Iowa Supreme Court Rules That Ladies Can Be Fired For Being Too Damn Fine

[Chamaan]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/justic...ker/index.html

(CNN) -- Can a boss fire an employee he finds attractive because he and his wife, fairly or not, see her as a threat to their marriage?

Yes, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

"The question we must answer is ... whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction," Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote for the all-male high court.

Such firings may not be fair, but they do not constitute unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the decision read, siding with a lower court

An attorney for Melissa Nelson, the fired employee, said the decision was wrong.

"We are appalled by the court's ruling and its failure to understand the nature of gender bias," said Paige Fiedler, Nelson's attorney. "For the seven men on the Iowa Supreme Court not to 'get it' is shocking and disheartening. It underscores the need for judges on the bench to be diverse in terms of their gender, race and life experiences."

The case concerns the employment Nelson's employment as a dental assistant. She worked for James Knight in 1999 and stayed for more than 10 years at the Fort Dodge business.

Toward the end of her employment, Knight complained to Nelson her clothing was tight and "distracting," the decision read. She denied her clothes were inappropriate.

At one point, Knight told Nelson that "if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing," the decision read.

At another point, in response to an alleged comment Nelson made about the infrequency of her sex life, Knight responded: [T]hat's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

During the last six months of Nelson's employment, Nelson and Knight, both married with children, started sending text messages to each other outside of work. Neither objected to the texting.

Knight's wife, who was employed at the same dental office, found out about those messages in late 2009 and demanded he fire Nelson.

In early 2010, he did just that. In the presence of a pastor, Knight told Nelson she had become a "detriment" to his family and that for the sakes of both their families, they should no longer work together, the decision read. Knight gave Nelson one month's severance.

In a subsequent conversation between Knight and Nelson's husband, Knight said Nelson had not done nothing wrong and that "she was the best dental assistant he ever had," the decision read.

Nelson filed a lawsuit, contending that Knight fired her because of her gender. She did not say he committed sexual harassment.

In response, Knight argued that Nelson was fired because of the "nature of their relationship and the perceived threat" to his marriage, not because of her gender. In fact, he said, Knight only employs women and replaced Nelson with another female employee.

A district court sided with Knight; Nelson appealed.

"As we have indicated above, the issue before us is not whether a jury could find that Dr. Knight treated Nelson badly," read the high court's decision.

"We are asked to decide only if a genuine fact issue exists as to whether Dr. Knight engaged in unlawful gender discrimination when he fired Nelson at the request of his wife. For the reasons previously discussed, we believe this conduct did not amount to unlawful discrimination, and therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court."

tl;dr: 7 male Iowa Court Justices say it's perfectly cromulent to fire any woman that gives you "the vapors." Reminds me of that Beavis and Butthead episode where they filed a sexual harassment suit against that girl for giving them stiffies.

[chazzyphizzle]

women lol

[Pikarya]

A great leap for MAN-kind.

[Pirian]

So wait, can I also fire them for being too ugly? If not, this doesn't bode well for the attractiveness of female employees.

[ronin sparthos]

I fired you because my boner was too damn high.

America doesnt fail to dissappoint. This guy works with her 10 years, makes a pass at her with texts about an orgasm, realizes hes gotta toss her overboard to save his marriage and shows a stunning mastery of his self control.

Shall we begin muzzling every penis in America?

[Clash Perez]

Part of me thinks this is outrageous.

The other part wants to see pics.

[Komm Suesser Tod]

Yeah, as an Iowa resident, this does not reflect well on us. The whole thing is pretty absurd. At least it is still an unjust firing and she can get unemployment. Not great, but something.

[Sepukku]

The other part wants to see pics.

This is all thats relevant at this point in this thread.

[hey]

Disgusting.

[kuronosan]

This is rather stupid.

[dejet]

Means it can go the other way around. A woman can feel there is a threat and fire a male. Still sad that you can fire someone because you find them attractive

And really pics or did not happen.

[kuronosan]

You're fucking gorgeous, but I can't fuck you. Get out.

[Yabby]

So wait, can I also fire them for being too ugly? If not, this doesn't bode well for the attractiveness of female employees.

Well to use this judgement to that effect, the person would have to be so ugly that the seeing her would lower your desire for sex that you couldn't fuck your wife, which in turn effects the marriage.

[Tajin]

A rather stupid judgement, however, had the veredict been 'no' the husband or wife might've end up suing the govt. after divorce haha.

[Qalbert]

holy shit, I mentioned this to my mom because we used to live in Iowa years ago and she was like "Oh yeah he was our dentist."
what the fuck

[BaneTheBrawler]

holy shit, I mentioned this to my mom because we used to live in Iowa years ago and she was like "Oh yeah he was our dentist."
what the fuck

You just nominated yourself as the primary pic-finder.

[Chamaan]

Let's all hope that this leads to government subsidies for hiring fugly girls. Affirmative action for muffintops.

[Komm Suesser Tod]

Let's all hope that this leads to government subsidies for hiring fugly girls. Affirmative action for muffintops.

Chubby chasers are going to find their relationships in hot water then.

[archibaldcrane]

Um, pretty sure you've always been able to fire an employee because of their looks, whether it's because they're hot or not or whatever. As long as you aren't doing because they refuse to bang you (or because they are banging you, probably) you're good.

[Salodin]

Um, pretty sure you've always been able to fire an employee because of their looks, whether it's because they're hot or not or whatever. As long as you aren't doing because they refuse to bang you (or because they are banging you, probably) you're good.

This. I agree with the judges, he's firing her because her attitude and presence negatively affect the business and his marriage. He gave her a chance to change, she said no fuck you get a boner, so he fired her. No problems here.