Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 07-12-2013, 11:38 AM   Topic Starter
gblowfish gblowfish is offline
Be Kind To Your Pets
 
gblowfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Glorious Independence, MO
Casino cash: $6447
VARSITY
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.”
Posts: 27,041
gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.gblowfish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:42 PM.


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