Fired For Being Too Pretty?

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 12 years ago

   Well ladies, apparently, according to a judge in the great state of Iowa, if you are too pretty, you could be fired!  Beware when you go to work.
   
   http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/21/i … esistible/

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tammybarnetteposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This bothers me a lot. I remember being send home to change my clothes in middle school because apparently my perfectly normal shorts were just to appealing and the poor boys just couldn't concentrate on their studies. This just makes me sick. Even as a child I knew this was wrong, it was those boys responsibility to control themselves, same as this dentist, I am disgusted that any court would rule this way, at least with the facts we have seen.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Miriam Weissmannposted 12 years ago

   You know, there was a time when I was young when all you had to do was look pretty to get the job. I got a lot of jobs that way, you know, with the looks and the gift of the gab. The problem was keeping the job if the boss wanted to do a bit more with you than you'd bargained for, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. And who can blame them if you've led them up the garden path in the first place. Anyway, it doesn't work at all these days. The women's libbers spoiled all that if you ask me. And these days it's more likely to be a woman interviewing you than a man, so you haven't got a chance unless she's the other way, but even then that's not the answer. Anyway, I'm all for progress, so change is a good thing really. I'm just glad I don't have to go for interviews anymore.

   replyreport
3. 96

   peeplesposted 12 years ago

   I live in a state where they can fire you for whatever they want so this is nothing new. I was fired once for not fitting in with the 50 something year olds who hired me.

   replyreport
4. 61

   tirelesstravelerposted 12 years ago

   You can't get fired in California for anything.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Sherry Hewinsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      not true, at the place I worked employees were "at will," you signed a paper when hired that you understand that you can be dismissed at any time, for any reason or no reason.

      replyreport
5. 75

   UnnamedHaraldposted 12 years ago

   Iowa is a "right to work" state. I love names. It's really "right to fire". Employers don't need a reason to fire you. Since the judges ruled she wasn't fired because she was a woman, but because the dentist's loins were aflame, she's outta there. I mean, if the Dentist was gay, it could just as easily been a man who lost his job.
   
   Even though Iowa legalized gay marriages, this story is shameful.

   replyreport
6. 72

   LauraD093posted 12 years ago

   You have got to be kidding me. I truly love some of the odd ball articles you come across. This is a utterly ridiculous ruling rendered by the Iowa Supreme court- although after reading this I don't believe it will be their last. I bet they still think the world is flat  and tell their children that storks deliver babies.

   replyreport
7. 69

   innersmiffposted 12 years ago

   Is there something supposed to be controversial here?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Even from a libertarian POV, there is something wrong.
      
      You don't have to advocate the government do something about this in order to say the action should not have been done.  Both propositions are compatible.
      
      It's similar to libertarian opposition to the Civil Rights Act in the United States.  Libertarians do not, in any way, claim that being racist is a good thing, and they would advise businesses to be fair.  However, like Rand Paul said in the Rachel Maddow interview, it's not the government's role to interfere in the decisions of private individuals.
      
      I think it would be controversial if someone were fired for being black, and you could find it controversial also without advocating government action.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I accept that assertion on principle. I don't think there's enough information in this case to argue that it should or should not have happened. The relationship may have not been appropriate in a professional environment. I just think there are more pressing issues at the moment.

         replyreport
8. 91

   Justin Muirposted 12 years ago

   Read more on this case on MSNBC.  I don't agree with Mrs. Nelson's lawsuit in the first place.  I don't think she was fired because she was a woman (his staff is all female).  It is simply suspicion and jealousy on the wife's part.   Here's an example.  My bosses wife is "very strict" about who he hires for a secretary.  Usually someone who he wouldn't be attracted to.  This is despite the fact that he's never cheated.  I place the blame on the wife's jealousy and and Iowa's worker rights laws.

   replyreport
9. 72

   LauraD093posted 12 years ago

   I agree with innersmiff who seems to be trying to find a middle ground here but I what Justin Muir posted   is possibly correct but who the heck wants this kind of "reality-T.V. mentality" to be taking up the time of those legislating at a supreme court level? I'm quite sure the citizens of Iowa would rather have them reviewing more important issues.--Perhaps the "at will employment policies" within their state would be a suit with more meat on its bones then this farce.

   replyreport