ANOTHER woman fired for being "too hot."

[HEMI6point1]

This time the party who fired her admits it was because she was attractive. To make matters worse, the state court upheld it.

Link 1: http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...ired_for_being

Link 2: http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs...opstories.html

[Andara Bledin]

Considering that Iowa is an at will employment state, I am not particularly surprised.

Particularly not, given the fact that the boss had already commented to the employee in an inappropriate manner and that they texted each other about non-work-related things.

While that doesn't mean that it's necessarily right, I'm not sure it's necessarily wrong, either.

^-.-^

[Rageaholic]

If I read it right, his reason for firing her was that he couldn't keep it in his pants. And because of that, it's her fault.

Boss sounds like a douche.

[Andara Bledin]

Not quite. He fired her because his wife didn't think he could keep it in his pants.

^-.-^

[Jester]

I love the part of the story where the employer says that he feared that if their working relationship continued, they would eventually have an affair. As if the employee had no choice in the matter, and the affair would happen simply because he was attracted to her, disregarding any thoughts on the matter from the employee.

Kind of tells you about the typical male mindset that the all-male Supreme Court of the State didn't have any problem with that.

Idiots.

[HEMI6point1]

Not quite. He fired her because his wife didn't think he could keep it in his pants.

^-.-^

He needs to look up the definition of "pussywhipped."

On another news site he was quoted as saying, "Having her around was like having a Lamborghini in your garage that you can't drive."

Um, okay.....

[s_stabeler]

OK, morally, the boss is an asshole. legally? attractiveness is not a protected class, and Iowa is an at-will state. So legally, he is perfectly within his rights, which is why the State Supreme Court upheld the case. The Supreme Court cannot legislate from the bench, they can only apply existing law. According to existing law, the boss could fire the woman. Therefore, the State Supreme Court could only rule in favor of the boss. Even if they think the boss was being an absolute dumbass.

Again, I don't think the woman should have been fired.

[HYHYBT]

I believe that, on average, people discriminate in favor of the good-looking, so it would be difficult to get them declared a suspect class.

[Panacea]

Kind of tells you about the typical male mindset that the all-male Supreme Court of the State didn't have any problem with that.

Idiots.

The court didn't rule based on the "male mindset." They applied the law. IIRC, the court acknowledged that the morality of the firing was not the same as the legality and questioned the former while upholding the latter.

The boss is an absolute douche for firing the woman, even though he gave her a month's severance. But he didn't violate gender discrimination rules; he didn't fire her for being female, all his employees were female, and she was replaced with a female.

But the fact is, I'm not anymore impressed with the woman for suing. She was married and sending inappropriate text messages to her boss, who had made sexually inappropriate comments to her. I question HER judgement; if he really is sexist why would she want to stay? I think she just saw the kaching! of dollar signs and thought she'd get an easy pay off. Too bad, the court said no.

[AdminAssistant]

Well, the benefit of the lawsuit is that now everyone knows what a sexist douchebag this dentist is, and can take their business elsewhere. I know that I wouldn't want to be in the same small room as some man who admits that he can't keep his hands off of women's goodies.

[Panacea]

That is so spot on.

Makes me wonder if he'll have to move his practice.

[TheHuckster]

That is so spot on.

Makes me wonder if he'll have to move his practice.

Since this has gained some moderate national attention, he might have no place to move his practice except under a rock.

[Panacea]

Since this has gained some moderate national attention, he might have no place to move his practice except under a rock.

What a crying shame.

[BrenDAnn]

Just when I thought I was able to be proud of being an Iowan...this. Wow. I am ashamed for my state now. That dentist, however, deserves all the negative press he gets...just saying!

[Racket_Man]

There is now an update to this story.

http://www.today.com/money/iowa-cour...hot-6C10619426

The Iowa court withdrew it ruling and did a reconsideration but came to the same conclusion -- No discrimination

I wonder if she could file a civil suit for wrongful termination???