Is Iowa going to be our first Taliban state? (unemployment benefits, legal)

[smpliving]

Originally Posted by irongrl

That said, if he was my dentist, I would quit going to him after this and I think he will lose some of his patients. Probably won't get too many new ones either.

The real justice in this sad story is the slime ball dentist's reputation is destroyed now and rightfully so, as far as I'm concerned after reading about the hypocrite and seeing his slimy tattoo pic. Gross.

Hopefully, those business owners (especially medical and dental) will now think twice before engaging in this type of pathetic behavior.

[irongrl]

Originally Posted by iagal

The real justice in this sad story is the slime ball dentist's reputation is destroyed now and rightfully so, as far as I'm concerned after reading about him and seeing his slimy tattoo pic. Gross.

Hopefully now, those business owners will think twice before engaging in this type of pathetic behavior.

Agreed! The good thing about this story is that it is all over the media. There is no way that this won't have a negative impact on this dentist's business.

[jmgg]

I am NOT sticking up for this dentist in my response to this thread. How he handled this shows he's obviously a jerk.

However, in today's litigous society and how just one person's public accusation, correct or a total lie, can ruin someone's reputation, I would NEVER hire a woman in a one person office environment.

If you are the boss and a male, ANY claim by your secretary/employee even if it's a total lie, you will not be able to totally rebutt. She can drag your butt through the court system, complete with public news sesationalism. Even if you win, you've lost and your business's reputation is toast.

The only person under this situation I would hire would be a relative.

Is this a sexist position? You bet. Call me all the names you want, but there are too many women that have cried wolf under this situation and they have made it difficult for the honest female employee just looking for a job.

[minibrings]

Originally Posted by pepe1

Oh dear god. Please stop believing the biased tripe spewing from the media. Research this case for yourself and keep in mind the court case was a matter of 'at will employment'. As an employee at will, you may leave your job at anytime for any reason. And similarly, your employer may terminate your employment at anytime for any reason, save a few protected classes. Being an attractive female is not a protected class. The Iowa Supreme Court returned the correct ruling.

So an employer can fire a man for having a small bulge, or anyone for having say a mole on their face? That would be okay with you as its at will?

What next? Does this allow employers to specify physical measurements on employment ads (e.g "no fattys"?)

[tollfree]

I'm not at all surprised by the ruling and personally think it was judicial extravagance on their end, similar to the gay marriage ruling. I don't think it really matters if there are different judges or not. This is a bizarre ruling in any court.

Anything to keep the media focused on Iowa.

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by jmgg

I am NOT sticking up for this dentist in my response to this thread. How he handled this shows he's obviously a jerk.

However, in today's litigous society and how just one person's public accusation, correct or a total lie, can ruin someone's reputation, I would NEVER hire a woman in a one person office environment.

If you are the boss and a male, ANY claim by your secretary/employee even if it's a total lie, you will not be able to totally rebutt. She can drag your butt through the court system, complete with public news sesationalism. Even if you win, you've lost and your business's reputation is toast.

The only person under this situation I would hire would be a relative.

Is this a sexist position? You bet. Call me all the names you want, but there are too many women that have cried wolf under this situation and they have made it difficult for the honest female employee just looking for a job.

Oh please!

Just because those women weren't able to prove it in court doesn't mean it didn't happen.

A very small percentage of women "lie" about these things. I wish she would have taken him to court for sexual harassment, because she has tons of written proof, but she said he fired her for being a woman and made it a gender discrimination suit.

She claimed she never felt threatened or harassed by him. Why? I have no idea. She did work him for ten years, so maybe she felt a sort of kinship with the old pervert. Who knows?

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by RonnieJonez

I'm not at all surprised by the ruling and personally think it was judicial extravagance on their end, similar to the gay marriage ruling. I don't think it really matters if there are different judges or not. This is a bizarre ruling in any court.

Anything to keep the media focused on Iowa.

That's silly. I think the story is as crazy as everyone else, but if you look at it from a legal perspective the ruling isn't noteworthy.

In Iowa you can be fired by an employer at will as long as you aren't breaking any laws/harassment or the worker isn't a party of a protected class and being part of that class has something to do with why the person was fired. Iowa is like almost every other state in that regards.

The woman was fired because she was pretty. That's not a protected class, and in this case harassment wasn't used as a defense.

If she had been fired for being a woman, black, old, etc. then it would have been an easy case. In this case the judges read the law, there was no exclusion for being pretty, and acted as every other judge would who was following the law.

Doesn't mean the judges agreed with it personally, it's just how the law currently works. It was a 5-0 ruling as well, very cut and dry.

If something needs to be done, than it's obviously that being pretty needs to be added as a protected class.

This is kinda the same theme as the gay marriage ruling. Based on how the law is written, it was very cut and dry that you can't exclude gays from getting married if you're going to let straight people get married. Change the background laws, don't punish the judges (who ruled 5-0) for acting on the current law. Conservatives came up with the term "activist judge" to try and push them into a corner and make them seen estranged from society. They wanted to get people scared that these judges were doing something terrible and they needed to freak out and evict them. The judges were simply doing their jobs. It was a fairly shameful move on the part of the republicans/conservatives to push this voting out of the judges. At the end of the day they all knew the judges were only doing their job, but since they couldn't do anything else to overturn gay marriage - they just went after the judges to try and scare people into believing that it's a "false law". Most of the judges were put there by a republican governor anyway. They were hardly crazy liberal. Just translating Iowa's constitution.

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

That's silly. I think the story is as crazy as everyone else, but if you look at it from a legal perspective the ruling isn't noteworthy.

In Iowa you can be fired by an employer at will as long as you aren't breaking any laws/harassment or the worker isn't a party of a protected class and being part of that class has something to do with why the person was fired. Iowa is like almost every other state in that regards.

The woman was fired because she was pretty. That's not a protected class, and in this case harassment wasn't used as a defense.

There are way more ugly or average people than pretty or handsome ones. So what you're saying basically is that if I have a business and my receptionist has turned into a fat slob, then I can fire her in place of a thinner more attractive model?

Yes, she'll probably take me to court and say I got rid of her for being fat (which is true), but according to you and the court, I'm allowed to do that, because being a fatty isn't a "protected class".

Hmmm, if other states copied this same law, then many "older" women or men can be replaced by younger more "fit" versions just because. There's no law saying you can't fire older workers, you just can't "discriminate" against them.

Or if my receptionist is an A-cup, but I've decided I want someone with a D-cup to attract more male customers, then I can fire the flat chested woman for the bigger chest one, because of "at will" and breast size not being a "protected class".

I wonder if this same analogy will work for penise size??

[pepe1]

Originally Posted by marilyn220

There are way more ugly or average people than pretty or handsome ones. So what you're saying basically is that if I have a business and my receptionist has turned into a fat slob, then I can fire her in place of a thinner more attractive model?

Yes, she'll probably take me to court and say I got rid of her for being fat (which is true), but according to you and the court, I'm allowed to do that, because being a fatty isn't a "protected class".

Hmmm, if other states copied this same law, then many "older" women or men can be replaced by younger more "fit" versions just because. There's no law saying you can't fire older workers, you just can't "discriminate" against them.

Or if my receptionist is an A-cup, but I've decided I want someone with a D-cup to attract more male customers, then I can fire the flat chested woman for the bigger chest one, because of "at will" and breast size not being a "protected class".

I wonder if this same analogy will work for penise size??

It's amazing to me that you have such a strong opinon regarding this court case and are so outraged by it, yet you clearly have a poor understanding of the facts as it pertains to the court case.

Please, please research at will employment. Every state in the United States (except Montana) presumes the employee-employer relationship is at will unless an express contrat exists. There is nothing unique about Iowa in this regard and your earlier hijab comparisons are ridiculous and are an insult to the intelligence of everyone that has to read this thread. I don't possibly see how any court system in this country could have delivered any other ruling than the very same ruling delivered by the Iowa Supreme Court.

Once you have done your reasearch and have learned a little about at-will employment, you should easily be able to answer all your questions above about at-will employment and it's relationship to ugliness, weight, age, breast size, dong size...

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by marilyn220

There are way more ugly or average people than pretty or handsome ones. So what you're saying basically is that if I have a business and my receptionist has turned into a fat slob, then I can fire her in place of a thinner more attractive model?

yes, unless they state it as a protected class or a listed case of harassment.

Yes, she'll probably take me to court and say I got rid of her for being fat (which is true), but according to you and the court, I'm allowed to do that,

yes

because being a fatty isn't a "protected class".

exactly

Hmmm, if other states copied this same law,

it's almost universal

then many "older"

older is a protected class in the United States

women or men can be replaced by younger more "fit" versions just because. There's no law saying you can't fire older workers, you just can't "discriminate" against them.

In the United Stated under the current laws, yes

Or if my receptionist is an A-cup, but I've decided I want someone with a D-cup to attract more male customers, then I can fire the flat chested woman for the bigger chest one, because of "at will" and breast size not being a "protected class".

again - exactly, if it isn't a protected class within that state, or obviously a case of sexual harassment.

I wonder if this same analogy will work for penise size?? totally different issue! That falls under almost all sexual harassment clauses

You've got almost all the answers right, but I feel like you're seeing this from a personal point of view and not a legal. Your questions would relate to almost EVERY state in the USA.