# Iowa Court upholds employer's right to fire hot chicks
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 22, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848 "2012-12-22T17:08:25Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/21 "2012-12-22T18:24:41Z")
> [@Lobohan](#):
>
> This is a tangent, of course, but right to work is a misnomer in that, in non-right to work environments, you certainly can work. You just can’t get the benefits of union advocacy (higher wages and benefits) without paying the equivalent of union dues.
>
> _Right to work_ would better be called, “Right to Freeload Off Union Advocacy.”
Not really. Unions can negotiate benefits that apply only to union members if they wish. That would be wise, as it would give people an enticement to join the union. I think it’s stupid that they don’t.
---
### Author:  [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/22 "2012-12-22T18:29:00Z")
I could see this kind of jurisprudence undercutting the fuck out of anti-harassment laws and regulations:
Employer hits on employee, threatens to fire them if they don’t X, employee shuts boss down, gets canned. Employee lodges complaint, claims they were fired because they wouldn’t comply with harassment, employer defends themselves by claiming “irresistible attraction” - any evidence of harassment could even turn into proof of said attraction.
End result: employer may or may not get in trouble over the harassment, but in either case employee doesn’t get their job back and can suck it metaphorically because they wouldn’t literally. Which is what anti-harassment laws were supposed to prevent.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/23 "2012-12-22T18:33:15Z")
> [@Kobal2](#):
>
> I could see this kind of jurisprudence undercutting the fuck out of anti-harassment laws and regulations:
> Employer hits on employee, threatens to fire them if they don’t X, employee shuts boss down, gets canned. Employee lodges complaint, claims they were fired because they wouldn’t comply with harassment, employer defends themselves by claiming “irresistible attraction” - any evidence of harassment could even turn into proof of said attraction.
> End result: employer may or may not get in trouble over the harassment, but in either case employee doesn’t get their job back and can suck it metaphorically because they wouldn’t literally. Which is what anti-harassment laws were supposed to prevent.
No, it wouldn’t work that way. Harassment is harassment. Doesn’t matter if the chick is hot or not.
---
### Author:  [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/24 "2012-12-22T18:42:25Z")
Yup, but if “irresistible attraction” is grounds enough to fire someone, then you can’t mandate an employer reinstate a harassed-then-fired employee, can you ?
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/25 "2012-12-22T18:46:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Not really. Unions can negotiate benefits that apply only to union members if they wish. That would be wise, as it would give people an enticement to join the union. I think it’s stupid that they don’t.
Unions don’t do this because by law they cannot.
---
### Author:  [@jonesj2205](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jonesj2205)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/26 "2012-12-22T18:54:22Z")
> [@Kobal2](#):
>
> Yup, but if “irresistible attraction” is grounds enough to fire someone, then you can’t mandate an employer reinstate a harassed-then-fired employee, can you ?
You’ve got it backwards. All the employer needs to demonstrate is the firing wasn’t as a result of one of the protected aspects (race, gender, etc.) and if not they can be fired for any reason (too hot, too smelly, smokes, too fat). Sexually harassed then fired isn’t going to pass the first test.
---
### Author:  [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/27 "2012-12-22T19:19:23Z")
> [@bup](#):
>
> We are trusting the phrasing “even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong” from the AP.
>
> Is it clear in the actual ruling? Or has anyone seen better evidence that’s the case?
>
> The justices did address that - he wasn’t discriminating against a gender, just this one particular woman and their relationship.
>
> I want to see a sexual harassment argument - but I can’t find one. If he would have sexually harassed her, but fired her so he wouldn’t, that would seem (to me) to be very measurable damage from sexual harassment. But the flirting seemed to be mutual.
The defendant’s rationale for the firing— that his wife is jealous of an attractive woman employee—has a disparate impact on women, and therefore, could run afoul of prohibitions on sex discrimination.
This is not novel law, and it is surprising that plaintiff’s counsel did not advance it.
---
### Author:  [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/28 "2012-12-22T19:21:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Not really. Unions can negotiate benefits that apply only to union members if they wish. That would be wise, as it would give people an enticement to join the union. I think it’s stupid that they don’t.
Oh for the love of Christ, how many times does this error need to be corrected? No, elected unions cannot negotiate benefits for their members only. Unelected unions can, but employers are not obligated to bargain collectively with non-elected unions.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2012, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/29 "2012-12-22T20:44:02Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#):
>
> Oh for the love of Christ, how many times does this error need to be corrected? No, elected unions cannot negotiate benefits for their members only. Unelected unions can, but employers are not obligated to bargain collectively with non-elected unions.
There was no error in my post. Unions don’t have to seek cert by the NLRB, and in RtW states they might be advised not to if there are enough “free loaders” to worry about.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/30 "2012-12-22T20:47:21Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#):
>
> The defendant’s rationale for the firing— that his wife is jealous of an attractive woman employee—has a disparate impact on women, and therefore, could run afoul of prohibitions on sex discrimination.
>
> This is not novel law, and it is surprising that plaintiff’s counsel did not advance it.
Is it possible that this is more of a federal, Title VII type claim, and wasn’t cognizeable in the state forum?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/31 "2012-12-22T21:08:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Is it possible that this is more of a federal, Title VII type claim, and wasn’t cognizeable in the state forum?
What if the guy claimed to be bisexual? Or, it makes one wonder why he even told her the reason. Not too smart, this guy.
---
### Author:  [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/32 "2012-12-22T23:16:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Is it possible that this is more of a federal, Title VII type claim, and wasn’t cognizeable in the state forum?
I’d be surprised to learn that Iowa doesn’t independently prohibit sex discrimination in employment apart from Title VII. As to the federalism question, it’s been a while since Federal Courts class, but I don’t recall any bar to prosecuting a federal statutory right in state court. I also think disparate impact is the majority rule vis-a-vis state employment discrimination protections, but I haven’t some a fifty-state survey or anything like that.
---
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [December 23, 2012, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/33 "2012-12-23T00:01:26Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#):
>
> 1. I really can’t judge the reasonableness of the decision without pics.
[Okey-dokey](http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Wisconsin/Sawyer-County-WI/Melissa-Nelson.3492111.html).
Hot enough for you?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 23, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/34 "2012-12-23T04:15:38Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#):
>
> I’d be surprised to learn that Iowa doesn’t independently prohibit sex discrimination in employment apart from Title VII. As to the federalism question, it’s been a while since Federal Courts class, but I don’t recall any bar to prosecuting a federal statutory right in state court. I also think disparate impact is the majority rule vis-a-vis state employment discrimination protections, but I haven’t some a fifty-state survey or anything like that.
I think there is a bar – that is, I don’t think the existence of Title VII creates a state cause of action. But this is obviously not my arena.
---
### Author:  [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)
#### Post date: [December 23, 2012, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/35 "2012-12-23T04:35:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> I think there is a bar – that is, I don’t think the existence of Title VII creates a state cause of action. But this is obviously not my arena.
Hmmm … I seem to recall that exclusive federal jurisdiction is reserved for patent, bankruptcy, and immigration. Otherwise the state courts have concurrent original jurisdiction over federal law claims. In any event, the Iowa courts heard this claim and had the lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, they would have been obligated to dismiss it long before it got to the state supreme court. Whether this is because they were hearing a federal Title VII claim or an independent state law employment protection, I think sex discrimination would be surer footing than “lookism.”
ETA: [http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/17](http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/17)
---
### Author:  [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)
#### Post date: [December 23, 2012, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/36 "2012-12-23T04:51:19Z")
Would he fire a man for being too hot? If the answer is no, then I don’t see how this isn’t sex discrimination and I don’t give a fuck what 7 dipshits on a bench say, the dentist is gutless scum.
---
### Author:  [@Jake\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jake_Jones)
#### Post date: [December 23, 2012, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/37 "2012-12-23T05:16:44Z")
Tempest in a teapot. This case has nothing to do with “firing hot chicks.” This is a small practice with both the wife and assistant working there. The assistant worked there for ten years and presumably the wife was there as long or longer. Obviously if the assistant was hired ten years earlier, at age 22, there was no discrimination against hot chicks in the office.
There is mention of text messages of a personal nature, but no details. Could be a crazy wife, but the ten year work history argues against this. Someone stepped over the line and the wife found out and gave her husband an ultimatum, to which he conceded. In what sane universe does this woman have a right to keep her job in that scenario?
Regardless of who did what, she should have taken her severence and politely fucked off. The fact that she never filed harassment charges suggests that she was not an innocent bystander in whatever took place between them. That’s not to say that she was an evil siren, but something was going on and circumstances indicate that she was not an unwilling participant.
Bringing this to a court of law is shameful, and I’m glad she lost her case. It’s bordering on frivolous, in my opinion.
---
### Author:  [@Jake\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jake_Jones)
#### Post date: [December 23, 2012, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/38 "2012-12-23T05:23:25Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#):
>
> Would he fire a man for being too hot? If the answer is no, then I don’t see how this isn’t sex discrimination and I don’t give a fuck what 7 dipshits on a bench say, the dentist is gutless scum.
Would he fire a male assistant if he found inappropriate text messages between the male assistant and his wife on his wife’s phone? Should he be allowed to? Under those circumstances, do you think the male assistant’s job should be protected by law? Whether or not the dentist in question is a gutless scum is not in evidence, at least that we know of. Regardless, I don’t think he has a legal obligation to continue the assistant’s employment in either scenario.
---
### Author:  [@Cats\_pajamas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cats_pajamas)
#### Post date: [December 23, 2012, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/39 "2012-12-23T05:49:53Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#):
>
> Thoughts:
>
> 1. I really can’t judge the reasonableness of the decision without pics.
SFW unless your jealous, Christian wife catches you looking at it. [http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly\_fs/1.1226138.1356235677!/img/httpImage/image.jpg\_gen/derivatives/landscape\_635/melissa-nelson-cnn-pixelated.jpg](http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1226138.1356235677!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/melissa-nelson-cnn-pixelated.jpg)
---
### Author:  [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)
#### Post date: [December 23, 2012, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848/40 "2012-12-23T05:50:29Z")
> [@Jake\_Jones](#):
>
> .
> Could be a crazy wife, but the ten year work history argues against this.
>
> Regardless of who did what, she should have taken her severence and politely fucked off. The fact that she never filed harassment charges suggests that she was not an innocent bystander in whatever took place between them. That’s not to say that she was an evil siren, but something was going on and circumstances indicate that she was not an unwilling participant.
>
> Bringing this to a court of law is shameful, and I’m glad she lost her case. It’s bordering on frivolous, in my opinion.
There’s all levels of “crazy wife”. Some women might suddenly go nuts over ANY text messaging, but be fine with normal office interaction (that the wife is able to see with her own eyes as it happens).
I agree that the claim seems spurious. Unfortunately for the woman, bringing this lawsuit has had the unintended effect of possibly making her LESS employable in the future.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-court-upholds-employers-right-to-fire-hot-chicks/644848.md?page=3)