Simply Irresistible

Should bosses be allowed to fire someone because they are too irresistible?

  • Total voters
    4
C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Bosses can fire 'irresistible' workers

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an "irresistible attraction," even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/artic...rresistible-workers-4138169.php#ixzz2Fo6P4kFm

should bosses be allowed to fire someone simply because they are irresistible?

RTW issues aside.
 
It would be the most complementary sort of firing possible. Yes, it's obviously not discrimination, and apart from narrow areas like that, a private business has the right to act in its own interest.
 
i agree about the RTW, that aside, should you be able to be fired simply because you make your boss horney?

seems a bad precedent to me.
 
Well, it might be for the best. After all, the boss is openly stating he cannot be objective towards his employees.

And of course, freedom of association.
 
Disillusioned said:
The precedent is more like, you were fired because the boss didn't want to pay you anymore.
Click to expand...

that was not his reason though and not the reason the court sided with. in states where you need some cause to fire someone, being too attractive to your boss is now grounds to be fired.
 
cannabis said:
that was not his reason though and not the reason the court sided with. in states where you need some cause to fire someone, being too attractive to your boss is now grounds to be fired.
Click to expand...
He's the boss, he gets to decide who he employs, it's rather the definition of being "the boss".
 
Disillusioned said:
He's the boss, he gets to decide who he employs, it's rather the definition of being "the boss".
Click to expand...

i really tried to frame the discussion solely on the merit of the ruling and reason and move the discussion away from RTW issues.

apparently i have not made the point clear - of course the boss can fire whom he or she wants. that is not the core issue here, the ruling did not say he could simply can her because he is the boss, but because beauty or his hormones are not protected. <-- that is issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top