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!

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".

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!

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.

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. 

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  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  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.

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  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  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.

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?