Bad news for me: Court rules employees can be fired for being irresistible

As I read the decision, the jealous wife and the feeling that the marriage was jeopardized by the employee's presence was sufficient justification for her firing and took it outside Iowa's gender discrimination protections.

The discussion of the texts and his comments were not relied on by the Court in reaching any of its legal conclusions.

 

You tell the boss and the wife to get some counseling or get a divorce. The woman herself isn't the boss' Kryptonite; if she is gone, he's just going to cozy up to someone else. And you simply don't blame a person who is completely blameless.

 

That's the way I read it, too, but then again I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.

 

It seems like it should be an easy case of gender discrimination but taking the Court's discussion of existing case law at face value (ie, I did not research the cited cases), there seems to be precedent for the decision.

 

Well, let's assume it's a particular woman (or "type" (e.g., age, looks, etc.)) of whom the wife is jealous. I still find myself in a troublesome spot with your diagnosis, which, in essence, treats the woman's employment arrangement as superior to the boss' marital contract. In a sense you're saying that once you hire someone, that person's claim to his/her job trumps all of your other obligations.

 

You liar. I just got your resume. With photo.

I couldn't figure out whether it was a photo of a candy cigarette or an apricot crayon.

Then I was like ... oh. It's that.

 

It does, if that person is a good employee -- actually the guy's best by his own admission -- who hasn't done anything wrong and hasn't encouraged any of this business. The wife is a shrew and the husband is a freak and they have some weird hang-up about their religion that meant their pastor sat in on the firing, and the woman is supposed to pay the price for all of this?

 

I don't believe you really feel this way.

 

I believe the personal concerns should have no effect whatsoever. That's basic professionalism -- do your job. She was doing that, apparently very well.

Scapegoating her for their marital problems is crazy.

 

I'm certainly not blaming the woman for anything. And I never thought it was sexual harassment. If it was, then she might have a case.

Since when does holding a job mean you are going to have one forever? We see numerous cases in newspapers and other media companies letting people go. And don't even start when it comes to the sports world.

I'm simply saying an employer has the right to hire and fire whomever, whenever for whatever. I have someone who works for me now that I am less than thrilled with. Don't feel like I am getting my money's worth. Might make a change after New Year's. Perfectly within my right to do so. Has nothing to do with sex or discrimination or anything like that. It's simply an employer's perogative to pick his/her employees.

 

Not sexual harassment in some people's books.

 

I wasn't referring to you. I think my "you" meant exmedia.

I would never engage a cretin like you on a thread like this. It's bad enough that people take you seriously now on the sports threads, but I would never go near you on anything that has an actual bearing on society.