You gotta be kidding me!

[Songdog57]

Serioiusly? Fired for being too sexy.

http://news.msn.com/us/employers-can-fire-workers-they-find-too-sexy-court

The head, it makes it hurt.

[Guest hgritstoo]

Serioiusly? Fired for being too sexy.

http://news.msn.com/us/employers-can-fire-workers-they-find-too-sexy-court

The head, it makes it hurt.

Yeah. Happens to me all the time.

[Lucy Kitten]

That article was something else. It certainly was not what I expected. I thought at first that it is possible to be fired for being too sexy but that really wasn't what this was about. This seemed to be more about a jealous wife and a husband who flirted with an employee and when it wasn't returned it became her problem. Most dental assistants wear scrubs and the article also stated she did not return any of the flirtation so I fail to see how she was really at fault for anything.

I really call total bullshit. A jealous wife and a man who can keep his shit together have a cost a women her job and the courts ruled it was fair.

I woke up in a good mood but this really pissed me off! The unfairness it of it all.

[pfunk]

The unfairness it of it all.

While I agree it was unfair to the woman who was fired, most states have "at will" employment laws. You can quit at any time, for any reason, and your employer can terminate you, at any time, for any reason (except skin color, gender, or religion).

If she's that attactive, she'll probably find a job quickly.

[nairobi09]

No surprise to me as my experience has been that 'people skills' are crucial in getting ahead in the business world. Several years ago a young woman where I was working had her contract not extended mainly because she was a 'distraction'; guys lining up to ask her questions.

If you are real attractive you have to be careful how you use that. The same could be said for high intelligence.

[Guest]

The fact that she was pretty and sexy looking had nothing to do with how the judges viewed the merits of the case. The court ruled on the legality of her being fired without regard to cause.

The dentist's wife felt the gal was a threat to the marriage. She gave her hubby an ultimatum. He chose to keep the marriage.

If the hygenist had been a he, and the dentist had behaved the same way--except with the homosexual twist--the wife may have been similarly threatened, and the court would have ruled the same way.

As much as the decision might appear unfair, there was no wrongful termination here.

[Songdog57]

As much as the decision might appear unfair, there was no wrongful termination here.

I admit that I know nothing about the legalities involved. It may be legal, but it’s wrong as hell. Dress it up any way you want. It’s still a damn shitty thing to do to a person. The Doc is a petty little man who doesn't know how to treat others. Probably why he needs the law.

[irisheyes]

I feel bad for her and others that are too good looking. It does seem unfair. It's like a total mindscrew from what some thought it would be like in their early schooling years. Unfortunately, I have seen this happen quite a bit. It's usually either put out or find new work, and 99% of the power players are not what the good looking ones would consider attractive. On the flip side, this industry is not so much different. Not everyone is forced into this lifestyle, but there are others who do not have much of a choice because they can't find a job that pays so well. Honestly though, attractive women have a better chance than attractive men. Attractive men that are seen as threats are pushed into doing jobs a lot of others don't want to do. That's just my take and what I have seen.

[Lucy Kitten]

The fact that she was pretty and sexy looking had nothing to do with how the judges viewed the merits of the case. The court ruled on the legality of her being fired without regard to cause.

The dentist's wife felt the gal was a threat to the marriage. She gave her hubby an ultimatum. He chose to keep the marriage.

If the hygenist had been a he, and the dentist had behaved the same way--except with the homosexual twist--the wife may have been similarly threatened, and the court would have ruled the same way.

As much as the decision might appear unfair, there was no wrongful termination here.

This really has nothing to do with gender. It's not upsetting that a woman was fired it was the way it happened. It does not appear unfair IT IS unfair and totally wrong.

This woman was hired to work for a Dentist not make his wife feel comfortable. If a man cannot keep his affairs separate or control his own relationship it is certainly not the fault of his employees.

[Sphinx]

Attractive men that are seen as threats are pushed into doing jobs a lot of others don't want to do. That's just my take and what I have seen.

Yeah...good looking guys just can't catch a break...

[Guest hgritstoo]

This really has nothing to do with gender. It's not upsetting that a woman was fired it was the way it happened. It does not appear unfair IT IS unfair and totally wrong.

This woman was hired to work for a Dentist not make his wife feel comfortable. If a man cannot keep his affairs separate or control his own relationship it is certainly not the fault of his employees.

Life is unfair. While I share your outrage at this specific example, in order for a society to be free, unfairness must be allowed to exist. Why? Because you and I.....not to mention 300 million other Americans.....will never be able to agree on what's fair.

We are talking about the freedom to associate with whoever we do or don't want.

I've always been a funny looking guy with "sub-standard" equipment." The pretty ladies never gave me the time of day. Freedom of association? Unfair? Should there be a law mandating a certain quota of pretty ladies date guys like me?

Now I'm a funny looking guy with sub-standard equipment and lots of money. Suddenly, pretty ladies are willing to spend time with me. Freedom of association? Unfair to those without money? Unfortunately and wrongly, society has deemed this unfair and made it illegal.

Many ASPs limit who they see. They specifically advertise they will not see Arabic or African-American men. Freedom of association? Unfair to certain races? Should there be extra legal penalties applied to ASPs who have this policy?

We can even narrow it down to the right of freedom of association in the realm of employment. How come only beautiful women and handsome men get romantic roles in hollywood?

You can see where I'm going with this. We can't have laws making acting like a douchebag illegal. We just acknowledge that some people will be douchebags and avoid them. This dentist was within his rights. It is within MY rights to not use his services. I suspect he will take a financial hit as a result of this decision. When his wife no longer gets those mink coats for Christmas, she'll realize what a mistake she made.

[Bit Banger]

Life is unfair. While I share your outrage at this specific example, in order for a society to be free, unfairness must be allowed to exist. Why? Because you and I.....not to mention 300 million other Americans.....will never be able to agree on what's fair.

We are talking about the freedom to associate with whoever we do or don't want.

...

We can't have laws making acting like a douchebag illegal. We just acknowledge that some people will be douchebags and avoid them. This dentist was within his rights. It is within MY rights to not use his services. ...

Very well put! One of the better discussion points on this issue.

[Songdog57]

You can see where I'm going with this. We can't have laws making acting like a douchebag illegal. We just acknowledge that some people will be douchebags and avoid them. This dentist was within his rights. It is within MY rights to not use his services. I suspect he will take a financial hit as a result of this decision. When his wife no longer gets those mink coats for Christmas, she'll realize what a mistake she made.

I get what you’re saying, Grits, and it was very well said. It just seems to me that putting a woman out of work because she’s too attractive is a weak and selfish thing to do. Jobs are important to people. If he hired her in the first place it’s contingent on him to deal with his own issues about being attracted to her. Also it seems like he needs to handle whatever the problem is with his wife. I hope the lady he fired keeps the text he sent asking about her orgasms and sues the bastard cross eyed in civil court. Then it would also please me greatly if she monkey stomped his sorry ass on the court house steps. I’d pay well to witness that!

I'm probably preaching to the choir, but this particular story really greased my skids. Maybe it’s because I got laid off last year after 16 years with the company. I admit that I may be a tad touchy about the subject, but I think what the wee little man did was way wrong.

If I couldn’t work around woman any woman that I wanted to get horizontal with I’d never keep a job more than ten minutes. I suspect I’m not alone in that regard!

[Lucy Kitten]

Life is unfair. While I share your outrage at this specific example, in order for a society to be free, unfairness must be allowed to exist. Why? Because you and I.....not to mention 300 million other Americans.....will never be able to agree on what's fair. Bullshit, I think we can all agree that people need to be treated respectfully.

We are talking about the freedom to associate with whoever we do or don't want.

I've always been a funny looking guy with "sub-standard" equipment." The pretty ladies never gave me the time of day. Freedom of association? Unfair? Should there be a law mandating a certain quota of pretty ladies date guys like me? Did you ever lose your job as a result?

Now I'm a funny looking guy with sub-standard equipment and lots of money. Suddenly, pretty ladies are willing to spend time with me. Freedom of association? Unfair to those without money? Unfortunately and wrongly, society has deemed this unfair and made it illegal. Society deemed this immoral not unfair and made it illegal.

Many ASPs limit who they see. They specifically advertise they will not see Arabic or African-American men. Freedom of association? Unfair to certain races? Should there be extra legal penalties applied to ASPs who have this policy? If this were a legal business yes. In the event of this business ever becoming legal that will have to be looked at. Discrimination is just that, discriminating.

We can even narrow it down to the right of freedom of association in the realm of employment. How come only beautiful women and handsome men get romantic roles in hollywood?

You can see where I'm going with this. We can't have laws making acting like a douchebag illegal. We just acknowledge that some people will be douchebags and avoid them. This dentist was within his rights. It is within MY rights to not use his services. I suspect he will take a financial hit as a result of this decision. When his wife no longer gets those mink coats for Christmas, she'll realize what a mistake she made.

First of all there are plenty of unattractive people in Hollywood, they also get romantic roles(Ben Stiller, Woody Allen, Kevin James, Billy Crystal). As for providers not wanting to see specific clients I think that is a little different and something that I do not particularly agree with. But a provider choosing not to see a certain race or type of client is a far cry from firing an employee of ten years because your wife is upset. You can draw all the useless comparisons that you want but at the end of the day this piece of shit Dentist had an obligation to do the right thing for his employee and he chose not to.

It is not just simply a matter of what is fair but of holding people accountable for the choices they make. He chose to send inappropriate text messages and when his wife found out he chose to blame the employee, nothing in the scenario had anything to do with the person who lost their job but they took all the blame.

I fail to see how trying to save your marriage by firing someone is within your rights. The Dentist wasn't entirely acting within his rights either it had to go to court for that to be decided but you can now fire your employee in Iowa for being too sexy as a RESULT of this case.

Was there actually an opportunity to stop this douche-bag? It certainly seems to me that the Iowa Supreme Court had the option to do the right thing and they failed.

I do agree that there has to be a certain balance in the world but can you really tell me to my face that it is my fate to accept that there is the possibility that I might get fired because someone's wife is threatened by me? If so then that needs to be added to a fucking application, so we are aware before entering the workplace.

[boink36]

First of all there are plenty of unattractive people in Hollywood, they also get romantic roles(Ben Stiller, Woody Allen, Kevin James, Billy Crystal). As for providers not wanting to see specific clients I think that is a little different and something that I do not particularly agree with. But a provider choosing not to see a certain race or type of client is a far cry from firing an employee of ten years because your wife is upset. You can draw all the useless comparisons that you want but at the end of the day this piece of shit Dentist had an obligation to do the right thing for his employee and he chose not to.

It is not just simply a matter of what is fair but of holding people accountable for the choices they make. He chose to send inappropriate text messages and when his wife found out he chose to blame the employee, nothing in the scenario had anything to do with the person who lost their job but they took all the blame.

I fail to see how trying to save your marriage by firing someone is within your rights. The Dentist wasn't entirely acting within his rights either it had to go to court for that to be decided but you can now fire your employee in Iowa for being too sexy as a RESULT of this case.

Was there actually an opportunity to stop this douche-bag? It certainly seems to me that the Iowa Supreme Court had the option to do the right thing and they failed.

I do agree that there has to be a certain balance in the world but can you really tell me to my face that it is my fate to accept that there is the possibility that I might get fired because someone's wife is threatened by me? If so then that needs to be added to a fucking application, so we are aware before entering the workplace.

I think the real problem here is this guy has a boss at home and not a partner. he needs to grow a spine to hang his set from. that is, if she ever gives them back.

[Guest hgritstoo]

I think we agree the guy's a turd. I think we disagree on the "there oughtta be a law" factor.

I've always been a funny looking guy with "sub-standard" equipment." The pretty ladies never gave me the time of day. Freedom of association? Unfair? Should there be a law mandating a certain quota of pretty ladies date guys like me? Did you ever lose your job as a result?

Pretty damn close to it. 20 years ago I worked for a large, well known Denver based company. I and one other guy (who was younger, taller and much better looking than me, but less qualified) were up for a divisional directorship. The HR person on the selection committee was a woman who had been seen openly flirting with this guy. He got the job.

It took him only 18 months to run the division into the ground. He was finally fired, and I was asked to quietly take over. I had the division back up and running 6 months later.

can you really tell me to my face that it is my fate to accept that there is the possibility that I might get fired because someone's wife is threatened by me? .

Kiddo....you bet I can. Time to put on your big-girl panties. The world is an unfair place. At least at first glance. I told the above story not to brag about my business acumen, but to hilight a point you need to understand. By and large, the world eventually moves towards justice.

Karma REALLY IS A BITCH. She just doesn't work to our time table. And if we spend our lives fuming over every injustice (and there's millions of 'em) we will miss the opportunity to enjoy all the beauty around us.

Of all the characters on this board, the sig line I like best belongs to BigBaldBlk .: Everything is okay in the end, if it's not okay, then it's not the end!

Short, sweet, to-the-point, and absolutely true.

[Jez UaBriain]

This ruling from the state of Iowa makes me embarrassed to admit I am a born and raised Iowan. That ruling is a mockery of what is right. The dentist provbably has a corn-fed, high fructose eating sow of a wife who probably doesn't fuck except on xmas, and his birthday. The justices probably have wives who are just like her.

My former employer whom I worked for had a wife like that. But, it was the recession that ended my occupation after ten years, not her. Although she would have loved to have ruined my life if she could have.

The lady who was fired was fired for being attractive, and this ruling against here is wrong!!! When her employer texted her questions like he did, she could have slapped a harrassment suit on him. But she did not. And since she seems to have a sense of personal integrity, she did not respond to those texts. She worked for him for ten years! The wifey probably connived all the time in the background to get her out, and the ballless wonder of a hubby gave her the ammo because he is obviously is a pig also. Ten years is a long time in todays working class world. This wimpy dentist, and his sow the wife are a disgrace to pigs everywhere.

I am thoroughly disgusted by this. And as I said, it'is a embarrassment to Iowans everywhere. I know many individuals from the state who know what respect, and integrity are. Sadly, Melissa ran into a group who belong in the Walmart people classification.

Idiots are hard to suffer. Ethically speaking though, we have to let them breath air and take up space.

[louisville42]

I really call total bullshit. A jealous wife and a man who can keep his shit together have a cost a women her job and the courts ruled it was fair.

It sounds like bullshit alright, but the court most certainly did not rule that it was fair. The court ruled that he broke no law.

[irisheyes]

You found actors, lol. That is a very small world, where looks do matter, but even then, that is only for certain top roles. I don't see any guys looking like that that are behind the scenes of the movie making industry, or CEO's, academics, doctors, politicians, engineers....................

Let alone women.

I guess you could dig some up, but even then, it would be the exception to the rule and hardly account for the overwhelming majority.

[irisheyes]

Very true, seen that to, and your example right there shows you that it can and will swing both ways. There just happens to be more people in power that would be considered less attractive (like the justices). So, those individuals do what they must to ensure that they keep those seats of power, and in turn get the one's who wouldn't have given them the time of day otherwise. If not, then you get the ruling that you just got, or fired. It sounds vicious, but like you just pointed out, somebody in a hiring position that wanted hotter, will do the same, and would they think twice about hiring, firing, or passing you by if you don't measure up to their physical standards?

Life is unfair, and it will always be unfair, since the time of birth. You cannot have 100% fair, because to have 100% fair would mean that we live in a Utopian society where everyone is 100% happy and gets what they want.....................and we all know that that is never going to happen.

[irisheyes]

I agree with much of what you have to say. It's unfair...........it's life.

[Exiled]

As a Coloradoan who is currently working (Exiled) in Iowa, it was no surprise when I saw this in the local news. The Midwest is a strange place!!!

[Lucy Kitten]

It sounds like bullshit alright, but the court most certainly did not rule that it was fair. The court ruled that he broke no law.

Fair was the wrong wording but ruled that it was within reason to fire someone. The bottom line is that there was a precedent set that makes this acceptable which is ridiculous.

[Bit Banger]

Let's turn this around - How is it fair to prevent an employer from running their business in the manner they chose?

What I get from your comments is that it's unfair for an employer to fire any employee for any reason (OK, maybe stealing from the company.). That it's more fair to force to an employer to continue the employment of unwanted individuals.

IA, like CO, is an "at will" state, which basically means that you can get fired for wearing green socks to work. Hell, after work if that's the excuse your boss wants to give. It's not nice, but perfectly legal. The truth is that your boss does not even need to give an excuse, just any back wages, compensation or contractual severance pay due.

[ddog]

Much ado about nothing. This lady will be able to find employment pretty quick. Attractive people are given breaks all of their lives, so if she hit a bump in the road, well stuff happens.

With all of the sad things in the news lately, i'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over something so minor.

[Lucy Kitten]

Let's turn this around - How is it fair to prevent an employer from running their business in the manner they chose?

What I get from your comments is that it's unfair for an employer to fire any employee for any reason (OK, maybe stealing from the company.). That it's more fair to force to an employer to continue the employment of unwanted individuals.

IA, like CO, is an "at will" state, which basically means that you can get fired for wearing green socks to work. Hell, after work if that's the excuse your boss wants to give. It's not nice, but perfectly legal. The truth is that your boss does not even need to give an excuse, just any back wages, compensation or contractual severance pay due.

I was looking for that law in Iowa, but I was having a problem finding it. Firing at will without a real reason still would have been better than an intimidated wife. What I have said repeatedly is that no one should lose their jobs because their employer can't keep their personal affairs personal.

If you had my read statements and the article you would see that this employee was really only unwanted by the wife who could not control her jealousy. The Dentist himself said this woman was the best employee he had ever had.

Just because a bunch of dip-shits on the IOWA Supreme Court, key words being dip-shit and IOWA, said its OK to fire someone because you cant control your boner does not make it acceptable. I am certain that is not the last we will hear of this.

[Lucy Kitten]

Much ado about nothing. This lady will be able to find employment pretty quick. Attractive people are given breaks all of their lives, so if she hit a bump in the road, well stuff happens.

With all of the sad things in the news lately, i'm not going to get my panties in a bunch over something so minor.

I can't understand how it is much ado about nothing? Sure there are a lot of sad things in the news but this is such a knock towards women it is upsetting. No one should ever half to worry about losing their job because someone's marriage is threatened.

[Guest sophiarose]

I agree, and I can guarantee you that for the lady in question, it is not much ado about nothing. She lost a job for reasons she didn't deserve, and one she worked hard at. She is probably questioning quite a few things in her mind right now. I feel for her.

I'm sure she will be fine, but that doesn't take away from the fact that she just didn't deserve this.

[Sphinx]

I was looking for that law in Iowa, but I was having a problem finding it.

You won't find it because there is no written law. Employment at will is a well and long established principle in contract law throughout most of the US. The case in question does not set precedent but rather follows a long history of cases spanning over a hundred years. For the Iowa court to have decided otherwise would have been a stunning departure from settled case law.

Here's the wiki entry for an okay summary...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

[Guest]

I can't understand how it is much ado about nothing? Sure there are a lot of sad things in the news but this is such a knock towards women it is upsetting. No one should ever half to worry about losing their job because someone's marriage is threatened.

I agree it may well not be much ado about nothing, but you and many others who are offended at the court's decision are letting your emotions get in the way of focusing on the legality of the suit, which is the point.

Argue as much as you like about the raw deal you think the hygienist got, but the fact is that the point is NOT about worrying of losing one's job over another person's marriage, nor is it a gender-discrimination issue. It is about whether--as a business owner--the dentist had the right to fire her for ANY legal reason.

The court said he did have that right.

Could the dentist have handled things differently? Sure. He could have done lots of things differently. He could have simply told the hygienist, "We no longer need your services here at the clinic; here's 30 days' severance." But none of things he could have done has ANYthing to do with the case or case law.

As callous as you think he was, he was under NO legal obligation to cite a reason for dismissing her. As the owner of the business, he gets to decide whom to hire and fire. He also is subject to losing business for decision on firing people for whatever reasons, and I suspect he probably will lose a lot of business as a result.

You might think he'd deserve just that (and maybe much more) for what he did, and maybe he does. Nonetheless, with all the handwringing, there's something to be said for being able and willing to compartmentalize one's thinking--something which heretofore you've not done.