Firing a woman because you think she's hot-- not illegal, not sexist


ISolitude's avatar
[link]

Some of the details of this case are a little strange. And of course there's the usual, "but was she asking for it? What was she wearing?" Some of the comments he made to her definitely qualify as sexual harassment (which is a sort of discrimination), never mind that he fired the poor girl.

But I think the bottom line is the last paragraph:

Framing the issue for the Iowa Supreme Court, Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote: “The question we must answer is … whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction.”

IMHO, justice was not done here. He really couldn't keep his eyes on the floor and his hands to himself?

And if he's so out of control, why does he "only hire women" anyway?

Should someone be allowed to fire someone else because they are "a threat to their marriage?" Is this a form of gender discrimination?
Comments252
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Tenshizuru's avatar
My head almost exploded when I read about this. If she'd been actively trying to seduce him, maybe, but she wasn't. Like he has no control over his own behavior. Disgusting.
kitsumekat's avatar
It's not but, she can sue for that.
NeoWarriorCat's avatar
For some reason "I can't control myself" netted the guy more court sympathy than "my wife hates her guts".

I mean, we all know that's the real reason in this case, right?
VISIONOFTHEWORLD's avatar
I'm terribly sorry but... I've seen enough girls get hired BECAUSE they were hot, over better qualified men, where I work. One of them had an affair with her boss, and she drove a BMW 3-series brand new- and other managers who were way above her used to joke that they couldn't afford anything like that ("one can only dream!") Quite often I've seen attractive looking women strutting around in spikey heels who all were hired by this same guy, and work under him. I was passed over for a job 5 years ago- they hired a cute bubbly 22 year old redhead instead. (it ended up being a blessing, I found a better paid position in the same dept months later :) )
And I know that outside of my single office in North Carolina, that thousands if not hundreds of thousands of women have their jobs because they looked hot. And I didn't even mention the porn industry ;)

So, my question for you is: If hundreds of thousands of women can be HIRED because they're hot, how the fuck should it be illegal to FIRE one for the same reason?
ISolitude's avatar
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
VISIONOFTHEWORLD's avatar
That's not much of an answer..
K-Koji's avatar
What makes you think it's any better that a woman is hired solely on her appearance? That's still sexism, and it's not the woman's problem or fault. It's the fault of the man who hired her. Men in positions of power also pass up absolutely qualified women in favour of "hot" women. Not to mention, there are just as many women who are not hired due to being attractive for all sorts of ridiculous reasons.
Her appearance shouldn't be a factor.
"Strutting around in spiky heels" also doesn't mean squat. So long as her attire is deemed work appropriate ( and often, heels are a part of what's deemed acceptable at work, often being looked down on if they DON'T wear them).
I'm curious how you know the "cute bubbly redhead" was hired in place of you just because she was "cute and bubbly?" :o Unless you were in the interview/
staple-salad's avatar
There have been studies that show some appearance based discrimination in hiring practices, there have been a few studies done. I'd link one but dA keeps telling me my comment is spam. If you google "obesity discrimination hiring" you'll find a bunch (granted, they are about obesity and not "hotness" but weight is so often considered as a deciding factor between the two that it's still fairly relevant).
Jeysie's avatar
And it hits men too, not just women. Traditional attractiveness may be downplayed some, but men are still expected to be reasonably fit, at least plain-looking, well-groomed, etc.

Especially if they're working in a position that requires personal presence dealing with customers. Someone is far more likely to want to buy from a decent-looking, fit, young, polished salesman, than a short, fat, sweaty, comb-over, wrinkly salesman.
K-Koji's avatar
Oh yeah, I can totally see that happening.
VISIONOFTHEWORLD's avatar
Well on the start, I don't believe I ever suggested it's a woman(s) fault for being hired due to looks, or have anything against attractive women in general- in fact i'd say there is no doubt that the single manager I have in mind passed up multiple women who were better qualified. I didn't specify whether his hiring hot women was discriminatory against males or females in particular- just that I know that several girls in my dept were hired for their looks. And made the point that if doing so is acceptable (which it is- I've never heard anyone object to this) then why is firing a single one in the country any different.
Creamstar's avatar
Firing or hiring based on a physical attribute of no consequence to the job really should not be allowed, ideally. If we don't allow other forms of discrimination, then this certainly shouldn't be allowed.
Endeavor-To-Freefall's avatar
I don't see how the law is sexist. If a female boss found a male worker so attractive that it impaired her work it would be legal to let him go too. What can they really do? Sure if it's some low level management you can move people around but it's more difficult to do that the higher it goes. At some point the attractive employee is going to hinder productivity more than their job placement is worth. There should be some very comfortable pay outs if someone has to be let go like this though, because it's really no fault of their own, it's shitty that it happens but sometimes what's best for the business isn't always nice or fair.
ISolitude's avatar
It shouldn't be.
Unvalanced's avatar
Gender discrimination, no. Some other kind of inappropriateness? Yes. I'd be hard-pressed to name it. And it happens a -lot-.

HR departments, largely filled with women, are quietly infamous for choosing less attractive women over more attractive, and conversely, more attractive men over less attractive.
Tinoculars's avatar
He needs to fire his wife because she seems like a control freak. If you can't accept the fact that your husband has to work surrounded by other people, some of which are female, then you need to take a break from your marriage.
Tinoculars's avatar
Better yet, get rid of both of them, women only cause trouble anyway.
Saidryian's avatar
Why are people saying this is sexist? He didn't fire her because she was a woman or because of her gender. He fired her because was attracted to her, and because his own wife said to as well. Gender had nothing to do with it because if it had been another man, the result would have been practically the same.

He was attracted to this woman, and attraction can be a powerful, frightening things. He can be faulted for his lack of self control, but at the same time he's only human. It's not her fault, but if she's so distracting he can't focus or work properly that could eventually lead to mistakes, possibly permanent ones. In many ways he's a bad guy, but he's also good for having spotted and dealt with a problem before it got any worse. Before his own behaviour, and his own one-sided attraction got any worse too.

I would have preferred it if he had left and sought employment or a new business elsewhere, yet he was also the boss, and had the right to fire anyone he liked. He should have at least tried to secure a job for her somewhere else.
I don't want to live on this world anymore.
I think I've just found the one argument against gun-control that might just convince me.
AbCat's avatar
You couldn't trust a guy like that with an anaethetised patient. If he freely admits to being unable to restrain his sexual desires then the dude needs to be struck off.
ISolitude's avatar
Hah. Having been to the building where he works myself (looong time ago, could have changed) I think the patients are safe (that is, it is very open with lots of people always coming in and out) but that did cross my mind too
EbolaSparkleBear's avatar
The woman lost her case because she filed it as a discrimination suit, not a sexual harassment suit.
There was a big break down on the legalese about the case on one of the 'news' channels.
She wasn't dismissed based on gender. So there is no discrimination.

The dentist asked her how frequently she orgasms! Mentioned bulges in his pants.
Sexual harassment would have won the day.
ISolitude's avatar
I think she was discriminated against based on her gender.

If she didn't want to have to file sexual harassment, she shouldn't have had to. That part didn't bother her. Why sue someone for something they did if it didn't bother you? To get revenge on him for something else entirely? Sounds like a broken system
DoctorV23's avatar
Well, looking at cause and effect, it's the firing which prompted the dispute. Firing can be construed as a lot of things, but not harassment. The woman was fired directly because of her physical appearance. It's really the same if she were fired for being "ugly".