http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/12/23/can-you-be-too-sexy-for-your-job-the-iowa-supreme-court-says-yes/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/12/23/can-you-be-too-sexy-for-your-job-the-iowa-supreme-court-says-yes/)
The Iowa supreme court, a group of old, brainless white males, has said that employers can fire their employees because they are overly attractive. This sets a horrible legal precedence. This is a country where you earn your living based on your skills and talents, not on how you look. While affirmative action is clearly not the american way, discrimination is just as bad. These judges in Iowa have no respect for the constitution, are brainless, and all of them should resign or be impeached because they obviously are too stupid to serve on the state court. If we are going to protect ugly people, such as the fools on the Iowa supreme court, then we ought to protect good looking people as well.
Quote from: njdudeabides on December 23, 2012, 08:39:37 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/12/23/can-you-be-too-sexy-for-your-job-the-iowa-supreme-court-says-yes/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/12/23/can-you-be-too-sexy-for-your-job-the-iowa-supreme-court-says-yes/)
The Iowa supreme court, a group of old, brainless white males, has said that employers can fire their employees because they are overly attractive. This sets a horrible legal precedence. This is a country where you earn your living based on your skills and talents, not on how you look. While affirmative action is clearly not the american way, discrimination is just as bad. These judges in Iowa have no respect for the constitution, are brainless, and all of them should resign or be impeached because they obviously are too stupid to serve on the state court. If we are going to protect ugly people, such as the fools on the Iowa supreme court, then we ought to protect good looking people as well.
These judges (in this case at least) actually
understand the Constitution!
It is not the government's job to say who a private company has to hire, or who the company cannot fire! This is called "Freedom of Association" and is one of the principles our country was founded on.
It is none of the Government's damned business!
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 23, 2012, 08:46:05 AM
These judges (in this case at least) actually understand the Constitution!
It is not the government's job to say who a private company has to hire, or who the company cannot fire! This is called "Freedom of Association" and is one of the principles our country was founded on.
It is none of the Government's damned business!
Not to mention those employees who insist upon dressing inappropriately - even after it's brought to their attention. Anyone who has had a supervisory position, has run into those younger employees who can't tell the difference between a work place and "da club".
George Picks a Secretary - seinfeld (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RnDmTkhwMs#noexternalembed)
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2Fimages%2FUS%2Fabc_gma_attractive_employee_jt_121223_wblog.jpg&hash=f1c7ebe8a9ee43d09e904d0f38070d8942c29322)
She's reasonably attractive, but not that attractive. I know tons of young women who should be worried about their job if this woman was fired for "being too attractive." Sometimes it's the personality that adds to, or takes away from a woman's good looks. I imagine that's the case here, since I see nothing special about this woman.
Honestly, this sounds like Muslim countries where women are beaten for showing skin because MEN just can't handle it. The problem's not with the man who can't control himself, but must be with the woman! And here I thought at least our culture passed the 7th century!
Quote from: njdudeabides on December 23, 2012, 08:39:37 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/12/23/can-you-be-too-sexy-for-your-job-the-iowa-supreme-court-says-yes/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2012/12/23/can-you-be-too-sexy-for-your-job-the-iowa-supreme-court-says-yes/)
The Iowa supreme court, a group of old, brainless white males, has said that employers can fire their employees because they are overly attractive. This sets a horrible legal precedence. This is a country where you earn your living based on your skills and talents, not on how you look. While affirmative action is clearly not the american American way, discrimination is just as bad. These judges in Iowa have no respect for the constitution, are brainless, and all of them should resign or be impeached because they obviously are too stupid to serve on the state court. If we are going to protect ugly people, such as the fools on the Iowa supreme court, then we ought to protect good looking people as well.
The company should be able to fire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. She is free to look for another job, and the employers are free to hire someone else.
Quote from: taxed on December 23, 2012, 11:59:21 AM
The company should be able to fire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. She is free to look for another job, and the employers are free to hire someone else.
Another reason to get rid of unions.
Seen better had worse. I'm thinking this judge needs his eye checked. True she is beer goggles hot but not sober hot. She must have been some texter.
Quote from: taxed on December 23, 2012, 11:59:21 AM
The company should be able to fire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. She is free to look for another job, and the employers are free to hire someone else.
I have hired people for over 50 years and trained at least that many supervisors.
I generally find it's the lady having more brains than the persons she is working for is the problem. But then I was not looking for looks, but brains as I could always learn something from them also.
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 23, 2012, 08:46:05 AM
These judges (in this case at least) actually understand the Constitution!
It is not the government's job to say who a private company has to hire, or who the company cannot fire! This is called "Freedom of Association" and is one of the principles our country was founded on.
It is none of the Government's damned business!
Everyone of these judges ought to re-read the 1st amendment which calls for the freedom of expression, and the civil rights act of 1964. The actions these activists in black robes allow for are in violation of both. I'm sick and tired of activist judges, and the Iowa supreme court is filled with activist judges.
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 23, 2012, 08:46:05 AM
These judges (in this case at least) actually understand the Constitution!
It is not the government's job to say who a private company has to hire, or who the company cannot fire! This is called "Freedom of Association" and is one of the principles our country was founded on.
It is none of the Government's damned business!
The Constitution provides protection from discrimination when the employer is federal or state government. However, employment discrimination laws go beyond what is explicitly in the Constitution to include the private workplace. They protect against discrimination for specific categories of people, e.g. gender and race. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment_discrimination (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment_discrimination) Even though this not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled on these laws. http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/employment-discrimination-u-s-supreme-court-cases.html (http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/employment-discrimination-u-s-supreme-court-cases.html) One way to interpret some of the cases is that the Court has ruled that "freedom of association" is not guaranteed by the Constitution when it results in specific discrimination covered by the laws in question.
So bottom line: It's not a Constitutional protection for employers, but being attractive is not a class that has been afforded protection.
Separate point - In this particular case, the fired employee might have a case of workplace sexual harassment.
Quote from: njdudeabides on December 23, 2012, 03:42:46 PM
Everyone of these judges ought to re-read the 1st amendment which calls for the freedom of expression, and the civil rights act of 1964. The actions these activists in black robes allow for are in violation of both. I'm sick and tired of activist judges, and the Iowa supreme court is filled with activist judges.
Your right to Freedom of Expression doesn't mean we ar all required to chip in for your soapbox. The business is private property, the owner is not required to give you the means to express yourself. As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Why would any minority - like me for example - be stupid enough to want to work for a bigot? What are the chances of me getting a raise, or a better job? I want to work for someone who is actually glad to have me there.
Quote from: USAPatriot on December 23, 2012, 03:44:22 PM
The Constitution provides protection from discrimination when the employer is federal or state government. However, employment discrimination laws go beyond what is explicitly in the Constitution to include the private workplace. They protect against discrimination for specific categories of people, e.g. gender and race. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment_discrimination (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment_discrimination) Even though this not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled on these laws. http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/employment-discrimination-u-s-supreme-court-cases.html (http://civilrights.findlaw.com/discrimination/employment-discrimination-u-s-supreme-court-cases.html) One way to interpret some of the cases is that the Court has ruled that "freedom of association" is not guaranteed by the Constitution when it results in specific discrimination covered by the laws in question.
So bottom line: It's not a Constitutional protection for employers, but being attractive is not a class that has been afforded protection.
Separate point - In this particular case, the fired employee might have a case of workplace sexual harassment.
As far as I'm concerned, all of those laws are Unconstitutional as they are all examples of the Federal Government seizing for itself, power and authority the Framers of the Constitution never intended it to have.
That would be a good angle. If she was fired because some "boss" found her sexually attractive, it is sexual harassment.
There is something wrong with losing your job because of someone elses FEELINGS about you. She should win and a good lawyer should go with the sexual harassment angle.
Quote from: Yawn on December 23, 2012, 05:02:37 PM
That would be a good angle. If she was fired because some "boss" found her sexually attractive, it is sexual harassment.
There is something wrong with losing your job because of someone elses FEELINGS about you. She should win and a good lawyer should go with the sexual harassment angle.
Why is it when a woman uses sex to get what she wants in the workplace, is just sexual politics, but when a man does the same thing its sexual harassment? :huh:
Quote from: Yawn on December 23, 2012, 05:02:37 PM
That would be a good angle. If she was fired because some "boss" found her sexually attractive, it is sexual harassment.
There is something wrong with losing your job because of someone elses FEELINGS about you. She should win and a good lawyer should go with the sexual harassment angle.
And if she's distracting the other workers? It might be nothing more than the fact that she's friendly and always stops to hold a conversation with the other workers. It could be she believes she's far more attractive than she actually is, which could raise another set of problems. You've never been in a situation, where a woman believes she's GOD's gift to the males of the species?
Quote from: Yawn on December 23, 2012, 05:02:37 PM
That would be a good angle. If she was fired because some "boss" found her sexually attractive, it is sexual harassment.
There is something wrong with losing your job because of someone elses FEELINGS about you. She should win and a good lawyer should go with the sexual harassment angle.
"Nelson filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, arguing she would not have been terminated if she was male. She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight's conduct may not have risen to that level and didn't particularly offend her, Fiedler said."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/22/iowa-court-rules-boss-can-fire-employee-considers-irresistible-attraction/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/22/iowa-court-rules-boss-can-fire-employee-considers-irresistible-attraction/)
But given what she alleges the Dentist to have said, she could probably add sexual harassment:
He even once told Nelson that if his pants were bulging, she would know her outfits were too revealing, the lawsuit said. And he quipped about her irregular sex life, saying it was "like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/iowa-court-oks-firing-female-worker-irresistibly-attractive-article-1.1226068 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/iowa-court-oks-firing-female-worker-irresistibly-attractive-article-1.1226068)
Quote from: USAPatriot on December 23, 2012, 05:19:42 PM
"Nelson filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, arguing she would not have been terminated if she was male. She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight's conduct may not have risen to that level and didn't particularly offend her, Fiedler said."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/22/iowa-court-rules-boss-can-fire-employee-considers-irresistible-attraction/?test=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/22/iowa-court-rules-boss-can-fire-employee-considers-irresistible-attraction/?test=latestnews)
But given what she alleges the Dentist to have said, she could probably add sexual harassment:
He even once told Nelson that if his pants were bulging, she would know her outfits were too revealing, the lawsuit said. And he quipped about her irregular sex life, saying it was "like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/iowa-court-oks-firing-female-worker-irresistibly-attractive-article-1.1226068 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/iowa-court-oks-firing-female-worker-irresistibly-attractive-article-1.1226068)
Courts do not allow Hearsay as evidence.
Quote from: Solar on December 23, 2012, 05:22:11 PM
Courts do not allow Hearsay as evidence.
Would not be hearsay because Nelson would be testifying that the dentist said those things to her. It would be hearsay if she were testifying that the dentist made those comments to another person and Nelson had no direct involvement in the conversation, i.e. the other person relayed the conversation to Nelson.
If the dentist denied making the comments, then her testimony might be discredited, but still not hearsay.
Quote from: USAPatriot on December 23, 2012, 05:26:52 PM
Would not be hearsay because Nelson would be testifying that the dentist said those things to her. It would be hearsay if she were testifying that the dentist made those comments to another person and Nelson had no direct involvement in the conversation, i.e. the other person relayed the conversation to Nelson.
If the dentist denied making the comments, then her testimony might be discredited, but still not hearsay.
True, it is her word against his, but her telling this stuff to the media could get her a slander suit levied against her.