US "Iowa court: Bosses can fire 'irresistible' workers"

Spang

Spang

Foot Fetisher
Joined
May 31, 2012
Reaction score
6,172
Age
46
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) - A dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

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.

[...]
Click to expand...

The Source
 
In Kansas you can fire anyone, any time, for any reason (as long as it doesn't violate a federal law).

We are told that it's good for workers. :rolleyes:
 
What a ridiculous situation. The fact that it ended up being ruled in the dentist's favor isn't baffling(*insert ignorant conservative stereotype here*), but it sure it depressing.
 
They might as well put up a help wanted sign specifying unattractive women only, any female they hire now will know that's what they consider her.

California is a right to work state also. One place I worked fired all the long time people (10+ years) who made over a certain amount. They told them they could reapply after 60 days as new hires and they would start at minimum wage.
 
According to this list, California isn't a right-to-work state.

Also, I never realized that right-to-work also meant right-to-be-fired-for-any-goddamn-reason-or-no-goddamn-reason. My dislike of right-to-work legislation has increased tenfold.
 
Spang said:
According to this list, California isn't a right-to-work state.

Also, I never realized that right-to-work also meant right-to-be-fired-for-any-goddamn-reason-or-no-goddamn-reason. My dislike of right-to-work legislation has increased tenfold.
Click to expand...
You're right, California is an at-will state. I knew I signed something saying I understood I could be fired for no reason.

I looked up the difference between the two, because I obviously don't know what a right to work state means.

The difference between ”right to work” and “employment at will”

Both “right to work” and “employment at will” are, obviously, employment terms. One has to do with hiring employees (hopefully you) the other has to do with firing employees (hopefully not you).
Right to Work

“Right to work” laws govern hiring of employees. In a nutshell, “right to work” means that a person has the right to work for a company without being required to either join a union or financially support a union. Basically, if you live in a “right to work” state, joining a union, or paying union dues, can’t be a condition of your employment.
Even in “right to work” states, unions can still legally operate. In fact, they may even still represent all employees in grievances and negotiations. However, they can’t force a person to join the union or pay union dues if the person doesn't want to...
Employment at Will

“Employment at will” means that either an employer or employee can end a working relationship at any time, for any reason, with no notice. That’s right. No notice. Zero. None. Nada. You can be terminated—or quit your job—on the spot.
That means if your employer doesn’t like the color of your shirt, he can fire you. If he doesn’t like how you do your hair, say good-bye to your job (okay, that’s probably not all that common, but it COULD, theoretically, happen). It kind of means that no matter how hard you work, if you upset your boss, no matter how small the incident, you could be out of a job. Bet that’s got you saying…
But…Isn’t that Discrimination?

Most states are “employment at will” states. In those states, there are very few exceptions to “employment at will” law, although the exceptions are significant. The only exceptions are that employers can’t fire anyone for reasons protected by federal legislation. That means that discriminatory firings (age, sex, religion, race…the usual suspects) are still illegal in “employment at will” states. So, you can breathe a sigh of relief if you think you’ve been fired for discriminatory reasons and, having read that last bit, thought you don’t have valid lawsuit against your employer.
Click to expand...

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.co...yment-at-will-whats-the-difference-01710.html
 
Whenever supervisors at my store bring up at will employment they put heavy emphasis on the fact that we can leave our jobs at will as well as be fired at will, like that will make us feel super about it.
 
kazyeeqen said:
Whenever supervisors at my store bring up at will employment they put heavy emphasis on the fact that we can leave our jobs at will as well as be fired at will, like that will make us feel super about it.
Click to expand...

Maybe they think that indentured servitude is the only alternative to at will employment?
 
Spang said:
Also, I never realized that right-to-work also meant right-to-be-fired-for-any-goddamn-reason-or-no-goddamn-reason. My dislike of right-to-work legislation has increased tenfold.
Click to expand...

Is the explanation of 'right to work' above an accurate one? If so, I don't see a problem with that :S can you explain?
 
ledboots said:
If you are in a union, it is harder to get fired, there has to be cause.
Click to expand...

I totally get the advantages of being in a union... But the way "right to work" is worded above, it seems like people have the option of joining rather than being forced to join/banned from joining. Which seems perfectly reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
Workers in right-to-work states make less money on average than workers in states that aren't.
 
Top Bottom