ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   U.S. Issues Iowa Supreme Court Is Koo Koo For Cocoa Puffs (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=274485)

gblowfish 07-12-2013 11:38 AM

Iowa Supreme Court Is Koo Koo For Cocoa Puffs
 
Now you can get fired for being too pretty.
Of course, this is Iowa, so they don't see "pretty" very often....
Story is here:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...is-devastated/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ng-attractive/


Standing by a December decision, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday that a male dentist who fired a female assistant because she was too attractive and threatened his marriage did not commit sex discrimination.

The all-male court ruled against Melissa Nelson, who sued her former employer James Knight, alleging Knight’s wife told Knight to fire Nelson because “she was a big threat to our marriage.” Knight fired Nelson in January 2010 after more than 10 years working for him, later testifying that she was not fired for performance reasons.

The Court wrote:
“It is abundantly clear that a woman does not lose the protection of our laws prohibiting sex discrimination just because her employer becomes sexually attracted to her, and the employer’s attraction then becomes the reason for terminating the woman once it, in some way, becomes a problem for the employer. If a woman is terminated based on stereotypes related to the characteristics of her gender, including attributes of attractiveness, the termination would amount to sex discrimination because the reason for termination would be motivated by the particular gender attribute at issue.”
Despite this admission, the justices claimed Nelson was fired not because of gender attributes but because of facts surrounding her relationship with Knight, including several comments he made about her clothing and the fact that the two would text each other outside of work hours.

After the initial ruling in December, Nelson asked the justices to reconsider, suggesting the ruling would open the door to darker-skinned employees being replaced with lighter-skinned ones or less attractive employees being replaced with more attractive ones.

When the Court issued its December ruling, Nelson’s attorney issued a statement to ABC News: “We are appalled by the Court’s ruling and its failure to understand the nature of gender bias,” she wrote. “Although people act for a variety of reasons, it is very common for women to be targeted for discrimination because of their sexual attractiveness or supposed lack of sexual attractiveness. That is discrimination based on sex. Nearly every woman in Iowa understands this because we have experienced it for ourselves.”

Hoover 07-12-2013 11:44 AM

Yeah, he should have kept her under his employment and made advances.

BucEyedPea 07-12-2013 11:46 AM

It's not discrimination based on gender but good looks. I don't see that as a protected class. If she were an ugly, fat/ugly chick or just average, she would not be seen as a threat. Don't know if you're a right to work state though.

You have your categories mixed up gblowfish and you ignore other facts relevant to the whole situation.


If it's not race bias with you progs it's gender and guns. Grievance-mongers and victimologists!

cosmo20002 07-12-2013 11:46 AM

She's not hideous or anything, but if the charge is being "too attractive" I would find her "not guilty."

Note to any other assistants that this dentist has on staff: He finds you repulsive.

BucEyedPea 07-12-2013 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 9807336)
She's not hideous or anything, but if the charge is being "too attractive" I would find her "not guilty."

Note to any other assistants that this dentist has on staff: He finds you repulsive.

Quite a few dentists and chiropractors, and I suspect doctors too with attractive secretaries or assistants do have affairs.

Ace Gunner 07-12-2013 11:56 AM

what a pussy

cosmo20002 07-12-2013 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzz_TinBalls (Post 9807348)
what a pussy

That's what he said. Then had to fire her.

blaise 07-12-2013 12:36 PM

It is koo koo. She deserved lifetime employment.

gblowfish 07-12-2013 02:08 PM

I would hope she would have no problem being hired in another dental office. Just thought it was interesting that this went all the way to the Iowa SC.

Hoover 07-12-2013 02:37 PM

Next time I want to fire someone I'm just going to call them into my office. Shut the door, and tell them infatuated with them, and then say and for that reason I have to let you go.

Sorry Jeff...


LOL

ptlyon 07-12-2013 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoover (Post 9807623)
Next time I want to fire someone I'm just going to call them into my office. Shut the door, and tell them infatuated with them, and then say and for that reason I have to let you go.

Sorry Jeff...


LOL

Actually know a gal named Jeff

Dayze 07-12-2013 02:43 PM

He Just thought she was good lookin' wool.
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/phot...90-720-540.jpg

displacedinMN 07-12-2013 04:23 PM

A lawyer on tv here said that:

You can be fired for any reason. This was not discrimination of one group, just that one person was let go.

Try to keep your professional relationships professional

He was worried that he could not.

BucEyedPea 07-12-2013 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by displacedinMN (Post 9807760)
A lawyer on tv here said that:

You can be fired for any reason. This was not discrimination of one group, just that one person was let go.

Try to keep your professional relationships professional

He was worried that he could not.

That's right you can be fired for any reason UNLESS it's a protected group. Being too pretty is not a protected group.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.