Dharma Wheel

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled yesterday that employers in the state can legally fire workers they find too attractive.
In a unanimous decision, the court held that a dentist did not violate the state’s civil rights act when he terminated a female dental assistant whom his wife considered a threat to their marriage. More here

Well my job is safe.

Its about time good looking people got some grief.

Omg that cat.

Lol!

So first we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin. We start with all those irritating hotties and hunks, but that's just the beginning. Next we go after those weird people who never belch or fart. And people who make too much money. (Oops sorry Mr Snyder, present company excepted of course. ) And what about those people who sit in motionless meditation four hours at a stretch? (oops sorry again Mr Snyder) They are making all the rest of us feel inadequate, they surely have some terrible karma coming for that.

And what about those maddening people who eat three horses and a sack of spuds every day and wash it down with six quarts of whisky and weigh 108 pounds and live in glowing good health? Up against the wall, I say!

No wonder I haven't moved up! I thought it was all political.

Great. I wait with baited breath for their ruling when someone fires an employee for being too black. Or too female. Though that seems to be what it can be boiled down to in this case anyway.

This is just kindof wrong to me.

I mean seriously? Too sexy?

I think ultimately this won't hold up if tested in higher courts due to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

States try this kindof stuff all the time, and it holds up for a while as long as no one challenges it or takes it to higher court.

Usually the higher courts rightly toss this stuff out as being illegal.

The issue is, if someone can be fired for being too sexy, they can be fired for being too "ugly", etc.

And what constitutes "sexy"? You can't just fire a woman because her breast size is to your liking and you find them distracting.

This was a poorly made call, that ultimately won't ultimately hold up if it's ever tested in higher court.

And then you basically get people loosing their jobs for no reason other than the boss didn't like your outfit that day. or people being too fat, or too thin, etc.

In Gassho,

Sara H

So if it was a bad ruling, how much restitution should sexy people get for being too desirable?

shel wrote:So if it was a bad ruling, how much restitution should sexy people get for being too desirable?

Hmmm, that's a good question....



In Gassho,

Sara

Sara H wrote:This is just kindof wrong to me.

I mean seriously? Too sexy?

I think ultimately this won't hold up if tested in higher courts due to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

States try this kindof stuff all the time, and it holds up for a while as long as no one challenges it or takes it to higher court.

Usually the higher courts rightly toss this stuff out as being illegal.

The issue is, if someone can be fired for being too sexy, they can be fired for being too "ugly", etc.

And what constitutes "sexy"? You can't just fire a woman because her breast size is to your liking and you find them distracting.

This was a poorly made call, that ultimately won't ultimately hold up if it's ever tested in higher court.

And then you basically get people loosing their jobs for no reason other than the boss didn't like your outfit that day. or people being too fat, or too thin, etc.

In Gassho,

Sara H

It certainly raises some interesting questions. For instance look at standard practice at McDonald's. If you refuse to wear the uniform you won't be working there long. If you are badly overweight, or have acne then you don't work the front counter. So there is a lot of precedent for this kind of thing.

Yeah I think you're right Catmoon.

I think sooner or later this was bound to come up in such an obvious way in the courts and need to be battled out.

It does raise some interesting questions, for instance if someone cannot help their acne due to a skin condition, etc.

I think the "Sexy" issue makes it very simple, for instance the breast size thing; a woman cannot help that she has boobs and that someone finds them attractive.

Firing her on that basis would seem to be denying her the liberty to have a job based on nothing other than the fact that she is a normal female dressing in a manner normal to normal women (such as applying makeup at work, which is expected of women).

I think you're right, and that sooner or later this was and is going to have to be clearly spelled out and defigned, as what is, in fact acceptable in regards to letting someone have a job or not based on aesthetics.

Generally, the courts have ruled that aesthetics that a person cannot help, such as being a woman, being genderqueer, being old, being black, etc, are not acceptable grounds for denying someone a job. So if history is any precedent, I imagine as this gets fought out and appealed, and tested and sued over, whether in this case or others, I would imagine that sooner or later the high courts will say that this kind of ruling such in this specific case is not ok.

But this is how these things happen and get defined legally in our society,
Some court makes a crappy ruling, and another one later has to come and undo and defign it more in a broader context.
That's actually normal, that's exactly what has happened in the Gay Rights area for instance, and most other areas of civil rights, which this kindof ruling falls under.
A lot of time state judges which want to preserve some sortof "culture" or who arn't used to making rulings based on federal law, because they mostly interpret their own states constitution, will say that sometimes some pretty inappropriate things are ok. But that's kindof normal, because often the state constitution that they are interpreting does not say anything about this sort of thing, so they say "well it's not against the state constitution..." and sometimes they have traditionalist views they are upholding.

Put up against federal law and federal court, this thing usually doesn't hold up in the long term because federal laws are more simply and clearly defined, and with a broader history and context of clear interpretations on such matters.

I used to have to deal with this sortof thing a lot as a Queer activist, I still have to regarding how laws apply to Genderqueer and Transgender people, this kindof ruling is very similar to that.

Usually it comes down to whether the person can "help" being the way they are, or not.

A woman wearing normal dress that is expected for a woman, and with woman's body, will likely not be an acceptable excuse to fire her in federal court.

Someone cannot necessarily "help" if others find them attractive.

It's one thing if she were wearing something inappropriate for the workplace as defined by normal standards, such as if she showed up in a bikini.
But simply because her body type and physical appearance is attractive, is I would imagine later on going to be interpreted as either sexual orientation discrimination (which it actually is) or "normal" (sadly) sexual gender discrimination. Which it also is.

I think most legal experts would look at this and shake their heads and laugh.
It's a rather shortsighted, and likely to be overturned ruling, if not by her, if she doesn't challenge it, then by someone else.
I women's rights group may even intentionally sue over this just to take it to higher court.
Activist groups will do that sortof thing.

In Gassho,

Sara H

Whew! <---- Sigh of relief.
Now I can rest assured that I won't be losing my job any time soon!