Woman fired for being too attractive?

[Deleted]

And......go!

www.cnn.com/2013/07/16/opinion/schwartz-fired-looks/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

[midjd]

When I saw this was an Iowa Supreme Court case, all I could think is that this is what the voters get for ousting three of the justices who voted in favor of same-sex marriage. Be careful what you wish for!

[Deleted]

clearly Iowa has its own definition of "irresistible"....

[formerroomate99]

Other articles I read about this said her boss had previously complained that she was wearing clothes that were too tight and revealing and he often had to ask her to put on a lab coat.  Of course, this little tidbit is going to be left out of an opinion piece.  And what is completely appropriate to one person is hooker wear to another, and what is perfectly appropriate in one office will get you mocked as an aspiring pole dancer in another.   

[Deleted]

Has anyone seen any of the outfits? I mean, if she was dressing inappropriately, that's one thing. But otherwise? Give me a break!

[Miss Tequila]

Sounds like the wife was super jealous...anyone else wondering how ugly the wife must be??

[zibazinski]

There were pictures of all three. Wife has let herself go but husband is no prize either. Fired woman is not all that. It must be an Iowa thing.

[Deleted]

I have really mixed feelings about this.  The news articles said that there was a rather intimate phone/texting/whatever relationship going on.

I don't have a particular problem with a wife telling her husband, who owns the practice, that he needs to stop his relationship with Debbie (no idea what her name is) including letting her go.

My real question is what kind of stupid-ass employer tells her why she was let go?  Don't most employers simply say, "We no longer need your services?"  That's what Doxie's employer told her, and then he hired someone to replace her a couple of months later.

[ZaireinHD]

good looking or unattractive doesn't matter. it's the guy! she may be the only women in that office and for the ten years he got to know her, then compared her to his wife, yea he got attracted.
besides employers can fire employee for almost any reason. then if fired person feels that it was truly unjust then sue! but would you really want to continue to work at a place you have been fired from?

[zibazinski]

I'd have kept my mouth shut and told wife to shut hers as well. The idea that any spouse would intervene in their spouses work is off the wall. If wifey poo couldn't trust her husband then she needs to deal with that issue. If she looked halfway human, she wouldn't have the issue. Yup, he's no prize either but wife's afraid her meal ticket and she enjoys the meals by the looks of her, doesn't get away. Maybe the employee simply liked her job and was willing to put up with the hassle of an a-hole boss who thought he was some prize. I had a dept head just like that and I simply ignored his nonsense. I had a family to feed. Did it irritate me? Yes. Should I have had to put up with it? No. But life is full of a-holes and you can't just keep moving on all the time.

[happyscooter]

If the guy was going to be tempted, he was going to be tempted with ANYBODY.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I can't imagine how ugly the rest of the people in Iowa must be....

 

[Deleted]

Jul 19, 2013 7:32:17 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I'd have kept my mouth shut and told wife to shut hers as well. The idea that any spouse would intervene in their spouses work is off the wall. If wifey poo couldn't trust her husband then she needs to deal with that issue. If she looked halfway human, she wouldn't have the issue. Yup, he's no prize either but wife's afraid her meal ticket and she enjoys the meals by the looks of her, doesn't get away. Maybe the employee simply liked her job and was willing to put up with the hassle of an a-hole boss who thought he was some prize. I had a dept head just like that and I simply ignored his nonsense. I had a family to feed. Did it irritate me? Yes. Should I have had to put up with it? No. But life is full of a-holes and you can't just keep moving on all the time.

[Deleted]

Man, women are catty.

[Deleted]

Jul 19, 2013 0:19:12 GMT -5 ZaireinHD said:

good looking or unattractive doesn't matter. it's the guy! she may be the only women in that office and for the ten years he got to know her, then compared her to his wife, yea he got attracted.
besides employers can fire employee for almost any reason. then if fired person feels that it was truly unjust then sue! but would you really want to continue to work at a place you have been fired from?

Well, she did sue.  And lost.  Which is my problem.  If he fired her for a legitimate reason...not dressing appropriately would be one, failure to perform her work duties would be another....then I don't have a problem.  But if he fired her because she is too attractive and he can't help himself around her, I have a problem with that.

and yeah, if you have bills to pay and a family to feed, you may want to continue to work there.  At least until you can find another job that has similar pay, benefits, location, etc.

[Bob Ross]

Jul 18, 2013 13:08:57 GMT -5 @moneyjenny82 said:

clearly Iowa has its own definition of "irresistible"....

Yeah, but you think Vin Diesel is irresistible.

Iowa wins, hands down.

[Deleted]

Many of us are basing our opinions on an editorial.  Here's a news account of the decision.  I'll post a link if I can figure out how.    (OK: you will have to cut and paste.  www.radioiowa.com/2013/07/12/iowa-court-again-rules-against-womans-claim-she-was-fired-for-being-too-attractive/

The chief justice said Nelson and the dentist had established a “consensual” personal relationship outside the office. The two sent text messages to one another after office hours, some of those messages were about sex, and the dentist’s wife discovered her husband was texting his employee when the couple was vacationing out-of-state.

The chief justice also cited Iowa’s “employment at will” law which allows bosses to fire workers ‘for reasons personal to them.”

I think the wife has every right to protect her marriage by insisting that this relationship stop.  It really isn't that the woman is "too attractive."  She is "too attractive" to the wife's husband.  We are all adults and know that this type of emotional intimacy often goes to the next level. 

This issue isn't about penalizing women for the way they look.  If the employee had kept the relationship professional, she'd still have a job.  ETA: Yes, he should have kept it professional as well, and she'd have a job. 

[973beachbum]

Jul 19, 2013 9:12:28 GMT -5 @monkeyunderpants said:

Jul 19, 2013 0:19:12 GMT -5 ZaireinHD said:

good looking or unattractive doesn't matter. it's the guy! she may be the only women in that office and for the ten years he got to know her, then compared her to his wife, yea he got attracted.
besides employers can fire employee for almost any reason. then if fired person feels that it was truly unjust then sue! but would you really want to continue to work at a place you have been fired from?

Well, she did sue.  And lost.  Which is my problem.  If he fired her for a legitimate reason...not dressing appropriately would be one, failure to perform her work duties would be another....then I don't have a problem.  But if he fired her because she is too attractive and he can't help himself around her, I have a problem with that.

and yeah, if you have bills to pay and a family to feed, you may want to continue to work there.  At least until you can find another job that has similar pay, benefits, location, etc.

Isn't Iowa an at will state? I thought at will meant the employer could fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all?  Personally I woudn't give a reason in that case but I didn't think it mattered what reason they gave in an at will state.

[Deleted]

Jul 19, 2013 9:56:27 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

Jul 19, 2013 9:12:28 GMT -5 @monkeyunderpants said:

Well, she did sue.  And lost.  Which is my problem.  If he fired her for a legitimate reason...not dressing appropriately would be one, failure to perform her work duties would be another....then I don't have a problem.  But if he fired her because she is too attractive and he can't help himself around her, I have a problem with that.

and yeah, if you have bills to pay and a family to feed, you may want to continue to work there.  At least until you can find another job that has similar pay, benefits, location, etc.

Isn't Iowa an at will state? I thought at will meant the employer could fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all?  Personally I woudn't give a reason in that case but I didn't think it mattered what reason they gave in an at will state.

employers in at will states cannot fire employees for federally protected reasons (ie, race, gender, etc)

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

thought at will meant the employer could fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all?

Technically it can't be for any reason that would violate federal discrimination laws.  Of course I am sure employers do so but they aren't dumb enough to tell the employee that.  Basically at will is they can fire me and have no obligations to tell me why they did so.  It's on me to prove if they violated the law.

He was dumb enough to tell her why and I can see why she sued.  She could make a case for gender discrimination.

[973beachbum]

Jul 19, 2013 10:03:11 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

thought at will meant the employer could fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all?

Technically it can't be for any reason that would violate federal discrimination laws.  Of course I am sure employers do so but they aren't dumb enough to tell the employee that.  Basically at will is they can fire me and have no obligations to tell me why they did so.  It's on me to prove if they violated the law.

He was dumb enough to tell her why and I can see why she sued.  She could make a case for gender discrimination.

I didn't think "hot people" was a protected class.

and just saying but she also lost her law suit.

[formerroomate99]

Jul 18, 2013 17:15:45 GMT -5 @monkeyunderpants said:

Has anyone seen any of the outfits? I mean, if she was dressing inappropriately, that's one thing. But otherwise? Give me a break!

I'm sure you dress appropriately for work.  But if your boss told you that your perfectly appropriate outfits were too tight and too revealing, would you change the way you dress, or would you be stubborn and continue dressing the same way, and start texting your boss after hours? 

These two were both on a dangerous road, crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed.  It's sad that she's bearing the brunt for both of their bad behavior, but this sort of thing is the risk you take when you're an employee at a small comapny who doesn't keep certain boundaries intact. 

[Deleted]

Jul 19, 2013 10:40:49 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Jul 18, 2013 17:15:45 GMT -5 @monkeyunderpants said:

Has anyone seen any of the outfits? I mean, if she was dressing inappropriately, that's one thing. But otherwise? Give me a break!

I'm sure you dress appropriately for work.  But if your boss told you that your perfectly appropriate outfits were too tight and too revealing, would you change the way you dress, or would you be stubborn and continue dressing the same way, and start texting your boss after hours? 

These two were both on a dangerous road, crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed.  It's sad that she's bearing the brunt for both of their bad behavior, but this sort of thing is the risk you take when you're an employee at a small comapny who doesn't keep certain boundaries intact. 

Well, I work from home, so my dress is absolutely not appropriate for an office.     I'm in shorts and a t-shirt right now.  But when I go to the office, I always dress appropriately.

If my boss told me that I was not dressing appropriately, as long as it was reasonable, I would comply.  I say "reasonable" because, if I am wearing pants and long sleeved shirts that a buttoned up in a business casual environment and my boss tells me it's not appropriate, I'm probably going to ask him for specific details on exactly what he would like me to wear.  If not provided, I would continue.  

I don't know all of the details of the case, but it is an interesting precedent to take.