Iowa Courts OKs Firing Staff for Being Too Sexy

Post Reply New Topic

Friday, December 21, 2012-
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled on Friday that employers in the state can legally fire workers they find too attractive.

In a unanimous decision, the court held that a dentist did not violate the state's civil rights act when he terminated a female dental assistant whom his wife considered a threat to their marriage. The assistant, Melissa Nelson, who had worked for James Knight for more than 10 years and had never flirted with him, according to the testimony of both parties, sued, saying she would not have been fired if she were a man. At trial, Knight testified he had complained to Nelson on several occasions that her clothing was too tight, revealing and "distracting." But sometime in 2009, he also began exchanging text messages with Nelson. Most of these were work-related and harmless, according to testimony. But others were more suggestive, including one in which Knight asked Nelson how often she had an orgasm. She never answered the text. In late 2009, Knight's wife found out about the text exchanges and demanded her husband terminate the dental assistant because "she was a big threat to our marriage."

In early 2010, he fired her, saying their relationship had become a detriment to his family. Nelson sued, saying that she had done nothing wrong, that she considered Knight a friend and father figure, and that she would not have been terminated but for her gender. Knight argued that Nelson was terminated not because of her gender — all the employees of his practice are women — but because of the way their relationship had developed and the threat it posed to his marriage. The seven justices, all men, said the basic question presented by the case was "whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction." The high court ruled that bosses can fire workers they find too attractive and that such actions do not amount to unlawful discrimination.

© 2012 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Maybe those who failed to get employment because of their lack of good looks could feel a twinge of vindication

i suppose that is a glass-half-full way of looking at it.

The discrimination laws are quite specific.

You can't lawfully discriminate against someone based upon gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, and maybe a few other categories.

However, the odds are heavily stacked against actually winning a discrimination case. No lawyer is going to take a discrimination case on contingency, because the chances of winning are next to nil. All that the employer has to do is cock up some other reason, and be careful not to state in writing "We don't want any autistic people around here."

It is not illegal to fire someone for being either too pretty or too ugly.

The actual decision might be worth a read:

http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court ... 1-1857.pdf

I LOVE IT!! !

Because it means that my job is secure.

Now I have that song "I'm too sexy etc....." stuck in my head,it'll be there all day.Darn it!! !!

I'm
Too sexy for this job
Too sexy for my boss
Too sexy for my pay
I'm
Just
Too
Sex
y!

what a world.

I could understand if she was the one coming on to him...

...But it sounds to me like he was the one coming on to her.

exactly.

The ironies being (1) he wouldnt have fired her if his wife hadnt nagged him to, and (2) if he had NOT fired her in a few more weeks (with his texting behavior) she probably would have sued HIM for sexual harassment.

But does that make it wrong for him to fire her?

If looks are vital to the job then firing someone for being cosmetically impaired is fair (like a Hooters girl). But a hygenesist isnt in that category. So it probably isnt fair.

Perhaps she should have sued for that instead of discrimination.

Maybe the courts ruled as they did because she wasn't being fired for being a woman, but for being attractive and "attractive" isn't on the list of traits protected by discrimination law.

Just trying to make sense of it...

I dunno ... it kinda makes up for all those years of losing jobs and promotions to no-talent dweebs just because they were more physically appealing than I (or who were more willing to "put out" than I).

If said no-talent dweebs were the ones who got fired, I would agree.

Well, they were usually the most physically attractive, so we're right back where we started!