Skip to comments.Iowa high court says bosses can fire workers who they consider an ‘irresistible attraction’
Posted on 12/22/2012 10:38:53 AM PST by Clint N. Suhks
IOWA CITY, Iowa 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.
But Nelsons attorney said Iowas all-male high court, one of only a handful in the nation, failed to recognize the discrimination that women see routinely in the workplace.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
See precedent for “Attractive Nuisance”.....i..e, a neighbor’s unfenced pool, unfenced trampoline, et al....
Not only did they turn a simple decision into mindless gobble-de-gook, they wasted a bunch of time an money doing it
You cannot force people to LIKE each other- we had one employee we hired because he looked good on paper, but he turned out to be a TOTAL JERK that everyone hated
We were a little surprised at the glowing reviews his previous employer gave him, when they knew he was interviewing with us
We fired his a$$ and he sued- but he was white so he lost
Why then did he hire her in the first place? (Wife not present at the time?)
Certainly goes a long way toward explaining why I lost so many jobs as a wild and handsome youth; the women just couldn’t resist me - one of the reasons I was too distracted to do my job and took so many unauthorized days off.
Just too darned good-looking.
Oddly, the kooks on the Iowa Supreme Court seem to recognize that employer-employee relationship is mutual and un-coerced. Just as one may quit for any reason, one may be let go for any reason. The employee can collect unemployment, as there is no allegation the employee acted improperly.
Your Honor, I’m not able to control ny Johnson. And my wife is jealous anyway. So can you save me the money from a lawsuit and make this woman just go away?
Alternatively, Your Honor, I hired this woman based on my sexual attraction to her, not her skills. It was my intent to hit her like the hammer of an angry God at every opportunity. But she rejected my advances. Since I can’t falt her work performance, well, I need help here. My wife wants hewr gone so what can I do?
No pictures - how can we make an informed judgement?
Affirmative Action for ugly people.
Uh oh. Obama’s attention whore sex pistols...
Call Sandra Fluke...y!!!!
Bill Clinton should’ve fired Monica Lewinsky. Hillary should fire Huma.
A very attractive young female showed up for job interview by me, and I thought the same thing, that she would be a big distraction with my all male subordinates. So, I did not offer her the job.
Went to the WP to see PICTURES of these incredible creatures...and all I saw was Big Bird.
Despite this ruling, I suspect attractive females will still find more doors open to them than unattractive females.
Interesting thought: If they say it is OK to fire a woman because she is too good looking, wonder if they would also say it is OK to fire a woman because she is NOT good looking?
Well lets get it right. The Dentist’s wife made the Dentist fire the asst he was attracted to becuase she thought it endangered their marriage. :-)
Should be able to fire people in general.
The world didn’t end yesterday, it turned upside down. Before 12/21/12 bosses gave “irresistibly attractive” employees generous raises.
So what about the firing “for any reason” mantra so often expressed around here?
As a “lower-case” libertarian, I support firing for any reason. And yes, there are times when it might be completely unfair. But it’s not the govt’s job to make fair; the community, media, and market should handle that.
Fire away, statists.
frankly, I personally believe that by the foundational prinicipals in the Constitution “discrimination” on any grounds is allowed all of us in our private consensual affairs, including employment; it is only government and government institutions that cannot “discriminate” because the government is everyone’s government
we are entitled to our personal values and value systems in our private lives, but in government we are required to leave our personal prejudices at the door
leaving our prejudices at the door, when it comes to the government, means we cannot write our own prejudices into the law, and it also means the law cannot force us into personal associations our own values are not in agreement with
Did she somehow become better looking since he hired her?
I wish more people would realize that unfair does not mean and should not mean unlawful all or even most of the time.
Life sucks. Wear a helmet.
Employment at will does not mean you're free to be a lying @hole. It's their livelihood, you're throwing their lives into turmoil. Not a thing to be flippant or vindictive about, at all, for your good as well as theirs.
One way to look at the need for ugly
women (per the dentist’ wife) is -
more job opportunities for the femi-nazi’s.
(I’d think that’s a fair assumption.)
That’s all true. However, they have given bosses’ wives a huge cudgel to bop attractive women out of the workplace, because they do have coercive power over their husbands.
I cannot find a pic anywhere.
Reminds me of my college days...I remember one night, there must have been 20 blondes frantically pounding on my door. I finally had to get up and let them out.
>> Employment at will does not mean you’re free to be a lying @hole. It’s their livelihood, you’re throwing their lives into turmoil. Not a thing to be flippant or vindictive about, at all, for your good as well as theirs.
There are legitimate remedies for slander not dependent on employment.
>> you’re free
>> you’re throwing
>> for your good
You mean “the employer”.
You seem to have a paternal view on this matter which of course is your option. Doesn’t mean, however, your thoughtful views should be law.
The penalty is the restriction. And are you suggesting there should be some special class of slander torts where you get extra goodies if the slander applies to your employment?
I know, I know - in our day and age the 'There Oughta be a Law' impulse is just too hard control. And it really is too much to expect for anyone, including conservatives, to resist its allure of immediate gratification.
Smells supiciously of sharia law. Can’t have women show their faces or their ankles because men can’t control their little mohammeds.
An employer should have the right to hire and fire anyone he/she wants—it’s none of the government’s darned business.
Consider numerous court cases involving hiring at Hooters and other “eye candy” venues.
A conservative finding paternalism to be a negative is something of a recent phenomenon, no doubt stemming from the rise of feminism.
You as employer should have at least some level of regard and care for those in your employ. Not having it has led to unions on the one hand or hellish company towns from which you’d be hard pressed to escape to the other extreme.
Now we have more or less sociopathic management without the least bit of concern one way or the other. Unions or even company stores and scrip will start looking better by comparison with where we are headed.
Understand the political reality that is being created by such blatant @holes. Maybe you’re in a union state and don’t see it, or maybe you’re in one of the few pockets that remain economically healthy. I don’t know, but you seem to be wearing blinders of a sort.
Glad to see someone understands the difference between illegal and unfair, not nice, immoral, etc..
So long someone is fired for a reason that is not illegal then it is not illegal to fire that person. I have this argument all the time with people. I once fired a guy because his hair was blue, seriously. He got mad, everyone under 30 got mad, and they all said I should be sued for discrimination. It was good for a laugh when I asked to see the law that made firing blue headed workers illegal.
George Constanza (almost) got away with it.
He refused to hire a ‘good looking chick’ because he was afraid she would distract him.
So, he hired ‘Marian, the Librarian’ and she was so efficient he went after her anyway and during a ‘fateful moment’ screamed out “You are getting a raise” and she ended up making more than him..
Sometimes these things just DON’T work out - FOR EVERYONE.
Our all-around twisted abnormal world!
Dig deeper...he was sexually harassing her, with comments like “the bulge in my pants means your clothes are too revealing”, and her “...not having sex is like keeping a Lamborghini in the garage”. She should have sued for sexual harassment and she’d own his practice instead of being unemployed.
I don’t agree with the underlying premise that firing without “just cause” is lawfully immoral. Furthermore, not sure why you insist on making this personal by suggesting I practice what you deem to be immoral.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but there’s this bull-headed view among certain Conservatives that says: “Unless the force of law is backing morality than there’s no morality.” That’s statism, and I’d rather take the smaller lumps that come with libertarianism.
‘Just too darned good-looking.’
That must have been a burden for you in your life.
I on the other hand, have had to rely on brains and sheer talent.
BTW, do you know if WalMart is hiring???
I think people should be fired for any reason even stupid reasons, but it’s pretty stupid to get rid of a perfectly good employee when there are so many bad employees that cause all sorts of trouble. The next employee he gets will probably file a bogus lawsuit against him and cause him all sorts of headaches.
By the same logic, firing them specifically because they are fat and ugly should be legal too,, right?
I've had the same problem, many many times.
“The world didnt end yesterday, it turned upside down.....”
You are RIGHT ! ! !
This is the same supreme court in Iowa that approved “same-sex-marriage” . . .
So be careful of which gender that might be “irresistible” . . .
Draw your own conclusions..........
So she’s hot. While exceedingly easy on the eyes, hot women are a dime a dozen in America. Why would his wife even worry, unless she doesn’t look as good as Nelson does?
I think the media attention from this will cost him other employees, as well as dental clients.
I have no problem with firing for any reason, so long as the employer does not then cry “foul” when more women are no longer eager to work for him when they research his name and background or when more women are no longer willing to have him for a dentist because of his foolish unwillingness to control his sexual urges in the workplace.
Choices have consequences; this particular dentist will experience a backlash.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.