his wife found out and he fired her.

[Seegtease]

Businesses are trying to turn a profit and have absolutely every right to try and employ the most suitable people that they can find, and if physical appearance comes into this, that's completely fair. They are not charities that exist to hand out wages; that's just a fortunate consequence.

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?

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Businesses are trying to turn a profit and have absolutely every right to try and employ the most suitable people that they can find, and if physical appearance comes into this, that's completely fair. They are not charities that exist to hand out wages; that's just a fortunate consequence.

Your definition of fair is skewed. Do you believe that profit is an end or a means?

[Eats Compost]

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?

You're right, we have to consider how far this line of thought extends. Mind you, it also raises the question of whether we should obligate people to employ fairly. Who are we to stop someone from employing whoever they want? Do we have the right to say "you must hire or continue to employ this person", when they would much rather hire someone else in their place?

One of the issues in this case was that it probably wasn't a clash that was foreseen, whereas if you had a problem with people of a particular race, they probably wouldn't have hired them in the first place. I'm not trying to talk about what's fair, I'm thinking about this from the perspective of what the employer should or shouldn't have the right to do, and the right to choose who you employ seems like a big one.

Your definition of fair is skewed. Do you believe that profit is an end or a means?

I didn't call it fair, don't pretend that I did. Enforcing a set of rights consistently is always going to result in some unfair outliers. As for your question, it is an end, not a means, but you're going to have to elaborate on how that fits into what I said.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I didn't call it fair, don't pretend that I did. As for your question, it is an end, not a means, but you're going to have to elaborate on how that fits into what I said.

I quoted the wrong part.

Businesses are trying to turn a profit and have absolutely every right to try and employ the most suitable people that they can find, and if physical appearance comes into this, that's completely fair. They are not charities that exist to hand out wages; that's just a fortunate consequence.

As for profit being an end, that's pretty much part of what is so wrong with people today. Profit is a means, not an end. The possibility for profit is supposed to be an incentive for businesses to provide for the wants and needs of people. For a person, profit is a means to achieve improvement in their life.

[Itisamuh]

Stupid and unfair, perhaps, but last I looked bosses can generally fire people for any reason they choose, unions aside. I doubt she has a chance.

[Eats Compost]

I quoted the wrong part.

As for profit being an end, that's pretty much part of what is so wrong with people today. Profit is a means, not an end. The possibility for profit is supposed to be an incentive for businesses to provide for the wants and needs of people. For a person, profit is a means to achieve improvement in their life.

If someone wants to start a business, there's a 95% chance their motive is because they want to turn a profit. I think you'll find very, very few people who start a business because they want to better society. It's not nice, but that's the capitalist mindset, and a very human mindset at that. Thus, I would say that profit is most commonly an end, and not a means.

Maybe society would be nicer place if (to a business) profit was a means and not an end, but it would also be a nicer place if there was no war or crime. Ideals are nice to have, but they aren't always practical, and are seldom representative of how things work.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

If someone wants to start a business, there's a 95% chance their motive is because they want to turn a profit. I think you'll find very, very few people who start a business because they want to better society. It's not nice, but that's the capitalist mindset, and a very human mindset at that. Thus, I would say that profit is most commonly an end, and not a means.

Maybe society would be nicer place if profit was a means and not an end, but it would also be a nicer place if there was no war or crime. Ideals are nice to have, but they aren't always practical, and are seldom representative of how things work.

Why do they want to turn a profit? Just because? Just to have money, or to use that money? Maybe some people might enjoy the challenge of making money, but that doesn't lie in the money itself.