Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Iowa court: Bosses can fire 'irresistible' workers


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#1 cancerman1120

cancerman1120

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:20 AM

All I can say is WTF? No really...WTF?

This is the quote from the guy who WON.

"Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion."


Oh yeah this is the Iowa SUPREME COURT.

http://bigstory.ap.o...istible-workers

#2 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 22 December 2012 - 04:26 AM

Tell that ruling to this guy:

Sunbury Medical Associates accepts ‘big boobs’ discrimination claim before rights panel

http://bangordailyne...e-rights-panel/

One employer wanted to fire a woman because she was to "sexy" and another only wanted to hire young woman with big boobs.

What I find most shocking is the Iowa panel ruled in favor of this decision 7-0

#3 Sarang01

Sarang01

    My Use Name Is Saber

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 22 December 2012 - 05:29 AM

This is ridiculous but I forgot we live in Iran. I mean...seriously though?!

Jeez if that guy is having problems keeping it down and from humping her that's his problem. Practice a little self-restraint jackass.
That being said I think women should remember what effect tight clothing can have on the male libido even WHEN they're trying to keep it down. If they're so hard that's painful that isn't always a medical condition.
Regardless of all these points she should NOT have been fired.
That being said, if you were hot as Fuck and knew it or were even aware of it somewhat, you would likely wear clothing to show it off, even at work.
Posted Image

"Friends let friends eat each other out.".

#4 camoor

camoor

    Jams on foot fires

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 22 December 2012 - 06:21 AM

Stay classy Iowa

#5 skiizim

skiizim

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 22 December 2012 - 06:53 AM

Are there even attractive women in Iowa? I heard you couldn't really tell the difference between the woman and the cattle. >_< I kid

I can't count how many females in scrubs have made me feel sensitive in the man loins, seriously wtf is wrong with these people. I'm happy the woman stood up for herself against the fleabags of a wife the dentist had.

#6 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 22 December 2012 - 07:14 PM

It's a private business rabble rabble, should be able to fire for any reason derp de derp.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#7 Dr Mario Kart

Dr Mario Kart

    SD/2D Defense Force

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 22 December 2012 - 07:47 PM

It's a private business rabble rabble, should be able to fire for any reason derp de derp.

Hey, if you dont like it, dont work there. Unless the workplace forces you to pay union dues, then and only then can the state interfere with voluntary contracts between consenting individuals.

#8 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 22 December 2012 - 08:31 PM

Alternatively, the wife could have left him, sued him for half of everything, forced him to close the practice (as he couldn't afford it any longer) and put everyone there out of a job.

He should have put a firm wall between employee and employer, but she should have been building that same wall at the same time.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#9 Indigo_Streetlight

Indigo_Streetlight

    East Coast Scum

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 22 December 2012 - 10:49 PM

This is pretty weird being a Supreme Court decision; it'd be better to get a jury of peers to see how hot this women was and go from there. I'd think she'd have to be a ten out of ten and universally agreed upon as "irresistible" to be considered a threat to society. :whee:
The Asylum leads the eyes of those pursued by gaming madness...

#10 Friend of Sonic

Friend of Sonic

    Toneman.org coming soon..

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 22 December 2012 - 10:53 PM

If this is simply the case of a svelte woman not wearing baggy clothes, and the boss is still having trouble with the horsey trying to leave the stable, then go get laid during your off time. Seriously, you're not 14 anymore. It's your fault if you're poppin' by the mere sight of an appropriately dressed woman, even if the clothes are a little form fitting.
You hurt the right person and you're wrong for life.

#11 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 December 2012 - 02:01 AM

Stay classy Iowa


Hey, come on, we're not all bad. It was the Iowa Supreme Court which made Iowa one of the first states in the nation to recognize same sex marriage. Of course, in the next retention election 3 of the justices were then voted out but...

Hey, look at that, the majority opinion in this case was written by a former professor from my school.

Here's the full opinion
http://www.iowacourt...221/11-1857.pdf

I gotta say, I don't entirely disagree with the opinion. First off, this is a sexual discrimination claim, not a sexual harassment claim. Based on the facts, she may well have won a sexual harassment claim. With a sexual discrimination claim though, she has to show the only reason she was fired was because she was a woman, that doesn't take into consideration the attractiveness of the person being subjected to adverse action (a firing in this situation).

The most damaging aspect to her discrimination claim is that not only does the dentist only employ women (yeah, he's starting to sound like a dirtball, especially when coupled with the fact that he made more than the comments in the article) but he also replaced the terminated woman with another woman.

If it's any consolation, the court doesn't seem to like having to rule the way they did. "Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act are not general fairness laws, and an employer does not violate them by treating an employee unfairly so long as the employer does not engage in discrimination based upon the employee's protected stated."

Essentially, at issue in this case is that sexual discrimination laws are written to be essentially a yes/no analysis. Was the discrimination based on sex? yes/no It should, on the other hand, be written to the effect of was the discrimination based on an aspect of sexual identity?

This is essentially the same reason why in most states and under federal law it is completely legal to terminate someone for being homosexual or transgendered because usually termination based on these aspects boils down to whether they were terminated for being male or female.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that we should be more upset with gender discrimination laws (particularly federal law) for not taking into account aspects of sexual identity rather than the Iowa Supreme Court being cornered into ruling the way they did.

Edited by RedvsBlue, 23 December 2012 - 02:27 AM.


#12 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 December 2012 - 05:01 AM

Funny thing is with his statements from the wrongful termination case, now she has a stronger case for sexual harassment! LOLZ!

#13 dopa345

dopa345

    All around nice guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 December 2012 - 12:53 PM

Strange case but he's perfectly within his rights to fire her. In fact you could argue she was sexually harassing him. After all, you don't have to prove intent, just the perception on the part of the victim is all that's required.

#14 cancerman1120

cancerman1120

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 December 2012 - 02:21 PM

Strange case but he's perfectly within his rights to fire her. In fact you could argue she was sexually harassing him. After all, you don't have to prove intent, just the perception on the part of the victim is all that's required.


I would seriously like to hear how she was harassing him? I guess we should just put women in burkas since men cannot be adult enough to control themselves around attractive women. It is also bullshit to say he has the "right" to fire her. She worked there for 10 years without problems. There should be workers rights also.

#15 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:26 PM

Strange case but he's perfectly within his rights to fire her. In fact you could argue she was sexually harassing him. After all, you don't have to prove intent, just the perception on the part of the victim is all that's required.


Well first, as cancerman already ask, I'd like to know how she was sexually harassing him? Secondly, this case, decision, article, etc. isn't even about sexual harassment, it's about sexual discrimination.

#16 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 December 2012 - 09:45 PM

Funny thing is with his statements from the wrongful termination case, now she has a stronger case for sexual harassment! LOLZ!


She doesn't, though. She consented to his romantic advances. They willingly traded text messages and at no point did she allege sexual harassment in this case.

#17 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 December 2012 - 09:46 PM

I would seriously like to hear how she was harassing him? I guess we should just put women in burkas since men cannot be adult enough to control themselves around attractive women.

The wife pushed him to fire her, so there was a woman who was not adult enough as well.

#18 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 December 2012 - 09:47 PM

I gotta say, I don't entirely disagree with the opinion. First off, this is a sexual discrimination claim, not a sexual harassment claim.


And this is entirely why the decision is appropriate and an all-female state Supreme Court would have probably ruled the same way.

Probably should have condensed all these into one post, but I'm a loose cannon.

#19 cancerman1120

cancerman1120

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 December 2012 - 09:53 AM

Ok we have our first picture of this "irresistible" woman. I am no looker but this woman is 32 and looks almost 10 years older in the pic. She must have a banging body because I am not seeing it. Sorry if that is sexist but I am starting to think we are not getting the whole story here.

[IMG]http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Sdt4wdKVohvhuzm.72k8Ow--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0yODg7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/gma/Reuters/abc_gma_attractive_employee_jt_121223_wmain.jpg[/IMG]
Posted Image

#20 renique46

renique46

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 December 2012 - 01:57 PM



#21 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:10 PM

^ Damn. Looks like Nadine Valezquez

#22 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 December 2012 - 02:52 PM

Ok we have our first picture of this "irresistible" woman. I am no looker but this woman is 32 and looks almost 10 years older in the pic. She must have a banging body because I am not seeing it. Sorry if that is sexist but I am starting to think we are not getting the whole story here.

The "whole story" in my opinion is that this sleazeball had been hitting on her for months and they were both mere weeks from giving in an cheating. The wife found out about it through the texts and told the husband to fire her. The husband agreed to it because he knew how guilty he was and that he was planning on trying to sleep with her. The wife then likely suggested told the husband he was going to pray to god for forgiveness and have the pastor there. The wife then probably stood over his shoulder while he wrote his prepared speech (or maybe even wrote it for him) for when he fires the assistant. The dentist is a complete sleaze who knew he wanted to cheat but as soon as he got caught he wanted to do anything to keep his wife happy.

I'm still baffled as to why this wasn't a sexual
harassment claim, it would seem to me to be a much easier claim than sexual discrimination. The crappy part of our legal system is just that sometimes the bad guy does have to win. I doubt this case should do anything to get the legislature change discrimination laws (particularly title vii which is essentially set in stone at this point) but perhaps in the aggregate it will start to move the needle...

#23 RealDeals

RealDeals

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 December 2012 - 07:07 PM

leav the law 2 the laywer not the "armchair lawyer" that is interet slang 4 "wanabe lawyer"

https://encrypted-tb...381gmbzxTGzA-2W
http://t3.gstatic.co...4wtuy3FpqqoZSRA

Originally Posted by the4thnobleman Posted Image
I need power to come back on! I still need to spend $10 or so to get my $20. Stupid hurricane Sandy Vagina!

Posted Image

#24 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 December 2012 - 07:30 PM

Judges shouldn't be elected positions.

Thanks for the reminder, Iowa.
Posted Image

#25 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 December 2012 - 08:37 PM

I'm starting to think we have a troll infestation or something...unless CAG was featured on a major blog site recently.

#26 cancerman1120

cancerman1120

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 December 2012 - 08:41 PM

^ Damn. Looks like Nadine Valezquez


Yeah that woman in the video is very attractive. The thing is if the outfits in the video were the actual clothes she was getting in trouble for wearing then I have no idea what a woman with those curves has to wear. Yeah she looked hot in those clothes but she is completely covered up. This has a lot to do with "powerful" men's insecurities and less about "sex".

#27 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 December 2012 - 08:49 PM

Yeah that woman in the video is very attractive. The thing is if the outfits in the video were the actual clothes she was getting in trouble for wearing then I have no idea what a woman with those curves has to wear. Yeah she looked hot in those clothes but she is completely covered up. This has a lot to do with "powerful" men's insecurities and less about "sex".


You should pull up some pics of the douche and his wife that happens to work in the practice with them.

#28 cancerman1120

cancerman1120

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 December 2012 - 09:21 PM

You should pull up some pics of the douche and his wife that happens to work in the practice with them.


Yeah I am not above posting their pics on here either.

Posted Image

After watching her talk about this I am even more pissed something like this happened. Did not realize she was married also.

I love reading some of the comments on various websites. Here is a good one.

"A non-issue. In reality, an employer can fire anyone for pretty much any reason they choose, so long as it's not discrimination. In this case, it wasn't discrimination, it was just a personal issue. The fact that it was HIS personal issue doesn't change a thing. Sure, it wasn't her fault--but he's the employer, he's not going to fire himself. What difference does it make whether he fired her because he didn't like her voice, or couldn't keep his eyes off of her? Whether he didn't like her handwriting, or the way she stacked papers? You can fire someone for any of those reasons. Let it go"

That is exactly what is being argued here dummy. Yes the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in his favor but that does not mean it was the right decision. Also it is good to know that a "personal issue" is not discrimination. What if you have a "personal issue" with minorities?
Posted Image

#29 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 December 2012 - 10:09 PM

I would've posted the one with his douche bag tribal tat..heh

Would've done it myself if I didn't have to post from my tablet the for the past few days or the next for that matter.

#30 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 25 December 2012 - 01:18 AM

leav the law 2 the laywer not the "armchair lawyer" that is interet slang 4 "wanabe lawyer"

For the record, my posts were informed by an actual attorney, a female attorney I might add ;)