Fired Because You Are Too Good Looking?

John Baker said:
In our never ending effort to achieve social utopia, I'm starting to wonder when we will say we have had enough?

Working with one other person eight hours a day is much like being married, it is even more intimate in many ways other than physical. Those two people interact mentally considerably more than most married couples, and usually know each other just as much, if not more, than their spouses.

Discrimination based on gender, race, sexual orientation, age, or religion, should have no part in the decision for a small shop owner to base his hiring practices on, any more than it should play a part of selecting a spouse should have.

It should not be something a committee of judges should be ruling on at all for a very small business like a two or three person dental office.

We should have the right to work or live with who we choose.

If we really want true social utopia, we should have government committees who assigns who we work with, who we live with, and who we marry.

A loyal citizen should contact the appropriate committee who will then assign a person to fill your employment needs, a roommate, or your new husband or wife.

The committee should not select who to send you based on gender, race, sexual orientation, age, or religion. If you order a new mate, and they send a person of your same sex, opposite sexual orientation, apposing religion, of a different race, you should by law, be required to let that person fill the available position.

How else can we have the perfect society? A persons wight should not play a part either.

-John
Click to expand...
So just this question John, does the employer have the right to hire and fire who he wants? If this Dentist does not want to employ this woman for any reason other than those protected by law, does he have the right to fire her? You were a small businessman, what do you think?
 
I am torn here, because while this feels wrong, I don't think it falls into a clear discriminatory category - and I believe Iowa is an at will state. Shoot, the dentist should have simply let her go without explanation.
 
John Baker said:
It should not be something a committee of judges should be ruling on at all for a very small business like a two or three person dental office.
Click to expand...

Well, the committee of judges did decide that it was up to him to hire and fire his employees as he sees fit.

I run a doctors office, if one of the girls working for us put the moves on me, she would be history too.
 
Geico266 said:
Pretty sure she will get hired right away, after she does a Penthouse spread. :rofl:
Click to expand...

+1:thumbsup:...

And she will get 1/4 mil for the shoot too... I bet she doesn't share the windfall with the good Dr either..:no:
 
Maxmosbey said:
So just this question John, does the employer have the right to hire and fire who he wants? If this Dentist does not want to employ this woman for any reason other than those protected by law, does he have the right to fire her? You were a small businessman, what do you think?
Click to expand...

I think any business person who earns their living as a small employer should not have their ability to hire or fire any employee hindered in any way whatsoever by the state.

A small businesses ability to succeed is very dependent on the cohesion of it's staff, be it one person or twenty five people. One bad apple can destroy moral and bring any business to its knees.

The owner of a business is responsible to keep that business running smoothly and profitably, the business's staff is a critical part of that equation.

There are three major things that can destroy any business;

Customers

Employees

Suppliers

Take away any of the three, and the business will cease to exist.

Even a person working by themselves is considered to be the employee of the business. That persons moral is just as critical to the business as the moral of hundreds of employees would be.

The dentist in question has the right to feel comfortable and happy where he works. He has the right to let that employee go, no matter what the reason.

With just one employee, an employer should have the same freedoms as a suitor looking for a wife, it is almost as intimate.

-John
 
Geico266 said:
Iowa never ceases to amaze me.
Click to expand...
Is it the reasonableness of the judge that amazes you? In this case, it seems to me that it would be pretty tough to show discrimination when you fire someone for problems with imperpersonal relationships (happens all the time) and replace them with someone of the same race and gender.
 
Maxmosbey said:
So just this question John, does the employer have the right to hire and fire who he wants? If this Dentist does not want to employ this woman for any reason other than those protected by law, does he have the right to fire her? You were a small businessman, what do you think?
Click to expand...

She was fired because she was a woman. :dunno:

Pretty sure that is a protected class under federal law. ;)
 
onwards said:
I am torn here, because while this feels wrong, I don't think it falls into a clear discriminatory category - and I believe Iowa is an at will state. Shoot, the dentist should have simply let her go without explanation.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I have been taught. In an At Will state you only need to inform the employee that you no longer need their services and are not obligated to give a reason. When you do give a reason, is when you open yourself up to the impending law suit.
 
Geico266 said:
She was fired because she was a woman. :dunno:
Click to expand...
how do you figure that? When a woman is fired and replaced by a woman, where is the discrimination ? I guess that if the dentist and hygenist were both gay men and the same situation occured, you'd be ok with the firing ?
 
Fired for being TOO GOOD LOOKING?

That is an excuse I can support. When my friends ask me why I worked for myself, as soon as I could be self supporting, I'll tell them it was to avoid being fired for being too good looking!
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Smooth talker had it right.
Plus she was warned several times about the clothing she was wearing. It was claimed that she started wearing tight, revealing clothes.

The court got it right. THIS time.
 
Florida Cracker said:
Fired for being TOO GOOD LOOKING?

That is an excuse I can support. When my friends ask me why I worked for myself, as soon as I could be self supporting, I'll tell them it was to avoid being fired for being too good looking!
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...


OMG, that is funny.

I was an investor along with four others in a construction company. I was called in to the office and told I was being let go because the company was struggling and needed to reduce expenses.

When I asked how the choice was made between me and the other four people I was told that I was chosen because I was more qualified and would find a job easier than any of the other four. I looked at this long time friend and said "wouldn't that be the reason to not let me go?" The guy was speechless.

This happened at 1030 and I had a replacement job by 1630 that same day making the same pay.

BTW he has never paid back my investment money either. Based on the agreement he now owes me $91K. I will never see it.
 
tmyers said:
This is exactly what I have been taught. In an At Will state you only need to inform the employee that you no longer need their services and are not obligated to give a reason. When you do give a reason, is when you open yourself up to the impending law suit.
Click to expand...

You were taught the same thing I was, keep it simple stupid! The more you talk, the more options you are giving the person being fired. I have fired more than one that we either strongly suspected or had caught stealing and never once did I mention theft to them when I let them go. Unless they are arrested, best to stay away from "unproven" allegations. :rolleyes:
The other thing my dad taught me and I have followed it to this day, is NEVER have a female employee in my office behind closed doors without another female employee present. :yikes:
I also don't get too close to my people, I do care more than most bosses, but I don't socialize with them, too hard to manage someone on Monday when you were drinking beer at their house on Sunday afternoon. :mad2: Learned that lesson the HARD way. :dunno:
 
tmyers said:
And then there is the joy of having to fire a female. Yikes!!!!
Click to expand...

The one and only termination I undertook involved an african-american female. Never heard a thing about it.... and this was at a national healthcare chain.

Its all about having air-tight facts.
 
Good idea to read the actual decision and the fact laid out in it. She was hardly fired for being 'too good looking'.

My $5 are on a follow-up civil lawsuit against the dentist where she will readily admit to a sexual relationship.

Appelate law is fun. The only law I would care to practice if I was a lawyer.

IV. Conclusion.
As we have indicated above, the issue before us is not whether a jury could find that Dr. Knight treated Nelson badly. We are asked to decide only if a genuine fact issue exists as to whether Dr. Knight engaged in unlawful gender discrimination when he fired Nelson at therequest of his wife. For the reasons previously discussed, we believe this conduct did not amount to unlawful discrimination, and therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court.
 

Attachments

  • 11-1857.pdf
    113.5 KB · Views: 5
weilke said:
Good idea to read the actual decision and the fact laid out in it. She was hardly fired for being 'too good looking'.

My $5 are on a follow-up civil lawsuit against the dentist where she will readily admit to a sexual relationship.

Appelate law is fun. The only law I would care to practice if I was a lawyer.

.......
Click to expand...

That penthouse photo shoot just went up to 1/2 million dollars..;):yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top