If you're hot enough to be 'irresistible,' you can be fired in Iowa

[Bob Maxey]

Did any of you read the full story or simply glance at the highlights?

"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."

Apparently, a similar case (cases) went before other courts as well as the 8th Circuit so the Iowa law is based in previous cases. Read the following article for a more complete look at the case being discussed in this thread.

Iowa court: Bosses can fire 'irresistible' workers

 

[Bob Maxey]

I know, I know. Us beautiful people must stick together or we are doomed, I tell ya, doomed.

It is easy to say this is a bad law, but I am not so sure about that. Looks are so very subjective.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Yes. But I don't think we should stand by such obviously ridiculous laws.

So change the law. Make it illegal to fire someone who is too cute or far too lovely. Who decides who is too pretty or not pretty enough?

Perhaps a general law that says nobody can be fired for their looks, period. Does the new law include tattoos on the face or a bone through the nose? I can well imagine a tattoo covered person with a bone through his or her nose will be listened to in the boardrooms of Apple or GE.

I think companies should be allowed to fire you, hire you or not hire you for any reason, including gender, religion and race.

I am sure there are companies that would prefer to not hire black people. I say let them have their way and my guess is the public will be outraged, the company will suffer and we won't need to go to court.

 

[pbf98]

I don't think employers should be able to fire for just any reason. You hired them because you thought they would live up to your expectations, and if they continue to do so and give no actual reason to be fired, why fire them?

If an employee does start to lack on why you hired them, or just don't live up to the potential you see in them, sure let them go. But if they are doing their job how they are supposed to, and meeting expectations why punish them?

Thats just my thoughts..

 

[Bob Maxey]

I don't think employers should be able to fire for just any reason. You hired them because you thought they would live up to your expectations, and if they continue to do so and give no actual reason to be fired, why fire them?

If an employee does start to lack on why you hired them, or just don't live up to the potential you see in them, sure let them go. But if they are doing their job how they are supposed to, and meeting expectations why punish them?

Thats just my thoughts..

Unfortunately, it often spins out of control. You hire a pregnant woman that started strong and just cannot keep up and you fire her FOR THAT REASON, there is a chance you will be sued because you fired a pregnant woman.

Ditto all other protected classes. You fire them for legitimate reasons and they sometimes return with their lawyers.

I think you should be able to hire or fire anyone for any reason. Lots of people are (and always have been) fired for reasons that employers will never say publicly. You fire a black person because he "cant perform his job." You fire a pregnant woman because "she might come into contact with solvents" You likely will never know that the reasons these people were fired is because their supervisors hate black people and things pregnant women are ugly.

Nothing new here.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Assuming she wins of course. If not then its still shame on her for being attractive. Maybe he should have given her a chance to get a quasi moto (or however you spell it) face lift. That would have been more than fair.

Or . . . perhaps Quasimoto is just too ugly, so out he goes, too.

Seems to me, thr law has spoken. If you can fire lovely people because their looks are a distraction, Quasimoto does not stand a chance, either.

 

[Zero Hunter]

So "feelings and emotions" = facts now? This dentist must be thought of highly in this state because common folks probably won't even make a dent like this to change state laws.

 

[rootbrain]

I know, I know. Us beautiful people must stick together or we are doomed, I tell ya, doomed.

It is easy to say this is a bad law, but I am not so sure about that. Looks are so very subjective.

Yes, I totally agree. It's a curse I've had to deal with my entire life.:cheers:

 

[KDOG]

I just can't understand it. I can see if the woman was coming to work done up overly provocatively and wouldn't stop, but if she just happened to be beautiful then she certainly has a case against the employer.

On a side note, I'm sure this has done wonders for her ego though, she's probably getting a whole MESS of attention.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I get this feeling that startlingly beautiful women will get by somehow. I think the biggest threat is to the average dogface who can now be fired for reasons that now seem reasonable in comparison.

 

[rootbrain]

Iowa bosses can fire employees for being irresistible

Why does she have to lose her job, because he cannot control his desires? I'm missing something.

Because she's a sl*t?

 

[Steven58]

Huh. No wonder why I can't get a job there. Makes sense. Go figure, right? I mean, right?

 

[huh]

Yes..?

Oh...
I know...I am well aware of the reverse discrimination and the stares and comments,,and how nobody has any empathy and...you can't even go out in public withought everyone turning to look and judge and....ugh...

walk a mile in my moccasins...is all I'm sayin...
right?,

 

[huh]

I get this feeling that startlingly beautiful women will get by somehow. I think the biggest threat is to the average dogface who can now be fired for reasons that now seem reasonable in comparison.

Because she's a sl*t?

hmmmmmmmmmm