Iowa Supreme Court Rules Pervert Justfied in Firing Employee for Being Too Hot

[Just_Believe18]

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

The story may sound crazy, but it's true. A Dentist employed a young woman for ten years before firing her for being too attractive. He believed he could no longer control himself and so fired her despite the fact that she was an excellent employee. The injustice of all this is that the Iowa Supreme Court (all old men) unanimously sided with the Dentist that he was justified in terminating this person for being a different gender. It is outrageous, sexist, and cruel what has happened here. Shame on the Iowa Supreme Court for failing to protect the citizens of its state from selfishly demented perverts. Read the article. It will infuriate you.

[Rolyo85]

I hope she goes on to some other form of prosecution...

[Benvolio]

The court did not rule he was "justified", which was not an issue. It ruled that it was not discrimination based on gender within the meaning of the statute. Look at it this way. If she were fired because she was ugly, dirt, vulgar and wore shabby clothes, it would not be a firing based on sex, just because she was a woman. Nor is the reverse. Iowa in general is an "employment at will" state. Allowing employees the right to quit for any reason and allowing employers to fire without having a good reason, EXCEPT certain reasons prohibited by Federal or State law, and the exception is as narrow as the wording of the statute.

[martkell2012]

I once fired a guy because he was too attractive. It IS a legitimate reason. When all you think about ALL DAY is taking the guy in the closet, bending him over, and letting off a little steam for about 10 minutes, it's time to make a change.

[maxpowr9]

Reminds me of my old job when a girl would wear basically a cocktail dress to work with no panties on and her "business" could be seen when she sat down.

Yeah, some girls "ask for it" in that regard.

[Rolyo85]

Well did she "ask for it" though, or was it because she was just naturally attractive? I think if you perceive a potential problem in this regard, you should just not HIRE the person to begin with.

[Kulindahr]

His attorney should be disbarred -- that claim "Our position has always been Mrs. Nelson was never terminated because of her gender, she was terminated because of concerns her behavior was not appropriate in the workplace. She's an attractive lady. Dr. Knight found her behavior and dress to be inappropriate" is pure bullshit: she worked for a dentist, so he had every power to set requirements for her dress.

Of course we know why it went this way -- remember who changed the makeup of that court.

[Just_Believe18]

The court did not rule he was "justified", which was not an issue. It ruled that it was not discrimination based on gender within the meaning of the statute. Look at it this way. If she were fired because she was ugly, dirt, vulgar and wore shabby clothes, it would not be a firing based on sex, just because she was a woman. Nor is the reverse. Iowa in general is an "employment at will" state. Allowing employees the right to quit for any reason and allowing employers to fire without having a good reason, EXCEPT certain reasons prohibited by Federal or State law, and the exception is as narrow as the wording of the statute.

Aside from all that jargon, you didn't actually make a point. If this lady was ugly and unattractive to the dentist, then she would have never been fired. Since she was attractive and was not engaging in any inappropriate behavior, the dentist still fired her based on the fact that she was an attractive woman to him. That's gender discrimination and the state failed to protect this woman and insulted every woman in Iowa.

@maxpowr9
Did you read the article? She worked for this dentist professionally for ten years as an excellent hygienist. She did nothing wrong and did not "ask for it." He was the pervert who couldn't control himself.

[Kulindahr]

@maxpowr9
Did you read the article? She worked for this dentist professionally for ten years as an excellent hygienist. She did nothing wrong and did not "ask for it." He was the pervert who couldn't control himself.

I'd say he was trying to "control himself". It was just that his method was entirely out of line. I don't know how large a staff he had, but he could have easily had someone design a uniform that would suffice to keep him unattracted and paid for it for them all as a business expense.

[Benvolio]

There are other ways it could have been handled. That is irrelevant. The only question is whether she was fired because she was a woman. It may not be nice to fire a woman because she is fat, ugly, dirty, rude, sexy, or attractive, but it is not illegal.

[Kulindahr]

There are other ways it could have been handled. That is irrelevant. The only question is whether she was fired because she was a woman. It may not be nice to fire a woman because she is fat, ugly, dirty, rude, sexy, or attractive, but it is not illegal.

That depends where you are -- some places have laws against firing without cause.

[HenryReardon]

That depends where you are -- some places have laws against firing without cause.

Perhaps they do, perhaps not. If you have supervised people, and are aware of the rules, there are ways to ease people out without making waves.

It's called "at will" employment. Most employers/supervisors are always careful to avoid creating unemployment claims. Why? Because every year the states issue employers a new 'experience rating' which is based on the number of claims paid. The lower the experience rating, the lower their insurance premiums.

[opinterph]

That depends where you are -- some places have laws against firing without cause.

Iowa is employment at will. However, that does not excuse terminations based upon discrimination.

[Seasoned]

And now, what attractive woman in her right mind would choose this man as her dentist? It seems to me he should have sought therapeutic help for himself rather than spending his money on attorney fees.