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

[nightfalls]

What I don't get is why anyone would want to keep working for him, after his admissions of, well, perverted thinking.

[Nish77]

If you can't get along with someone because of how they look then there's a problem. Dressing inappropriately is one thing but how could you get through high school (or dental school) where there was a pretty girl in your class if this was a problem. This is a guy who works around a lot of people. Unfortunately it's his problem whether it's coming from his own wants and desires or something else.

[Repefe]

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?

How do you want to penalize the owner ? I mean everyone here screams bs bs, but nobody proposes a suitable way how to handle such situation. He can't keep working with her both because of his wife and because he thinks the situation will escalate further in the future, so that option is gone. What else is there to do but to fire her ? I mean he can close his practice and fire everyone, but then she will still end up fired. What else is there to do ?

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?

This entirely depend on how far the government wants to go with employee protection. If government says that you can't pick a person based on some criterias and for him those criterias are business breaking, he can't very well be a business owner. That's the bottom line. But attractivenes / unattractiveness is not something that can easily become part of this. You would want to protect attractive ppl as well as unattractive ppl right ... so that's everyone. And for some professions looks are simply important and there is no way around it.

[Eats Compost]

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.

That's just fancy wordplay. The purpose of starting and running a business is to gain profit. If something is the ends of one activity, it can still be the means of another. Profit being the ends of a business doesn't disqualify it from being the means of, say, buying luxuries.

Going by your reasoning just leads us into an endless chain that has no true "ends" at all. Just means that are the means to something else, until we eventually reach the "ends" of "to lead a good life" or something equally as far removed from the original activity. It's the same deal as asking someone a question and then just replying with "why" to each answer.

[Seegtease]

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.

On the one hand, I like to give employers freedom to hire and fire as they wish. On the other hand, some people are jerks. Fact is, we live in a world where employees DO have certain protections. So as long as those protections exist, we need to figure out where the line is. If we start allowing people to fire over things like not being able to keep it in their pants, then it opens the door to many other reasons.

The particulars matter, and we may never know exactly what kind of exchanges they had. If she was deliberately trying to hit on him, AND he expressed to her that he did not wish for her to do that, he could fire her on improper conduct. Acceptable. If he had set rules on dress code and workplace behavior (including a rule on no personal texts to co-workers), and she violated them, he could fire her on that basis. Acceptable. If he made no such rules, and made no effort to stop her advances (even worse yet, if she never made advances at all) and he only fired her because his wife demanded him do it, and he fired her on that basis? Unacceptable.

This entirely depend on how far the government wants to go with employee protection. If government says that you can't pick a person based on some criterias and for him those criterias are business breaking, he can't very well be a business owner. That's the bottom line. But attractivenes / unattractiveness is not something that can easily become part of this. You would want to protect attractive ppl as well as unattractive ppl right ... so that's everyone. And for some professions looks are simply important and there is no way around it.

Sure, in jobs where appearance is actually a job requirement, I get it. I don't think this was such a job, though.

[Deleted]

haha this made me lol more than it should have

[Eats Compost]

On the one hand, I like to give employers freedom to hire and fire as they wish. On the other hand, some people are jerks. Fact is, we live in a world where employees DO have certain protections. So as long as those protections exist, we need to figure out where the line is. If we start allowing people to fire over things like not being able to keep it in their pants, then it opens the door to many other reasons.

The particulars matter, and we may never know exactly what kind of exchanges they had. If she was deliberately trying to hit on him, AND he expressed to her that he did not wish for her to do that, he could fire her on improper conduct. Acceptable. If he had set rules on dress code and workplace behavior (including a rule on no personal texts to co-workers), and she violated them, he could fire her on that basis. Acceptable. If he made no such rules, and made no effort to stop her advances (even worse yet, if she never made advances at all) and he only fired her because his wife demanded him do it, and he fired her on that basis? Unacceptable.

The issue is where we go with "unacceptable" discontinuation of employment, though. Is the law in a position to restrict and employer's choice of who they employ, and force them to continue employing someone (who isn't contracted to a certain period, of course) even if they desire to fire them? Should an external party be allowed to scrutinize their reasoning, and deny them the ability to fire them on that basis?

What if the wife had a serious problem with her working there, and he was unable to convince her that it wasn't a problem? If the employer had to choose between his wife and the continued employment of this girl, should he be legally obligated to continue employing her at the detriment of his personal life?

[Seegtease]

What if the wife had a serious problem with her working there, and he was unable to convince her that it wasn't a problem? If the employer had to choose between his wife and the continued employment of this girl, should he be legally obligated to continue employing her at the detriment of his personal life?

A reasonable point. The government cannot possibly expect him to give up his wife because of a law requiring him to not fire the lady.

On the same note, though, the government cannot let people break laws simply because their spouse wanted them to. If his wife said he had to embezzle money or she would leave him, that certainly doesn't justify it.

[Eats Compost]

A reasonable point. The government cannot possibly expect him to give up his wife because of a law requiring him to not fire the lady.

On the same note, though, the government cannot let people break laws simply because their spouse wanted them to. If his wife said he had to embezzle money or she would leave him, that certainly doesn't justify it.

Of course, but the question I want to ask is whether it should be legal to fire the employee in this location, not whether or not it's reasonable for him to break the law at his wife's request (assuming it is illegal).

[Seegtease]

Of course, but the question I want to ask is whether it should be legal to fire the employee in this location, not whether or not it's reasonable for him to break the law at his wife's request (assuming it is illegal).

Should the government protect employees? As much as I'd like to believe we live in a world where they wouldn't have to, too many people are still hateful, biased, and just rotten.

I'm inclined to believe that "what comes around goes around" and if a guy has a reputation for not hiring a certain race or something, people will simply not do business with him. Still, employee protection laws DO exist and for a reason.

[Eats Compost]

Should the government protect employees? As much as I'd like to believe we live in a world where they wouldn't have to, too many people are still hateful, biased, and just rotten.

I'm inclined to believe that "what comes around goes around" and if a guy has a reputation for not hiring a certain race or something, people will simply not do business with him. Still, employee protection laws DO exist and for a reason.

They're tough questions. I'm really not sure what I'd do if I had to make a decision on such laws - hell, I might be in the secretary's position one day.

[Seegtease]

They're tough questions. I'm really not sure what I'd do if I had to make a decision on such laws - hell, I might be in the secretary's position one day.

I'm an employer, I'm kind of biased here. I'm also a fan of liberties. Still, I hate to see a good employee get screwed over for a crap reason.

[rayvio]

completely and utterly ridiculous, not to mention sexist (unless of course it applies to firing men they deem too attractive as well, in which case it's still ridiculous though)
besides which, there is no such thing as irresistible, there is not one single person in the world who everyone would find attractive and most people have enough self control not to let an attractive co-worker be enough of a distraction to seriously impact their work and if they did find it too distracting then it would be them at fault

[Aliessil]

Ignoring the question of whether she should have been fired or not, she should for sure have been given a better severance!

- She'd worked there for 10 years
- Described by her boss as a stellar employee
- Clearly considered as a friend (they were texting about non-work stuff)
- She was let go to save his marriage

All that and she only gets a month?? How about a glowing letter of recommendation to help her find her next job? I suspect if he hadn't been such an asshole about it, she'd have been a lot more understanding and this wouldn't have gone to court.

[the0o]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/22...#ixzz2FnrEs4mS


A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an "irresistible attraction," even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.

An attorney for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight said the decision, the first of its kind in Iowa, is a victory for family values because Knight fired Melissa Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman.

'These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don't think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires and that Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and control their bosses' sexual desires'

- Paige Fiedler, attorney

But Nelson's attorney said Iowa's all-male high court, one of only a handful in the nation, failed to recognize the discrimination that women see routinely in the workplace.

"These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don't think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires and that Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and control their bosses' sexual desires," said attorney Paige Fiedler. "If they get out of hand, then the women can be legally fired for it."

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.
He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, "that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

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.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month's severance. He later told Nelson's husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

Nelson was stunned because she viewed the 53-year-old Knight as a father figure and had never been interested in starting a relationship, Fiedler said.

Nelson filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, arguing she would not have been terminated if she was male. She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight's conduct may not have risen to that level and didn't particularly offend her, Fiedler said.

Knight argued Nelson was fired not because of her gender, but because her continued employment threatened his marriage. A district judge agreed, dismissing the case before trial, and the high court upheld that ruling.

Mansfield noted that Knight had an all-female workforce and Nelson was replaced by a woman.
He said the decision was in line with state and federal court rulings that found workers can be fired for relationships that cause jealousy and tension within a business owner's family. One such case from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a business owner's firing of a valued employee who was seen by his wife as a threat to their marriage. In that case, the fired employee had engaged in flirtatious conduct.

Mansfield said allowing Nelson's lawsuit would stretch the definition of discrimination to allow anyone fired over a relationship to file a claim arguing they would not have been fired but for their gender.
Knight's attorney, Stuart Cochrane, said the court got it right. The decision clarified that bosses can make decisions showing favoritism to a family member without committing discrimination; in this case, by allowing Knight to honor his wife's wishes to fire Nelson, he said.

Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.

"While there was really no fault on the part of Mrs. Nelson, it was just as clear the decision to terminate her was not related to the fact that she was a woman," he said. "The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage.

"I don't view this as a decision that was either pro-women or opposed to women rights at all. In my view, this was a decision that followed the appropriate case law."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wow, such BS. Too fire someone because you cant control your urges in workplace which you share with your wife is fucking stupid. His quotes make him look like a pervert and am sure he would have tried something if his wife didnt find out.

Discuss

[araine]

Right to work means RIGHT TO FIRE FOR ANY REASON. This is what Right to work for less really means and why the far right really loves it.

[FusedMass]

You mean this thread?

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

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...All-Male-Court

[semaphore]

I still find this the worst excuse ever. People can be fired for many unjust reasons unfortunately, but "irresistible attraction" is purely idiotic. And I still question if this particular court would allow the same for a man.

[the0o]

You mean this thread?

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

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...All-Male-Court

Ah, i couldn't find it when i searched the forums (using supreme count). thanks

[FusedMass]

Ah, i couldn't find it when i searched the forums (using supreme count). thanks

No Problem. I find it a very interesting article myself.