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

[Laize]

Why not dress everyone in a burka already, solves the issue.

Dress codes exist for a reason. If you can't not show off your body then perhaps working in a professional environment isn't for you.

[Wildtree]

Guess I can never work in the US then

You are a foreigner. You are covered right there.
If anything at all, but with immigrants the US law gets extremely touchy. No employer easily mistreats them unpunished.

[Grizzly Willy]

She wasn't discriminated against because of gender. She was fired because the guy is a moron and forgot that "starting an affair" requires her to be willing. "Attractiveness" still isn't a protected class, anyway.

And if you think Men's Rights are bullshit to begin with there's not much point in giving a shit what you think, is there?

Apologies, should have specified. Whenever one of your men's rights threads comes up. I don't personally have a problem with tackling issues that men deal with.

[Laize]

Apologies, should have specified. Whenever one of your men's rights threads comes up. I don't personally have a problem with tackling issues that men deal with.

And what do you want me to say? You think attractiveness should be a protected class?

[Wildtree]

She wasn't discriminated against because of gender. She was fired because the guy is a moron and forgot that "starting an affair" requires her to be willing. "Attractiveness" still isn't a protected class, anyway.

We should keep the timeline to where we know it was...
It did never go that far as to an affair point. Wifey got in the middle of it way before it got out of line, or until he made any advanced moves.
He was a moron... naive and honest, but a moron nonetheless.
He admitted that her visual appeal started to attract him.
We can speculate that her telling him about the lack of her sex life spurred his fantasy, towards the desire to fill in the void..
So from there, we can not say that it would have never come to an affair at all. Maybe it would have (and with that she'd likely still work there) down the road, if there wasn't the jealous wife interfering way earlier.

[Repefe]

nope... no one should be possible to get fired if they do their job right, or if you have to restructure.

Maybe at least once the employer goes bankrupt ... that is a valid reason to fire ppl no ? He has no money to pay them, so at least then he should be able to fire them.

[Halicia]

Ok... so he 'commented on her infrequent sexual behavior' and she 'viewed him as a father' ...

What the !@#$ ?

The only way he would have found out she wasn't getting enough sex from her husband was by HER SHARING IT WITH HIM... is this *REALLY* something you would discuss with a 'father figure' ?

Sounds like she was 'sexually harassing' him as much as he her, and that he acted properly by putting an end to it before it ruined his marriage.

[Kasierith]

Exactly, and if gender plays no role then it is no longer a factor in the case and also ceases to be a valid reasons for legal action, and also ceases to qualify under any of the 21 relevant acts. You are now arguing against yourself. <3

Yay for selective reading? I highly doubt that he is asexual, as he has a wife and children, and as pansexuality is pretty drastically the minority assuming that it is in place is facetious. As such, as I just said, his attraction is gender based and therefore is primarily based on her being a female, thus being covered under gender discrimination.

Interesting. The subject is now setting up statements for other people.

"I will however agree that the guy is an idiot for citing that as his reason for dismissal. He opened himself up to a ton of problems which could have been easily avoided. He should've fired her for anything else even if he was actually firing her for reasons of boners."

Care to explain how this is anything other than "Fire her for a different reason than you claimed it to be?" No no, don't bother, it's fairly evident what you were saying.

First of all I don't care about, nor find global warming interesting enough, to discuss it in depth on these forums.

I tend to hear this argument from those who have never grasped the concept of scientific literacy.

But as this discussion is now about feelings and not legal actualities, I think I'll just log off. Have fun talking about your feelings on the issue guys. I'm sure it will be most enlightening for those who are privileged enough to read it!

Coming from someone who has desperately inserted personal attacks into every post he made in the thread, this is actually pretty hilarious.

---------- Post added 2012-12-23 at 11:26 PM ----------

And what do you want me to say? You think attractiveness should be a protected class?

I think that "Attractiveness" is far too vague a concept to base laws on, and is massively subjected and based on intrinsic factors, the most influential of which by far is gender.

[Laize]

I think that "Attractiveness" is far too vague a concept to base laws on, and is massively subjected and based on intrinsic factors, the most influential of which by far is gender.

Agreed. That said, however, this still isn't sexual discrimination.

[Hyve]

While those are stupid grounds to fire someone, as an employer myself I should have the right to fire someone for whatever reason.

If I don't like the tie you're wearing, I should be able to fire you for it. If I do, obviously my company isn't going to get very far, which is punishment enough, but having far to much red tape surrounding businesses is killing us.

[Rukentuts]

Wow, how did something so common sense absolutely explode in the last 24 hours?

Yes, the boss was an ass for firing her. He could do it legally. The purpose of pointing out this "all-male court" is absolutely redundant. So is distinguishing gender as a matter of law in this case actually.

[Zallex]

If you are the boss you should be able to fire anyone for any reason or no reason at all.

Don't like it??? start your own business

/thread

[Kasierith]

Agreed. That said, however, this still isn't sexual discrimination.

But it is an extension of gender. Lets look at the exceptions of "at will firing" it in its most, legally apparent fashion... racial discrimination. If a manager gets shown to fire black people 5 times more often than white people, and he is questioned on this specific matter, is "they're uglier which is bad for business" a proper legal defense? Is his opinion on appearance an extension of perception of race, or does he have a legitimate case since to him, black people are uglier?

If you are the boss you should be able to fire anyone for any reason or no reason at all.

Don't like it??? start your own business

/thread

So cute..... no.

[Hyve]

So cute..... no.

Yes. It is my company, my business and my property. If I go around firing everyone then my company will fail, and that is my own fault. But being forced to keep people on because you fear firing them, and being sued is just as stupid as being able to fire someone because they're far to attractive.

Bottom line is, while the principle of being able to fire anyone for whatever reason is sound in my view, cases like this just prove that some business owners are totally retarded, and incapable of self-control.

[Deleted]

So cute..... no.

Actually, yes. Being forced to keep on people you don't want doesn't benefit society.

[Laize]

But it is an extension of gender. Lets look at the exceptions of "at will firing" it in its most, legally apparent fashion... racial discrimination. If a manager gets shown to fire black people 5 times more often than white people, and he is questioned on this specific matter, is "they're uglier which is bad for business" a proper legal defense, or is his opinion on appearance an extension of perception of race, or does he have a legitimate case since to him, black people are uglier?

If someone has statistics of how often they fire people with enough data points to draw a conclusion from... chances are good that person shouldn't be put in charge of hiring/firing anyone.

That said, if someone is a distraction in work for any reason, their termination is legitimate. It's obvious he doesn't discriminate against women because 100% of his staff is female. There's nothing to suggest he's discriminating based on sex.

I would say the same thing if this were a female employer terminating a male employee. Or a gay male employer terminating a male employee etc.

Think about it like this. If you have a job and you simply cannot get along with someone you have to work with and it frequently becomes disruptive to either person's job, one or both of you will get terminated. It doesn't matter what the reason for your incompatibility was. The fact is that the relationship between you 2 is disruptive to the workings of business. It's the same thing here.

[Repefe]

You really can't apply these superprotective employee rules to small businesses. One person can make or break your business when you employ just a few ppl. Having to keep a person you can't work with will destroy you. All those restrictions ... why be an employer at all. Chances are high you are much more qualified to get a job than your employees anyway. So save yourself the nerves, fire everyone and get employed yourself. More rights, less responsibility ... that's double win for you.

[Laize]

Yes. It is my company, my business and my property. If I go around firing everyone then my company will fail, and that is my own fault. But being forced to keep people on because you fear firing them, and being sued is just as stupid as being able to fire someone because they're far to attractive.

Bottom line is, while the principle of being able to fire anyone for whatever reason is sound in my view, cases like this just prove that some business owners are totally retarded, and incapable of self-control.

No one seems to care about business owners' rights. Apparently our right to run a business as we choose ends the second we decide to employ someone else.

That's why I don't employ anyone.

[Skytotem]

Ridiculous, people ought to show some self control rather than firing people.

EDIT:

Fire a person because they're dumb, rude, or just plain can't do the job, but if you bring someone in to do a job, and they DO their job well then they ought not be fired.

[Felya]

Actually, yes. Being forced to keep on people you don't want doesn't benefit society.

It benefits society more to have workers rights than not. We have had centuries of no workers rights and many revolutions to astablish them. Outside of Rand novels, workers rights tends to prosper society as a whole.