# Because I find you attractive and may be tempted by you, you're fired! (OK says State Supreme Court)
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [July 12, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357 "2013-07-12T21:12:15Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/1 "2013-07-12T21:12:15Z")
[I kid you not](http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/07/12/dentist_who_fired_employee_for_being_too_attractive_acted_legally_says_court.html).
So, because this guy doesn’t trust himself he fired his “attractive” assistant. And, he gets the okay to do so by the courts. Unfuckingbelievable!
Next up, I am firing my secretary because she is taller than me. I am worried that I may feel less of a man in her presence. I wouldn’t want to risk getting depressed, you know.
---
### Author:  [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/2 "2013-07-12T21:43:24Z")
What, in particular, is wrong the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision? The Iowa legislature can always pass a law giving more protections to employees than Title VII offers.
---
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/3 "2013-07-12T21:58:11Z")
> [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](#):
>
> What, in particular, is wrong the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision? The Iowa legislature can always pass a law giving more protections to employees than Title VII offers.
In my opinion it is wrong because it enables bigots and their ilk to arbitrarily fire employees because they don’t accept the characteristics or behaviours of the latter.
In other words, it sets a precedent to fire gays, women, etc. all under the guise of “If I didn’t terminate them, I would be compelled to do something even worse”.
But, I know you knew that, so I suspect you are looking for a different answer?
ETA: Why are specific laws needed when more fundamental principles of liberty and (non)discrimination apply? That is the point of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, no?
---
### Author:  [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/4 "2013-07-12T22:03:03Z")
There have been several threads about this:
> **[Iowa Court upholds employer's right to fire hot chicks](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=676425)**
>
> We interrupt your regularly scheduled gun debate to bring you this: At first blush, this seemed irredeemably stupid and unfair, especially given the facts of this particular case (the woman worked for the dentist for 10 years and only became “too...
> **[Dental assistant fired for being luscious](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=676526)**
>
> 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. Bosses can fire...
> **[Way to do Iowa. Women's bodies are a sin and we men can't help ourselves.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=676428)**
>
> Un-fucking-believable! Seriously, WTF?! Wow, just wow. Way to go Iowa.
---
### Author:  [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/5 "2013-07-12T22:04:05Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#):
>
> In my opinion it is wrong because it enables bigots and their ilk to arbitrarily fire employees because they don’t accept the characteristics or behaviours of the latter.
>
> In other words, it sets a precedent to fire gays, women, etc. all under the guise of “If I didn’t terminate them, I would be compelled to do something even worse”.
>
> But, I know you knew that, so I suspect you are looking for a different answer?
>
> ETA: Why are specific laws needed when more fundamental principles of liberty and (non)discrimination apply? That is the point of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, no?
But employers can already arbitrarily fire employees. At-will employment is quite common through the U.S. Women are protected from gender discrimination via Title VII. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution generally don’t apply to private actors (the Thirteenth Amendment is an exception).
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/6 "2013-07-12T22:04:09Z")
Typical anti-dentite OP.
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/7 "2013-07-12T22:10:59Z")
> [@](#):
>
> ETA: Why are specific laws needed when more fundamental principles of liberty and (non)discrimination apply? That is the point of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, no?
Specific laws are needed because there are competing fundamental principles like “I should be able to hire and fire whoever I want, it’s my business after all.” To the employer, that sounds a like like “freedom and liberty.” So, we have laws that protect certain classes of people against discrimination, and otherwise (generally) allow firing for anything else. The court probably didn’t find any statute that prohibited this action, and most people don’t want courts to write laws by making decisions based on what they think is “the right thing to do” in any particular case.
---
### Author:  [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/8 "2013-07-12T22:13:07Z")
> [@Procrustus](#):
>
> Specific laws are needed because there are competing fundamental principles like “I should be able to hire and fire whoever I want, it’s my business after all.” To the employer, that sounds a like like “freedom and liberty.” So, we have laws that protect certain classes of people against discrimination, and otherwise (generally) allow firing for anything else. The court probably didn’t find any statute that prohibited this action, and most people don’t want courts to write laws by making decisions based on what they think is “the right thing to do” in any particular case.
Couldn’t have said it any better myself. I think the employer acted like a jackass in this case, but that doesn’t mean giving the employee a statutory cause of action is a good policy choice.
---
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/9 "2013-07-12T22:13:50Z")
> [@Procrustus](#):
>
> Specific laws are needed because there are competing fundamental principles like “I should be able to hire and fire whoever I want, it’s my business after all.” To the employer, that sounds a like like “freedom and liberty.” So, we have laws that protect certain classes of people against discrimination, and otherwise (generally) allow firing for anything else. The court probably didn’t find any statute that prohibited this action, and most people don’t want courts to write laws by making decisions based on what they think is “the right thing to do” in any particular case.
I supposes I am naive (and I’m not being sarcastic) but I would have hoped that firing someone because they are a member of a class (“attractive women”) is incompatible with the Constitution/BOR.
---
### Author:  [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/10 "2013-07-12T22:16:28Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#):
>
> I supposes I am naive (and I’m not being sarcastic) but I would have hoped that firing someone because they are a member of a class (“attractive women”) is incompatible with the Constitution/BOR.
You’d be surprised by the amount of ink that federal courts have spilled over the words “because of” in the employment context. The number of statutorily protected classes will likely grow over the next few decades, I think.
---
### Author:  [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/11 "2013-07-12T22:43:56Z")
> [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](#):
>
> What, in particular, is wrong the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision? The Iowa legislature can always pass a law giving more protections to employees than Title VII offers.
Morally, I think the excuse of “I must fire this person because they may TEMPT me to do something” is never defensible. In fact, I would say that all firings should be for a justifiable reason, which is why I absolutely are against these types of at-will employment states. If one is to be fired, there should be a good reason for it, and I don’t consider weakness of the employer to be a good reason
---
### Author:  [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/12 "2013-07-12T22:49:24Z")
In some jobs you can be fired for being too fat or too ugly or too skinny or any other number of reasons. Being too attractive is at least a nice reason.
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/13 "2013-07-12T22:52:18Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#):
>
> I supposes I am naive (and I’m not being sarcastic) but I would have hoped that firing someone because they are a member of a class (“attractive women”) is incompatible with the Constitution/BOR.
There is nothing in the Constitution that would protect employees, even for termination based on sex or race. That had to come from Congress, and even then, some argued that Congress doesn’t (or shouldn’t) have that authority. There are a lot of things that are “wrong” that are not unconstitutional or even illegal. It sucks sometimes, but probably better than the alternative.
---
### Author:  [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/14 "2013-07-12T22:55:04Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> Morally, I think the excuse of “I must fire this person because they may TEMPT me to do something” is never defensible. In fact, I would say that all firings should be for a justifiable reason, which is why I absolutely are against these types of at-will employment states. If one is to be fired, there should be a good reason for it, and I don’t consider weakness of the employer to be a good reason
In my (admittedly biased) opinion, there’s already too much employment litigation. Requiring for-cause terminations runs the risk of crippling the courts.
---
### Author:  [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/15 "2013-07-12T23:18:21Z")
> [@Bob Ducca](#):
>
> In some jobs you can be fired for being too fat or too ugly or too skinny or any other number of reasons. Being too attractive is at least a nice reason.
If the job can reasonably be determined to require some superficial attribute, I’m all for it. Hooters, because of the nature of their restaurant, should get to hire only attractive women. But attractiveness has little to do with dentistry
> [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](#):
>
> In my (admittedly biased) opinion, there’s already too much employment litigation. Requiring for-cause terminations runs the risk of crippling the courts.
Do you believe the firing was immoral but justified simply because of your worry that courts would be paralyzed? Or do you believe the firing was moral but a happy side effect is that courts would not have to deal with it? And how does that compare with the fact that, moral or immoral, the courts DID get involved anyways and that the ruling affects little the amount of cases that would be brought to it and is irrelevant?
---
### Author:  [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/16 "2013-07-12T23:28:53Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#):
>
> I supposes I am naive (and I’m not being sarcastic) but I would have hoped that firing someone because they are a member of a class (“attractive women”) is incompatible with the Constitution/BOR.
If you look at some of those other threads that **PastTense** gives links to, you might find out that there is a lot more to the story than her being fired because he found her attractive. That (as usual with these things) is just the tabloid/internet heavily spun version of the story designed to get people outraged and generate page views. It seems to have worked with you. In fact it is a complex and unfortunate situation. Certainly it is not fair that the woman should be fired, and she does not seem to have done anything wrong, but it is really not true that she was fired merely for being “too attractive”, and it is not clear that the dentist really did anything at all reprehensible either, or that there was any other way out of the situation that would not have been worse, and even more unjust, for all involved. From what I can make out, if there is a bad guy in the story (and that is a big if) it is not the dentist but the dentist’s wife.
As for the judges, they seem to have followed the law.
---
### Author:  [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/17 "2013-07-12T23:31:17Z")
> [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](#):
>
> In my (admittedly biased) opinion, there’s already too much employment litigation. Requiring for-cause terminations runs the risk of crippling the courts.
Yay America! Land of the free, where the interests of businesses _always_ come before the interests of human beings.
---
### Author:  [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/18 "2013-07-13T00:11:46Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> And how does that compare with the fact that, moral or immoral, the courts DID get involved anyways and that the ruling affects little the amount of cases that would be brought to it and is irrelevant?
It’s not irrelevant at all. If you don’t think expanding the number of causes of action (or expanding the scope of current causes of action) would result in more litigation, you ought to read this book:
> **[The Federal Courts: Challenge and Reform, Revised Edition: Posner, Richard A.:...](https://www.amazon.com/Federal-Courts-Challenge-Reform-Revised/dp/0674296273)**
>
> The Federal Courts: Challenge and Reform, Revised Edition \[Posner, Richard A.\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. The Federal Courts: Challenge and Reform, Revised Edition
---
### Author:  [@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IgnoranceIsMyExcuse)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2013, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/19 "2013-07-13T00:12:46Z")
> [@njtt](#):
>
> Yay America! Land of the free, where the interests of businesses _always_ come before the interests of human beings.
As another poster pointed out, freedom cuts both ways. In this case, the employer WAS a human being, and not a big bad corporation.
---
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [July 13, 2013, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357/20 "2013-07-13T02:21:06Z")
> [@njtt](#):
>
> If you look at some of those other threads that **PastTense** gives links to, you might find out that there is a lot more to the story than her being fired because he found her attractive. That (as usual with these things) is just the tabloid/internet heavily spun version of the story designed to get people outraged and generate page views. It seems to have worked with you. In fact it is a complex and unfortunate situation.
There’s a lot to go through in those links, and I haven’t read every post. Not even close. If there are any key ones (in your opinion) I would be grateful for the pointer(s).
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/because-i-find-you-attractive-and-may-be-tempted-by-you-youre-fired-ok-says-state-supreme-court/663357.md?page=2)