Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands December 24th, 2012 12:00am

At the request of his wife, an Iowa dentist fired a female assistant because she was "irresistible and a threat to his marriage." She sued, claiming discrimination. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of the dentist. Good call?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

praetorianus65
12/24/12 5:47 pm

If you don't have the self control to stay faithful to your significant other, you don't deserve one.
The poor wife - it's only a matter of time until another "irresistible " woman comes along.

Reply
NYevo NY
12/24/12 5:46 pm

There is something seriously wrong with 23% of the Dems and 52% of the Pubs who voted in this poll.

Reply
Yankeeguy
12/24/12 5:43 pm

The Iowa Supreme Court sucks on so many levels.

Reply
kut17
12/24/12 5:42 pm

They're the new pharma-girls!!

commonman1 Peace
12/24/12 5:41 pm

The question is which woman do you want taking you to court. I think he made the right decision.

Reply
JollyMan93 Big Sky Guy
12/24/12 5:41 pm

They did it probably because business owners have the right to hire and fire people. May not be right but that's part of how things go I guess...

palindrome California
12/24/12 5:38 pm

about themselves, you have violated the law.

palindrome California
12/24/12 5:37 pm

Yes. But that's against the law. Why? Because those things you listed are things a person can change about themselves. The suspect categories protect race, gender, illegitimacy etc because they are things a person cannot change about themselves. When you discriminate against something a person can't

Reply
munkey? SilentMunkey
12/24/12 5:37 pm

You can keep your Korarabian meters! Communist-socialist-democratic-liberty loving-conservatative-nimrodpoops!

I want the old ways!!! The swords and clubs of my forefathers shall NOT be replaced by your guns and fancy weapons. I will not eat at a fastfood place over my own home and you can't trust!

bweezy NOVA
12/24/12 5:35 pm

There's this little thing called self control.

Reply
BAL North Carolina
12/24/12 5:32 pm

Wouldn't let that pig near my mouth. Hope he loses all his costumers!

Reply
JackTorS Clap you stupid bastards
12/24/12 5:28 pm

What most people don't understand is that this case wasn't even close. It never even made it to trial. It was dismissed unanimously 7-0 in the lower court and upheld by the SSC.

Unless there is something seriously illegal about the Iowa Civil Rights Act, I can't imagine a reversal in the USSC.

Reply
TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
12/24/12 5:21 pm

Palindrome. I guess the answer is Yes. We can discriminate on how someone dresses during an interview. Men are always advised to wear their best clothing even if the job doesn't require it. It's fair game to judge their haircut, clothing, visible tattoos, body odor, piercings, boogers in the nose.

Reply
Tony SOH Founder
12/24/12 5:15 pm

Well - I did say "please" :-)

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 5:13 pm

When you limit the question to "is hotness a protected status?", like this court did, of course the answer is obvious.

But the real question is her gender. Being "hot" is totally up to individual preference. What if another female wears a certain type of shoe that turns his fetish on? Same deal?

Reply
GoldenRay On SSBB
12/24/12 5:13 pm

Was she going out of her way to flirt? If so, it's justified. If the guy just can't keep his eyes from wandering, it's his problem.

Reply
GoldenRay On SSBB
12/24/12 5:12 pm

Lol Tony..Type anything and everyone Likes.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 5:11 pm

That's where you scored the goal: "being hot is not a protected status"

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, the court used an extremely narrow focus on Ms. Nelson's "hotness" and ignored the fact that her "hotness" was irrelevant. No woman, or man, is responsible for how "hot" they're perceived

Reply
TopsQueen Oregon Coast
12/24/12 5:10 pm

On the news it said he was very, very, very, attract to her compared it to a fancy car. He wanted her the wife saw the emails bye-bye lady rather than bye-bye wife. The state upheld.

BetaMax
12/24/12 5:06 pm

You're so stupid, I am frightened that you are allowed to vote.

FollowYourBliss Never Happy, Ever After
12/24/12 5:05 pm

She's a dental assistant... They are all smoking hot, what did he expect?

Reply
BetaMax
12/24/12 5:00 pm

I will never understand what goes on in the minds of people like you.

BetaMax
12/24/12 4:57 pm

Comments like this depress me.

Reply
oceania New Jersey
12/24/12 4:55 pm

Twist: The nurse would never give him a chance in the first place.

Reply
TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
12/24/12 4:50 pm

I think the dentist would have done better not to hire her in the first place. She didn't get fired because she was a woman. She got fired because he thought she was hot. Being hot is not a protected status. Lets face it; hot chicks have enough other advantages in this world.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 4:47 pm

a minimum wage. They can't employ children etc


There are rules.... Believe it or not.

Reply
Tony SOH Founder
12/24/12 4:46 pm

testing multiple notifications. please Like :)

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 4:45 pm

For example: if a person wants to set up a bank. He must act in accordance with the PATRIOT ACT and anti-money laundering laws.
If a person chooses to open a liquor store, they have to abide by state liquor laws and sell to persons only over 21.
If a person operates a business, they have to pay

Reply
Loadmaster Sacto
12/24/12 4:44 pm

Obvious poster is obvious

Reply
munkey? SilentMunkey
12/24/12 4:43 pm

Yeah like job performance or budget cuts...

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 4:41 pm

to continue operating his business if he or she finds the laws he has to operate in accordance with unsavory to his or her personal attitudes.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 4:40 pm

Maybe, if it's listed as a condition of employment. Then the employee would be legally bound but you always have the option to quit (but you usually forfeit benefits etc)

Likewise, as a condition to operating a legal business in our fine nation, the employer is bound by the law. He can choose not

Reply
freeedom New Hampshire
12/24/12 4:39 pm

At least the guy was honest. He could have made up a whole host of things to fire her.

Reply
3acn
12/24/12 4:37 pm

So should the court system require the woman to continue to work if she was unhappy with her employer?

The employer should have at least have the same rights as the employee.

Reply
3acn
12/24/12 4:34 pm

If this was discrimination why was she ever hired!? It was a special case but the bottom line is that she has the right to quit for any reason just like the employer has the right to hire and fire for any reason.

RJ1969 SoCal
12/24/12 4:31 pm

so screw the ten year exemplary employee because she has nothing to do with it?

makes sense.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 4:31 pm

The question the court failed to address is:

May an employer fire his employee [in this case because she's found to be "irresistible" by her employer] because he cannot control his emotional/physical response to said employee's physical appearance?

By not asking this, they failed in their duty

Reply
Bev
12/24/12 4:28 pm

Thanks! You too 

Reply
Jason19 New York
12/24/12 4:27 pm

Family comes first. If a guys wife thinks a certain woman could be a danger to the marriage she has every right to ask this. It's not women's rights, it's wives rights lol. The wife has the right to ask that you distance yourself from a potential marriage wrecker. Good wife! Good husband!

Reply
monkees19 New Jersey
12/24/12 4:25 pm

How on earth that made it to trial, ill never know.

Reply
munkey? SilentMunkey
12/24/12 4:25 pm

I mean with troll?

You can't bait a hook with troll. That's sick.

Reply
munkey? SilentMunkey
12/24/12 4:24 pm

You just troll bait him?

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 4:22 pm

Behaving* not behind

Reply
munkey? SilentMunkey
12/24/12 4:21 pm

Wait she still left him?

Time to rehire that nurse.

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 4:21 pm

In this instance, a man fires his employee because he feared she would be "irresistible" to him. Not because she was behind unprofessionally. Not because she wasn't up to the task. It was because she was irresistible to him and he coule not be held responsible for his actions- so he fired her

Reply
munkey? SilentMunkey
12/24/12 4:20 pm

Yeah but a nurse...attractive women just don't fit into that position for ya?

And racial discrimination is a natural reaction. You will never laugh so hard until you see a black guy 'torment' a five year old who has never seen black people. I was dying... He wasn't offended by her natural ignorance

Reply
palindrome California
12/24/12 4:18 pm

True. But having read the opinion of this court.... Eeeeh. It's extremely narrow considering the argument. We'll see how this turns out.

TempName14 Everywhere but nowhere
12/24/12 4:17 pm

... but also discriminating in the basis of age or gender can be wrong if its based on some sort of prejudice and not based on pragmatic reasoning as in the examples I provided.