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

[LolretKJ]

Feels like the old wifey gave Mr. Knight an ultimatum so he did what he could to salvage his family. He should learn some self-control however, what kind of person after 10 years of working with someone says he might have started trying to have an affair.

[Themius]

Past cases are for family circumstances which I accept as being valid for small businesses; "irresistible attraction" however smacks of discrimination. Even though he's allowed to do this to please his wife, listing that reason makes it outrageously ridiculous, and one has to wonder if this same court would allow a man to be fired for the same excuse for "irresistible attraction" too.

But you're, it's really an issue of workers lacking protection in general.

I believe there is some type of civil case one can do if a woman were to seduce anothers husband, that woman could sue the mistress.

Are we going to start saying all women who are very attractive must tone down their looks in fear of attracting a married man? I mean the possibilities are endless.

[Repefe]

Thats why in my country, employees are protected by law. They can't be laid off unless they do something horribly wrong / fraude / steal / etc.
That way they don't get tossed around like playballs by arrogant people that think they can rule peoples life's because they find it too hard not to think with their dick. This is the same way in all of Europe. I could say "only in America", people would find this court justice.

In Europe you can hire contractors instead of employees and fire them immediatelly without any severance. Only big companies have to stick to using employees and there you have labour unions to protect the worker rights anyway.

[kittycuddler]

Before we worry about firing people because of attractiveness, we should take care of the hiring because of attractiveness/gender issues. Probably about half the retail stores in America have unofficial/off the books rules about hiring females who are young and attractive to sell shit. Pretty much any "hip" clothing store (hollister/AE/etc), best buy for sure, and any other place like it. They don't even attempt to hide it and discuss it openly with employees. It's fucking pitiful.

[Roose]

Guy is a slimeball. I guess at least he knew that he could not control himself. Perhaps he should have not hired her to start with. I doubt she suddenly became attractive to him.

This just shows how employers can fire employees for just about anything. Damned shame.

That guy would be replacing his tires for the rest of his life if that was my wife.

[Wildtree]

That depends. If you are, say, a potential investor coming to discuss a business arrangement, would you want to know that the people you're working with actually care about being professionals? The claim that professional appearance has nothing to do with competence is essentially pseudointellectualism, because ultimately you cannot factor out social dynamics as an influential factor in the work force.

for some jobs the dressing is essential part of professionalism, yes, agreed.

"Knight and Nelson – both married with children – started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight's wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate."

I don't see anything about him saying how hot his assistant was.

See, this is a case where I certainly do not follow any article word by word. In fact I've never even read it... Reason I stated. I live in Iowa, I've seen it already often enough on local news here.

If you check what I said, I said "I believe", "We don't know".
We only know a few glimpses. We certainly don't know all the conversations.

I can only try (just like anyone else) to approach it from on experience. My approach comes from an angle of long term marriage. Are you married for some 20+ years? I am.. From there.. I can easily say that a 22 yrs old chick is not seen as a serious competition for a woman in her late 30s, or even early 40s. For the most part rightfully so. There's very little that young woman can offer the older one doesn't have. So now, when we enter the 50s, we just tend to fall apart. After all, physical beauty is rather a temporary thing. Now, the wife very well remembers what attracted you to her, when she was 30.... Many women tend to believe that with age their men don't consider them as attractive anymore, as when they were 30 or 40.. When they ask you and you say, what the hell, sure you are still hot to me.. you get a "you're just a liar" as response. So, they become insecure. They don't like themselves anymore that much, when they look in the mirror. And how can hubby possibly still like me, when I see all these flaws on myself?
Right there, is a valid ground for jealousy to occur. Anything can trigger that.. That once young chick that was no competition at all, turned into some serious dangerous woman.
If they now even talk about family matters, that's just crossing the line.
Hell, I've been asked similar questions for a lot less reasons. Oddly enough, everytime the question came, it was always towards females that would fit exactly my attraction profile.

[DEATHETERNAL]

An employer should be allowed to fire an uncontracted employee for any reason or no reason.

[Themius]

An employer should be allowed to fire an uncontracted employee for any reason or no reason.

Lol. Really... so an Employer should be allowed to fire an Asian guy who isn't contracted simply because he's Asian?

[Wildtree]

An employer should be allowed to fire an uncontracted employee for any reason or no reason.

Really?
You may want to change your location at your profile... Somehow that doesn't match.. Or if you are an American, you don't really have to try to live up to it..

[Deleted]

Your petty little prejudice against feminists misses the point that some people (the rest of the world) disagree with your business owner > everyone else philosophy. It's an open forum, your opinion matters as little as mine. But that's okay, I know you only posted to provoke.

Hardy har har. The majority of people don't own businesses or are in any way qualified or knowledgeable to comment on them so their opinion is irrelevant. Your little opinion really is meaningless. Whining because there is no legal basis to support your little tirade is just sad.

According to US law:

"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Just an FYI. the woman linked in the OP is not Melissa Nelson.

That's her.

She's decent looking for a milf but definitely not irresistible or boner inducing.

[Kasierith]

Hardy har har. The majority of people don't own businesses or are in any way qualified or knowledgeable to comment on them so their opinion is irrelevant. Your little opinion really is meaningless. Whining because there is no legal basis to support your little tirade is just sad.

According to US law:

"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

Do you really have to resort to baseless ad hominems to carry your point?

Also, your statement is incorrect: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ul+termination you cannot fire anyone for any reason you want.

I can only try (just like anyone else) to approach it from on experience. My approach comes from an angle of long term marriage. Are you married for some 20+ years? I am.. From there.. I can easily say that a 22 yrs old chick is not seen as a serious competition for a woman in her late 30s, or even early 40s. For the most part rightfully so. There's very little that young woman can offer the older one doesn't have. So now, when we enter the 50s, we just tend to fall apart. After all, physical beauty is rather a temporary thing. Now, the wife very well remembers what attracted you to her, when she was 30.... Many women tend to believe that with age their men don't consider them as attractive anymore, as when they were 30 or 40.. When they ask you and you say, what the hell, sure you are still hot to me.. you get a "you're just a liar" as response. So, they become insecure. They don't like themselves anymore that much, when they look in the mirror. And how can hubby possibly still like me, when I see all these flaws on myself?

As interesting as your post is, 32 and married with children is a far cry from 22 and available.

[Deleted]

Do you really have to resort to baseless ad hominems to carry your point?

Also, your statement is incorrect: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ul+termination you cannot fire anyone for any reason you want.

Try harder.

Wrongful termination is only valid when employed by a union employer or when it is explicitly stated in the employment contract.

The only other exception is that 7 states, (Iowa not included), have a public policy in place to protect a few 'at-risk' groups.

In her case there is no law in the US that stops her boss from kicking her ass to the curb for whatever reason he feels like. His reason could have been that George Michael told him in a dream to fire her and it would still be perfectly legal.

Feminist rants help no one.

[Grizzly Willy]

Try harder.

Wrongful termination is only valid when employed by a union employer or when it is explicitly stated in the employment contract.

The only other exception is that 7 states, (Iowa not included), have a public policy in place to protect a few 'at-risk' groups.

In her case there is no law in the US that stops her boss from kicking her ass to the curb for whatever reason he feels like. His reason could have been that George Michael told him in a dream to fire her and it would still be perfectly legal.

Feminist rants help no one.

Could you point out the feminist rant in her post?

[Kasierith]

Try harder.

Wrongful termination is only valid when employed by a union employer or when it is explicitly stated in the employment contract.

The only other exception is that 7 states, (Iowa not included), have a public policy in place to protect a few 'at-risk' groups.

In her case there is no law in the US that stops her boss from kicking her ass to the curb for whatever reason he feels like. His reason could have been that George Michael told him in a dream to fire her and it would still be perfectly legal.

Feminist rants help no one.

I disagree with you, so I'm on a "Feminist rant." How misogynist.

Seeing as you didn't actually read it, and instead chose to resort to personal attacks to account for a lack of substance..

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...minations.html

Discrimination - The employer cannot terminate employment because the employee is a certain race, nationality, religion, sex, age, or in some states, sexual orientation.

From the information presented in the article, and if there is more involved than that delves into speculation and is thus unavailable for observation, it can very well be determined as based on sex since the basis for it was that she was a woman and he was attracted to her because of this. This was, in fact, the basis for her legal representatives' argument towards the courts. As for it being valid based on the court's decision, well.. it's actually very common for the US Supreme Court to disagree with its state-based counterparts.

[Grizzly Willy]

Is it based on her gender, though?

[Kasierith]

Is it based on her gender, though?

It's based on something intrinsically tied to her gender, putting it in a gray area (if she were a male with the exact same attractiveness, family situation, and professional relationship she would not have been fired). And giving it enough substance that attacking other posters over it is hardly a valid tactic.

[Deleted]

Could you point out the feminist rant in her post?

The original feminist rants were made by Semaphore. She was merely perpetuating them.

I disagree with you, so I'm on a "Feminist rant." How misogynist.

Seeing as you didn't actually read it, and instead chose to resort to personal attacks to account for a lack of substance..

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...minations.html

Discrimination - The employer cannot terminate employment because the employee is a certain race, nationality, religion, sex, age, or in some states, sexual orientation.

From the information presented in the article, and if there is more involved than that delves into speculation and is thus unavailable for observation, it can very well be determined as based on sex since the basis for it was that she was a woman and he was attracted to her because of this. This was, in fact, the basis for her legal representatives' argument towards the courts. As for it being valid based on the court's decision, well.. it's actually very common for the US Supreme Court to disagree with its state-based counterparts.

Still need to try harder.

There are 21 individual acts that detail specific reasons for which at-will employees cannot be terminated. These laws are at a federal level. None of these laws even remotely have anything to do with attractiveness. She was not dismissed on the basis of her gender as the exact same thing could've happened to a man had the boss been gay.

There is no legal foothold for her to stand on and that's why they laughed her case out of the courtroom.

Please feminism, stahp. STAHP. :P

[Wildtree]

As interesting as your post is, 32 and married with children is a far cry from 22 and available.

I just compared the timelines

The woman worked there for 10 years... Since she is 32 now, she was 22 when she started working there.
The boss is 52. He was 42 when she started working there. His wife (assuming now) is in his age range. So she was somewhere end 30s, early 40s.. Now she is end 40s early 50s....
I never evaluated the fired woman beyond her attractiveness.
But children plus married are not a hindering for cheating with someone. We know, and likely does the wife know, that our victim had a lack of sexlife...
I never indicated that he had any intention to get it to that level, nor she did want to...
It's sufficient for his wife to believe, that it could lead to it. That's sufficient for her to get jealous.
This is not an evaluation of fault or no fault. Not an evaluation of whether jealousy is justified (which it almost never is), just a guess how it likely spurred.

[Deleted]

I disagree with you, so I'm on a "Feminist rant." How misogynist.

I back up my arguments with fact and legal precedence hence I'm a misogynist....?

Is it based on her gender, though?

Matter of fact, her behaviour constituted gender discrimination against men. She dressed in a provocative manner thereby inducing unwanted erections in her employer. He desperately tried to deal with the situation, but she left him no choice but to fire her.

Women should be more considerate of men. His erections were not his fault.

[Kasierith]

Still need to try harder.

There are 21 individual acts that detail specific reasons for which at-will employees cannot be terminated. These laws are at a federal level. None of these laws even remotely have anything to do with attractiveness. She was not dismissed on the basis of her gender as the exact same thing could've happened to a man had the boss been gay.

There is no legal foothold for her to stand on and that's why they laughed her case out of the courtroom.

Please feminism, stahp. STAHP. :P

Please, grow up. I would come to the same conclusion were it a man that were fired. If the boss had been gay and the employee a man, sex would still be a factor as being female would have removed the problem, and the base cause of the attractiveness would have been the employee's gender. This is the same defense applied by her legal team, and even if the Iowa appellate court did not decide in favor of it, things like Snyder v. Phelps have shown us that there can be unlawful oversights in certain court decisions.

I back up my arguments with fact and legal precedence hence I'm a misogynist....?

If you imply that everything I say amounts to "feminist rants," than yes, you are.