Iowa court: Bosses can fire ‘irresistible’ workers A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday. The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an “irresistible attraction,” even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote. ... Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.....Knight later told Nelson’s husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her. Nelson was stunned because she viewed the 53-year-old Knight as a father figure and had never been interested in starting a relationship, Fiedler said. And what exactly does the Iowa Supreme Court look like? Wait for it ...... Waaaaaaiiit for it...... BOOM! Hmmm...... What is are the strong visual themes in the above image........?
It looks like 5 of the 7 are taking advantage of having removed the pocket linings of their trench co robes. But come on Crimen y... Without pics, we don't know: she may very well be criminally hot. (I suspect this thread will drop off the page a few times only to be bumped whenever the inevitable succession of higher courts look at it.)
What are the chances this woman will be offered a job as a legal assistant on the Iowa Supreme Court?
I repped him on the assmption it was a joke. Of course, we can't really discuss the case until we get pictures. So far, the "Melissa Nelson" that tops mybing image search is a mugshot.. There are a lot of Melissa Nelson's getting busted out there, many decidedly un-hot.
At my company we hire women because they ARE hot... just to keep the global balance in alignment. Just one more public service we offer and have since 1989.
Well I posted this because this case speaks very directly to me--and frankly something needs to be done. Because, sure, today it's a hot woman. And that's fine. But tomorrow it could be a hot dude. And that's just not OK. As a member of the silently oppressed class of People So Incredibly Hot It Causes Other People to Hate Their Future Selves for the Sexual Indiscretions They've Yet to Commit, I'm simply tired of being fired immediately by female bosses just because I'm so goddam f/ckable. Look, I know I'm gorgeous--Understood. 50 Shades of Sex Panther--Point taken. Studly and Smokin'--10-4. Hommina Hommina Hommina--Message received, loud and clear. Only reason to kick me out of bed is to do me on the floor--It was cute the first 1,000 times I heard it, lady. I get it. But we are people, too. If you prick us, do we not cock our heads and run our fingers though our raven locks? If you tickle us, do we not chuckle in a low, manly rumble ...then slowly lock our eyes on yours? Are we not warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, but only in Armani? It's just all too much... I need to go workout...
The caption of this case should be "The Man Who Had To Fire His Employee, Because His Wife Found Out They were Texting Each Other" with the subtitle "So, He Told Her That She Was Irresistible, In An Effort To Make Her Feel Better About It." "If our wives won't let us hire hot young female law clerks, then he can't hire a hot assistant." http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/justice/iowa-irresistible-worker/index.html
Much closer to my Irresistible Hit-It Zone than the afore-posted Melissa Nelson, but my marriage would be nowhere near threatened if she worked with me.
That was pretty much my reaction too, I think the majority of us work alongside men and women who are quite a bit more attractive than that. Not that her physical appearance really matters in the craziness of this decision, but there would at least be some sense in the wife's insecurity if her husband worked alongside Pepsi ad Cindy Crawford.
In HS I worked in retail in a North Jersey shopping center. One of the young, male managers (not in HR) used to personally handle the application process at the front desk. As in, if you were a young hot co-ed, you got a job. If you were a guy it was torn into 50 pieces and filed. I'm guessing this practice is illegal.
When was in grad school, they made all the English T.A.s work registration, passing out Fortran cards to students wanting to register. Long story short ( i.e., I'm not going to explain what Fortran cards are to people under 40), if the freshman looking for comp classes was acting like an asshole, He wound up in a class taught by a guy from Denver nicknamed "The Rocky Mountain Nazi" for his far right (by American standards, not by higher ed. Standards) social and cultural opinions. And attractive young women...? Let's just say my class looked like they could try out for a Russ Meyer movie.
Some reports are stating that wife demanded that she be fired after the two exchanged text messages. Here's a couple of good articles from The Economist about this issue. Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful Hiring hotties
1. It's fun and easy to mock this judicial decision, but we don't know what was in the text messages. 2. Of course, since Iowa is an at-will state, I wonder if what's in the messages matters legally. I get that it matters in an "is it right?" sense, but that only sometimes intersects with the law (see "Time for a Mass Shootings Forum" for several hundred posts on this.) 3. I find it interesting she'd been working there for 10 years. That's why I think the wife's impression of the text messages matter.
Like superdave said I'm assuming the Iowa SC based this decision on prior law. I saw the lady. She was decent by Iowa standards. The dentist looked like a bald douchebag. I bet his business goes in the tank...unless Faux can make a fake issue out of his "rights"
I live in a right to work state, and it is "at will" unless you have a written contract or are part of a union , there is no need for cause since you work at the will of your employer. your employer does not have to have a reason for changing that will to employ you. Right or wrong it is the reality of an at will state. He would have been better off in my mind to have not given a reason.
