Iowa high court: Bosses can fire workers who they consider an “irresistible attraction”
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.
An attorney for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight said the decision, the first of its kind in Iowa, is a victory for family values because Knight fired Melissa Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman.
But Nelson’s attorney said Iowa’s all-male high court, one of only a handful in the nation, failed to recognize the discrimination that women see routinely in the workplace.
“These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don’t think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires and that Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and control their bosses’ sexual desires,” said attorney Paige Fiedler. “If they get out of hand, then the women can be legally fired for it.”









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
This article might be interesting if there were a pix of Ms Nelson included.
Dingbat63 on December 22, 2012 at 10:34 AM
this won’t end well.
unseen on December 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM
As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I think an employer should be able to hire and fire based on his/her own whims, no matter how capricious.
davidk on December 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM
are you kidding me…
so women can be fired because their male boss can’t keep his desire under control?
whatever happened to taking responsibility for your actions?
Sachiko on December 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM
… or prejudicial.
davidk on December 22, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Oh my… Ill never find work again!
Valkyriepundit on December 22, 2012 at 10:39 AM
Time to impeach O’Bozo, then – because too many fools found him attractive.
honsy on December 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM
I want proof. :p
BigGator5 on December 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM
So that’s why they fired Helen Thomas.
the_nile on December 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM
All that fall into this category should send me their cv with pics.
cat-scratch on December 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM
I think that’s the problem burkhas are supposed to fix. No? Why didn’t the dude just mandate a new office dress code? Simple fix.
a capella on December 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM
depends if the employer takes taxpayer money IMO. On the negative side allowing that would mean a return of the unions in large numbers as employees seek saftey in numbers.
unseen on December 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM
I bet I get axed within the week.
CW on December 22, 2012 at 10:51 AM
And google’s no dang help on this one, either.
GWB on December 22, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Agreed, davidk.
This story is not a victory for anyone’s freedom, because we are operating under the false premise that every person has a ‘right’ to a job.
We’ve accepted this premise that business owners are akin to slaves; we require them to provide jobs to everyone. I have news for the leftists: business owners can and do ‘call it quits’ all the time. U6 unemployment is over 14%, folks. Do they think that these policies making firing people difficult will help with unemployment?
This whole discussion of having a ‘right’ to a job is madness. The employer created the business by sweat and tears. (e.g., start up business owners don’t get to quit working after 5 pm) Soon, the only job we will all have a ‘right’ to will be either digging or filling in dirt holes. (or maybe breaking and repairing windows… Thanks Keynes…)
Nephew Sam on December 22, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Huh? What was the question?
honsy on December 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM
http://thepeoplescube.com/red/gallery/our-greatest-hits-a2/helen-thomas-formaldehyde-m-p1880.html
davidk on December 22, 2012 at 10:56 AM
This will drive liberals nuts. All the more reason to love it.
CW on December 22, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Michael Douglas is so sc***ed.
tommy71 on December 22, 2012 at 10:56 AM
How about firing the ungodly revolting too?
ProfShadow on December 22, 2012 at 10:57 AM
So if people are freaked out about gays? Remember it is about emotions and feelings.
CW on December 22, 2012 at 10:59 AM
I think you should be able to fire anyone that you want for any good or bad reason that is allowed by the employment contract. But this seems like a pretty stupid and unreasonable reason.
besser tot als rot on December 22, 2012 at 11:05 AM
An employer should be able to fire any employee without cause even if it’s just because he doesn’t like him. Or DOES like him, or her, too much. If you make a law against it, then they just won’t give the real reason for firing someone. And you’ll have lawsuits that drive up the cost of business.
Face it. Most men are distracted by pretty women. That’s what makes the world go ’round. Feminists who want to deny nature, you can go stuff it.
Paul-Cincy on December 22, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Hmmm I wonder how this makes his other employees feel.
CW on December 22, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Within his rights? Technically. Lame and a mockery of the right to hire/fire? Darn straight.
I hope he’s prepared for some protests.
Ayeah, I wonder how this ruling would have gone if a boss had said “I wanna fire Mr.X because he’s such a flaming gay he disgusts me and half my work crew.” Not to mention the media circus.
MelonCollie on December 22, 2012 at 11:09 AM
I can’t stop laughing … that’s just so right it’s wrong.
ShainS on December 22, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Like an ugly fashion model? Well, her job is to look good. How about an ugly public relations liaison? It’s a close call. Her job involves making a favorable impression on the public. But doesn’t every job involve some interaction with others, even if it’s just coworkers.
“First they came for the ugly, and I said nothing, because I wasn’t ugly. Then they came for the beautiful, and I said nothing, because I wasn’t beautiful. Then they came for me, and I said, ‘what am I, chopped liver?’”.
Paul-Cincy on December 22, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Exactly. Maybe that’s the employer’s mistake in this story; he disclosed his reason for firing the woman.
Employers should not be required to give a reason for terminating employees. It should not matter. It is an employer’s fundamental right to keep his/her money.
Why is such a simple concept such as ‘property rights’ so terribly muddled?
Nephew Sam on December 22, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Makes sense to me, do you really want to hire someone that will be a disruption?
And let’s not forget hostile work enviroment lawsuits, or discrimination suits, or the HR nightmare that result from one misunderstood comment.
LincolntheHun on December 22, 2012 at 11:13 AM
I’ve had it. Someone post a picture please. I ain’t buying it.
CW on December 22, 2012 at 11:17 AM
I’m too sexy for this job, too sexy for this job…
Stoic Patriot on December 22, 2012 at 11:21 AM
What was not mentioned is that Mrs. Knight probably felt threatened. More than one woman has been fired because “the wife” was extremely jealous. My guess is that Mr. Knight’s marriage won’t last very long.
SC.Charlie on December 22, 2012 at 11:23 AM
I’m no photographer, but given the publicity of the story, and no picture couldn’t she get a hefty sum for taking some and selling them to a media outlet? Healthy 5 figures anyway.
The complaint was partly about “tight clothes” so who knows what she looks like.
Paul-Cincy on December 22, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Employers are usually given the right to fire an employee for any reason. But when this woman was thrown into the unemployment line, my guess is that the people down at the unemployment office fell- over laughing. And, of course some over-eager lawyer thought he could make the dentist pay-up big. Now, I hope he and the fired woman are left with all the court costs.
SC.Charlie on December 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM
There was a hilarious picture of Trent Lott with a gorgeous blond on one side kind of cozying up to him, his wife on the other side, all smiling, with his wife clutching his arm with both hands, as if to say, “honey, you’re young and beautiful, but this one’s mine, don’t you even think about it”.
Paul-Cincy on December 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM
I should have read the entire article, here are the facts in the case:
SC.Charlie on December 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Another distasteful court ruling in favor of freedom: http://main.aol.com/2012/12/20/sarah-childs-allowed-to-flip-middle-finger_n_2341356.html
I wonder, tough, how many leftards will read the headline as Sarah’s Child.”
davidk on December 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM
though
davidk on December 22, 2012 at 11:46 AM
thanks for the extra info!! sounds like an overly jealous, insecure wife. but an innocent person got fired because of someone else’s insecurity? how exactly is that fair?
you can go stuff it. again, it’s called taking responsibility for your actions. if you get distracted by an attractive woman when she’s actually not trying to flirt with you, it’s your own fault for letting yourself get that distracted, then making up excuses and blaming the woman instead of yourself.
and wow- men complain when women are “ugly,” but now men complain when women are too attractive. what exactly do you expect us to do- try our best to look average? not ugly enough so that you make fun of us, but not attractive enough to distract you and get fired? we can’t win.
Sachiko on December 22, 2012 at 12:07 PM
There may be no one really at fault here. It seems that aside from this attraction, he was a good boss and she a good employee.
One thing I learned as a young woman in the workplace though was to keep my clothing within certain bounds (mainly shirts not too low cut or tight), because I didn’t want to be a distraction to male workers to the extent that I could help that. They have a hard enough time concentrating when there are young women around.
I’m always bemused by these tv dramas where the high powered female lawyers and execs dress as revealingly as a Hooters waitress, only the suits costs $1000.
juliesa on December 22, 2012 at 12:07 PM
I am doomed, obviously.
dczombie on December 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM
True, and men for the most part don’t have to try to walk that line or suffer the consequences.
juliesa on December 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM
conservatives/libertarians: taking responsibility for their own actions.
liberals: blaming others and making excuses.
which one do you want to act like?
Sachiko on December 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM
Next in Iowa supreme court: Since the woman was far too attractive, it’s not considered a legitimate rape. The rapist had no control over the matter.
lester on December 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM
After a remark like that, Dr. “Hardt Johnson” would have to fire me for accidentally spilling hot coffee on his problem area.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 22, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Also known as the legal premise of “Irresistible Attraction”.
lester on December 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Their pastor approved, which probably means they went for marriage counseling.
SC.Charlie on December 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM
I hear you. If this becomes the law of the land then I’ll be unemployable. Back off ,ugly people. Us hotties have a right to work.
BoxHead1 on December 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM
An at will employee is an at will employee. The employer should be able to terminate his/her employee regardless of reason.
Though in this case, the terminated employee shouldn’t have sued for her job. She should have sued for sexual harassment. Any 52 year old man who tells a colleague he’s getting a bulge in his pants has passed the point of propriety.
A man can’t control his feelings for his employee, makes lewd comments to her, exchanged text messages, the wife demands that she gets fired, and they call themselves Christians. Despicable.
Hostile Gospel on December 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM
My objection to the ‘at will’ thing was that his reason for firing her was that HE couldn’t control his own horniness. So he abused his right as an employer because of things that HE willingly chose to do.
That’s not at-will employment, that’s at-will blame-the-employee-then-hide-behind-the-skirts-of-the-law.
MelonCollie on December 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM