Iowa Supreme Court - Okay to fire "irresistable" employee

[Recidiva]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/justice/iowa-irresistible-worker/index.html

Short summary: A dentist found himself attracted to an employee. He, his wife and their pastor decided they should fire her to preserve their marriage. He fired her. Supreme court of Iowa gives the thumbs up.

First response: *jaw drop*

Second response: *facepalm*

Third response: Congratulations, Iowa Tourist Board!

The only law that I can even conceivably apply to this case is from the Bible. Can anybody explain to me how this made it this far legally?

Is this in defense of marriage, Biblical or just backassed dumbery? If this went to a national Supreme Court, would it all be thankfully reversed like sane people?

 

[run_silent]

Makes no sense to me based on the reporting.

 

[Recidiva]

Makes no sense to me based on the reporting.

I'm in the same spot here.

Maybe there was really an apocalypse?

 

[fgarvb1]

No union...No reason...No Job.

 

[Recidiva]

No union...No reason...No Job.

Not...quite sure what this has to do with it.

I have a non-union job and so does my husband and we still have reason.

 

[Wings]

If they were actually Christians they would have addressed their own failings and not put it on someone else.

Also, without a union being fired without cause is much easier.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Justice Holmes ruled that no one has a right to a job.

 

[Recidiva]

If they were actually Christians they would have addressed their own failings and not put it on someone else.

Also, without a union being fired without cause is much easier.

First statement, absolutely true.

It's still my understanding that without unions, the law of the land is still that you can't fire someone on the basis of race or gender.

This is definitely based on gender.

 

[Recidiva]

Justice Holmes ruled that no one has a right to a job.

What law is this based upon?

I'm missing the legal underpinnings here.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Somewhere here I have a test for people to see if they have an entitlement mentality, that is, does the world owe them. Most people have one.

 

[Wings]

First statement, absolutely true.

It's still my understanding that without unions, the law of the land is still that you can't fire someone on the basis of race or gender.

This is definitely based on gender.

Apparently attractiveness isn't a gender-based issue?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What law is this based upon?

I'm missing the legal underpinnings here.

The case involved freedom of speech on the job. Holmes wrote the opinion, He said that you have a right to say whats on your mind but you dont have a right to a job.

 

[Recidiva]

Apparently attractiveness isn't a gender-based issue?

I'm actually of the mind that lots of men are absolutely sane and not overwhelmed by their hormones every waking second of their lives. Also that they would be ashamed of themselves if they had to hide behind their wife, their pastor, God and the courts to justify his woody.

I guess it is not so in Iowa. I just won't go there, I guess.

 

[Recidiva]

The case involved freedom of speech on the job. Holmes wrote the opinion, He said that you have a right to say whats on your mind but you dont have a right to a job.

Did her boobs talk?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Did her boobs talk?

http://constitution.org/cmt/right-privilege.htm

Holmes says you take or leave the position contingent of the terms offered you.

 

[Wings]

I'm actually of the mind that lots of men are absolutely sane and not overwhelmed by their hormones every waking second of their lives. Also that they would be ashamed of themselves if they had to hide behind their wife, their pastor, God and the courts to justify his woody.

I guess it is not so in Iowa. I just won't go there, I guess.

I wouldn't recommend going there, it's mainly corn, ice-covered freeways and men who can't keep their peni under control.

 

[Recidiva]

http://constitution.org/cmt/right-privilege.htm

Holmes says you take or leave the position contingent of the terms offered you.

Okay, I see that and raise you Wrongful Termination:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_dismissal

These are conditional. You do not have a right to a job when you are not qualified or you violate terms of agreed-upon employment conditions.

You do have a right to a job when you are already employed and meet all the conditions of employment.

Being "hot" is not a disqualifier in my opinion.

 

[Recidiva]

I wouldn't recommend going there, it's mainly corn, ice-covered freeways and men who can't keep their peni under control.

That's why I'm thinking the tourist board is going to be having a tough time.

Unless they legalize prostitution of the humiliation variety, then it's all good tax revenue.

Let's hope they capitalize on this opportunity.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Okay, I see that and raise you Wrongful Termination:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_dismissal

These are conditional. You do not have a right to a job when you are not qualified or you violate terms of agreed-upon employment conditions.

You do have a right to a job when you are already employed and meet all the conditions of employment.

Being "hot" is not a disqualifier in my opinion.

Hot galz are fired every day (usually by the wives of the owner). I'm of 2 minds about this. Part of me says NOT FAIR AT ALL, part of me knows that I've been fired for being too smart (I caught a manager embezzling...I was hired to discover where the money was going, and sure as shit found the leak). Shit happens.

 

[run_silent]

I wouldn't recommend going there, it's mainly corn, ice-covered freeways and men who can't keep their peni under control.

Too funny.

 

[Recidiva]

Hot galz are fired every day (usually by the wives of the owner). I'm of 2 minds about this. Part of me says NOT FAIR AT ALL, part of me knows that I've been fired for being too smart (I caught a manager embezzling...I was hired to discover where the money was going, and sure as shit found the leak). Shit happens.

In this I agree. I wouldn't want to be reinstated to a job where I was assured I was working with vengeful idiots. It's a job not worth having. But that's not necessarily the choice of a more righteous or vengeful person.

If I took it to court, I'd fully expect to win.

I doubt this is the last we're going to hear from this case.

 

[Recidiva]

I wouldn't recommend going there, it's mainly corn, ice-covered freeways and men who can't keep their peni under control.

Mmm. Corny peni.

 

[Wings]

Too funny.

It's true, I'm there a lot for work if it's not the crazy DOT rules about not getting cars out of the ditch for 3 days it's the men who are constantly trying to hump me as I'm buying coffee. Such a disgrace.

 

[Recidiva]

It's true, I'm there a lot for work if it's not the crazy DOT rules about not getting cars out of the ditch for 3 days it's the men who are constantly trying to hump me as I'm buying coffee. Such a disgrace.

I'd have to rack this up to a regional cultural blindness to sense.

Not that you're not humpable, it should just be consensual.

I completely understand how a man with overactive hormones and an underactive frontal cortex could blame a woman's hotness for causing their lack of control. It has a ring of truthiness.

I just wouldn't expect men who theoretically having working frontal cortexes to agree.

 

[run_silent]

It's true, I'm there a lot for work if it's not the crazy DOT rules about not getting cars out of the ditch for 3 days it's the men who are constantly trying to hump me as I'm buying coffee. Such a disgrace.

I suspect men trying to hump you is not a solely an Iowa problem.