Here’s how it works in the States:
State-level human rights agencies function similarly to the EEOC. Employees have to administratively exhaust their claims before filing suit under Title VII.
Because I find you attractive and may be tempted by you, you're fired! (OK says State Supreme Court)
Of this particular employer is put out of business by the cost of this litigation, I would consider that a species of justice.
Clearly ya don’t read too fucking well. HR perhaps?
Posted By Zeke
I do not know about Iowa - y’all grow corn or some such doncha? - but here that is a very, very clear example of sexual harassment. I cannot imagine a court seeing it is anything other, Canadian legal Dopers feel free to correct me.
Strange, I could’ve sworn I said something to that exact effect no too long ago. Let me see if I can find it…
Posted By Zeke
I do not know about Iowa - y’all grow corn or some such doncha? - but here…
As far as how do you judge whether an employer is a douche or not. Well, if you can’t figure out the difference between simple morality and utter douchiness (Again, HR perhaps?) then I present you with a proverb I’ve heard;
“If you sit down at a poker table and can’t figure out who the sucker is inside of a minute the sucker is you.” Extrapolate if you can - I’ll wait while you google it - to see the relevance to you.
In short fuck everyone that bears any similarity to you without being you.
In shorter, Douche.
I schooled you. Peace, loser.
First off, when the adults are talking fuck off until they are done.
Second off, when did I EVER proclaim that I was speaking for how backwoods barbaric places like America (excepting those States that are not “at-will” employment) deal with obviously scummy shit. I was speaking of a civilized nation.
Third off, Your country shut down 'cuz a politician got a fucking hummer but this woman can be canned after 10 years because she’s all of a sudden too attractive. This is cool with you? Get some fucking perspective.
Again I ask, are you HR?
Here’s an idea for your next trick; stand on the deck of an aircraft carrier and declare victory.
Saying it makes it so right?
Right?
Were you to accidentally ingest large amounts of fecal matter and find it proved fatal I should not be saddened in the least.
Please do not consume large amounts of fecal matter
First off, you sound like an idiot when you use “first off.” You’re not DMX.
Your crack about Clinton is beyond dated. You need to stop mining the Robin Williams HBO special for material. If you don’t, you might need to buy a new tape rewinder.
How many new bedsores do you have today? Do you need to be turned?
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Fire at will lets you fire someone without giving any reason at all. Iowa is one such state. You have to prove that there was some impermissible grounds for your firing to get relief. Proving that you were fired because your bosses wife wanted him to fire you is not going to be enough to get you relief in Iowa.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. The law is not about whether or not an employment action is “unfair”, it’s about whether or not the cause for the employment action contravenes a policy set forth in the law.
In this case, because she believed that the cause for this termination was covered by the law, she went to court and it was in that process it came out that this was a case of being compelled by marital conflict, which the court finds is NOT a banned motivation.
Well, I believe around here your scenario will get a large response along the lines of “Dump your husband’s worthless insecure ass, you wuss, how can you ‘love’ someone like that”. The employee’s livelihood will be seen as their “basic right”, but your marital instability as your own damn fault; if in the end you end up losing the marriage and the business (a likely outcome of antagonizing the spouse), then they end up unemployed anyway, but at least you have been righteously punished. This last opinion already seen in one response here.
You will also get a large response along the lines of “it’s your business and your marriage, you have the right to protect them and if the employee’s presence causes stress, then hand over a severance and send them on their way. Who the hell expects guaranteed job security anymore?”
Both sides will then heap scorn upon one another’s lack of intelligence, compassion, business sense, grasp of reality, etc. and of course about how Employment At Will is either a barbarous crime against humanity or the cornerstone of freedom itself.
This is exactly it. I believe in at-will employment, but I can’t realistically expect to change anyone else’s views, particularly if the person is from a place with a different regime.
What the fuck is a DMX?
The Clinton thing may be dated, but seems relevant for perspective. There’s this called history you see. Though it does tend to get dated in time. Fuckwit.
I graduated from Robin Williams when I was about 14. Some day you troo may aspire to reach such heights.
As for bedsores, maybe if your old lady would leave me be and try putting her feet on the floor I wouldn’t have so many.
And are you offering to do the turning? You like the idea of mauling strange men and dealing with oozing sores do you?
Exactly what level of management are you (I’m still betting HR) because it sounds to me like you have all of the qualities required to get to the tippy-fucking-top.
Now, just for chuckles, let’s see if you can follow along:
1)I said it was morally reprehensible
2)I said that HERE, not in fucking Iowa, it seems to me it would be a clear open and shut violation of her human rights.
3)I did not purport to have any knowledge of Iowonian law. In fact I outright said that I didn’t - I know, it was subtle.
4)I explained to a non-fucktard member my understanding of the process in my province. NB in case your grasp of geography is on par with your grasp of history Manitoba is not Iowa - it’s not even in the same fucking country.
5)I encouraged legal dopers to correct any and all misconceptions. NB what happens in Iowa is largely irrelevant here see the geographical note in #4 above.
6)I outright accused you of being a douche, scumbag, fuckwit and Christ knows how many other things because you persist in missing the two salient points I was trying to make - to wit: a)Here such a thing would not fly and b) The fact that you find this asshole’s actions not only defensible but reasonable makes it very clear that you are a soulless fuck who figures so long as their fat ass is safe the rest of us all be damned.
7)I stand by each and everyone of my assertions and will do so until someone with “some tinge of letters or of wit” comes along and corrects me.
8)You do not qualify.
9)Of all of the things I have called you - each accurate and all too tame - the worst is that I suspect you are HR. If you are not HR you fucking should be. You seem to have the requisite degree of indifference and retardation.
10) In case I didn’t make it clear - defend your shameful and cum-stain stance without falling back on it’s the law here You fucking monkey it is legal to stone women in some countries for the crime of having tits. You think it being the law makes it de facto right? What was it Dicklens said about, “If the law says that…?”
11)Get fucked.
Yours sincerely and in perpetuity;
Zeke
This thread is about the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion. If you don’t believe me, check the OP. You know fuck-all about employment law and it shows. The amount of spittle you’ve left in this thread doesn’t make up for this deficiency. Peace.
Mayhaps I missed the point of the OP - wouldn’t be the 1st time - but it seems to me the tone was Iowonian Supreme Courts makes a wrong-headed, sexist and damaging decision; what a bunch of pricks,
In the article linked to by the OP a lawyer (I know punditry means little) said that in his opinion the only reason the court looked at it again was to try a second time to successfully rationalize and defend a repugnant decision.
As to what I have been saying, yet again because it seems to be sailing right over your pointy little dome - if you can, with a straight face, defend this ass-ape then you have the morals, ethics and empathy of a roiling ball of maggots on a three week dead donkey.
Stand behind your position if you can. Don’t hide behind the law, hide behind your own sense of humanity. You think this is right say why. Not, it is right because the court said so. Courts used to say it was fine to hang black folk. Did that make it right?
I guess you would say it does.
So, in all sincerity, wipe the sweat of your furrowed, greasy fucking brow, attempt to overcome your natural limitations and explain how anyone not guilty of everything I’ve accused you of being can justify such a simple and obvious abuse of power.
Guy asks sexually provocative questions of his employee, guys wife finds out, guy gets in shit from wife, woman get fired for suddenly becoming attractive after a fucking decade.
You think this is fair, reasonable, right or just? Defend it and prove that you are just as fucking slimy as I have made you out to be. But you won’t because you can’t because it is utterly indefensible by anyone not currently suffering a debilitating head injury.
Get well soon.
Shalom dickweed.
Personally, I think they erred on principle and interpretation of the law. I would have tied this thing to the 14th amendment, somehow, to make the firing a violation of gender protection
The Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state actors. Title VII and various state anti-discrimination statutes already do what you’re suggesting; namely, they protect private-sector employees from discrimination on the basis of sex.
I’m no lawyer, I just hope they would have found some way to do that. As it stands, I feel that the verdict is unjust morally if not legally. I think the laws should be changed to reflect that
Seems to be a common thread among various recent cases in the news, doesn’t it?
Indeed, that is called for if the law is morally unjust.
This. He should be prosecuted for aggravated dumbassery.
People tend to have an emotional notion that people who ask “but why?” are owed an answer.
They feel that just sending someone off, goodbye don’t ask me why, is rude.
They (foolishly IMO) feel that the employee “will understand my position if I explain”.
Sometimes they DO try to not give answers but then if the employee has got reasons to suspect something was up, s/he can always find a lawyer who will file a suit on contingency, and if the court sees it fit for the suit to proceed, that forces the parties into discovery and into answering questions under oath.
I’ve always been the employee, never the employer, but I see nothing really wrong with at-will firing. If someone bugs you because they have an annoying voice, or picks their nose too much, or tells too many impossible stories, then you should be allowed to fire them than be forced to interact with someone that pisses you off. That’s one of the key benefits of starting a business - creating a work environment that’s perfect for you. God knows it can be pretty brutal and draining in the first few years.
As for this particular case, it gets a solid meh from me. I agree that certain classes should be protected, but attractive women, generally speaking, have a great advantage in life over their non-attractive counterparts, so a few instances where it doesn’t kick in is hardly worth agonizing over. Sounds like there was much flirting in this case, so you could make a sexual harassment argument, if the woman ever felt coerced into fooling around or something.
How the fuck do you expect the guy to work with cock bulge all day?