Fired for being hot

[BC_chick]

Iowa all-male court decided that it's acceptable to fire your long-term employee for your own personal weaknesses:

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, "that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

Knight and Nelson – both married with children – started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight's wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month's severance. He later told Nelson's husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

First, let me say that I actually commend this guy for being honest about his feelings to his wife as well as his employee and her husband. I can also imagine what it would be like to find out that my husband has a crush on his employee and not be comfortable with it.

I've also found myself in similar situations where my boss's wife was uncomfortable with me even though I did nothing wrong.

So I understand this story from all angles, but....

I cannot believe for the life in me that a court would accept this dismissal. In BC this would have never happened. You need 'just cause' to fire someone and it would have to be based on their work performance, not the boss's personal sexual weaknesses. The employee would need to be warned in writing and given a chance to prove improve their work performance.

It's incredible that she would be denied her case for wrongful dismal. Especially after 10 years of working for someone.

ETA - and the link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/bosses-irresistible-workers_n_2348381.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada

Edited December 23, 2012 by BC_chick

[Bonam]

While obviously this isn't much of a reason for firing someone... I am curious about this "just cause" requirement. Is that a legal requirement even in a small, private, business? Let's say you have a 10 person company and just find someone doesn't get along that well with other employees and is detracting from the company culture, you couldn't just fire them?

Also... Captain Picard did this in an episode of Star Trek TNG and he is the paragon of morality so...

Edited December 23, 2012 by Bonam

[BC_chick]

It's work-related. http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/employment/280.aspx

What is “just cause”?

“Just cause” usually means that you did something seriously wrong, such as stealing from your employer or refusing to carry out a job duty. Your employer may have just cause to fire you if you:

• use drugs or alcohol that interfere with your job performance
  
• ignore a strict rule of “no alcohol during work hours”
  
• intentionally disobey your boss
  
• consistently refuse to follow a clearly defined chain of authority in a tightly-knit business
  
• are disloyal to your employer or put yourself in a conflict of interest; for example, you set up a business to compete directly with your employer
  
• ignore a clear workplace policy, procedure, or rule
  
• are dishonest about something important
  

There may also be other cases of just cause, and things aren't always as clear-cut as these examples. An employer does not have just cause to fire you if the employer is simply dissatisfied with your recent job performance. An employer may have to warn you before firing you. An employer may even have to offer you reasonable job training.

Some employers may try to avoid giving you notice or compensation by saying there is just cause to fire you, even if there wasn’t. If you are fired and the employer says there was just cause, look very carefully at the employer’s reasons for firing you to see if there really is just cause. For example, there’s no just cause if you are dismissed because your employer is losing money or is reorganized, or because your job becomes redundant or is eliminated by technological change. A personality conflict between you and your boss may not be just cause – it depends on the facts of the case. In all these cases, the employer must give you written notice or compensation.

[bush_cheney2004]

So called "At Will" employees may be terminated at any time for any reason that is not contrary to state or federal law...or no reason at all. Even with an employment contract, there may be at will provisions for termination of employees. Similarly, at will employees are free to terminate their employment whenever they choose.

Edited December 23, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[BC_chick]

And thereinlies my disbelief, BC_2004. Workers have no rights and can be fired for their boss's sexual weaknesses. It's so archaic.

Edited December 23, 2012 by BC_chick

[bush_cheney2004]

American law is very clear on this matter...absent a contract (verbal or written)....or a collective bargaining agreement (union), there is no legal obligation to continue the employment relationship by either party...for any reason.

[Bonam]

And thereinlies my disbelief, BC_2004. Workers have no rights and can be fired for their boss's sexual weaknesses. It's so archaic.

Like I said... while this particular case may seem unjust, I don't think the solution is to impose laws regarding the possible reasons to dismiss someone from their job. Companies need to have the flexibility to get rid of employees that aren't working out without having to spend years establishing a paper trail of their misconduct.

[BC_chick]

BC_2004, implying that they're free to quit whenever they want doesn't exactly do anything to dismiss the fact that your laws are archaic when it comes to workers'** rights.

We can quit whenever we want here too, but we can't be fired whatever reason tickles the boss's fancy.

That's the part I have a hard time believing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Many employers do follow a three step HR process (and liability defense strategy) of verbal warning, written warning, and termination, but they are not required to do so. Employees are free to quit whenever they wish, often leaving the employer in a lurch (two weeks notice is not legally required either).

[bush_cheney2004]

BC_2004, implying that they're free to quit whenever they want doesn't exactly do anything to dismiss the fact that your laws are archaic when it comes to workers'** rights.

There is no such thing as "worker's rights" beyond those protections afforded by employment law. Accordingly, "at will" employees may be terminated at any time for any reason.

We can quit whenever we want here too, but we can't be fired whatever reason tickles the boss's fancy.

I would have to see your laws to believe that.

That's the part I have a hard time believing.

You don't live in Iowa. This is the second time today that someone in B.C. doesn't believe something exists, the previous thing being snow bombs on cable-stayed bridges.

Edited December 23, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[BC_chick]

Like I said... while this particular case may seem unjust, I don't think the solution is to impose laws regarding the possible reasons to dismiss someone from their job. Companies need to have the flexibility to get rid of employees that aren't working out without having to spend years establishing a paper trail of their misconduct.

We're veering off into another direction and I don't necessarily disagree with you. This particular case, however, is truly remarkable.

I'm so happy that I live in a society where our courts would not accept this this. Especially 7-0.

[BC_chick]

I would have to see your laws to believe that.

Already posted. Obviously no such protection exists for workers in Iowa and that's why this woman chose to pursue the case based on gender (and lost).

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that I'm not arguing whether or not Iowa denied her rights as per Iowa legislature. I'm baffled by the fact that she is not protected against this type of outdated patriarchal belief and she had to resort to making the case about gender discrimination thereby losing her case.

[Bonam]

We're veering off into another direction and I don't necessarily disagree with you. This particular case, however, is truly remarkable.

I'm so happy that I live in a society where our courts would not accept this this. Especially 7-0.

From the article:

Nelson filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, arguing she would not have been terminated if she was male.

And:

Mansfield said allowing Nelson's lawsuit would stretch the definition of discrimination to allow anyone fired over a relationship to file a claim arguing they would not have been fired but for their gender.

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Clearly, this was not a case of gender discrimination, but someone being fired for personal rather than work-related reasons. If there was a legal way for her to challenge the dismissal, alleging gender discrimination seems to have been the wrong approach.

[bush_cheney2004]

Already posted. Obviously no such protection exists for workers in Iowa and that's why this woman chose to pursue the case based on gender (and lost).

I checked BC employment law, and it turns out that early termination provisions can be executed if covered by a contract.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that I'm not arguing whether or not Iowa denied her rights as per Iowa legislature. I'm baffled by the fact that she is not protected against this type of outdated patriarchal belief and she had to resort to making the case about gender discrimination thereby losing her case.

Why would she be protected? Her employer can terminate for any reason or no reason at all. Similarly, she could leave whenever she wanted to.

[BC_chick]

Bonam, as I just said to BC_2004:

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that I'm not arguing whether or not Iowa denied her rights as per Iowa legislature. I'm baffled by the fact that she is not protected against this type of outdated patriarchal belief and she had to resort to making the case about gender discrimination thereby losing her case.

[BC_chick]

I checked BC employment law, and it turns out that early termination provisions can be executed if covered by a contract.

Show me a link where a worker can be fired after 10 years of employment as this woman was unless her work performance was unacceptable.

[bush_cheney2004]

Show me a link where a worker can be fired after 10 years of employment as this woman was unless her work performance was unacceptable.

If the employment contract contains such provisions agreed to by both parties, then she/he can be terminated, even in B.C.

[BC_chick]

And what provisions would that be?

[bush_cheney2004]

She's not that hot IMHO:

[Bonam]

And what provisions would that be?

Excessive hotness clause.

[bush_cheney2004]

And what provisions would that be?

There is usually a specific contract paragraph covering early termination. It is written to be compliant with employment law, proper notice, and defines any compensation/severance. I sign them all the time.

[BC_chick]

lol, Bonam.

BC, your opinion of her hotness wasn't really the issue I was addressing, but thank you for your participation.

[bush_cheney2004]

lol, Bonam.

BC, your opinion of her hotness wasn't really the issue I was addressing, but thank you for your participation.

No problem...I just want people to know what we're dealing with here. There is hot...and then there is HOT !!

[Bonam]

lol, Bonam.

BC, your opinion of her hotness wasn't really the issue I was addressing, but thank you for your participation.

You gotta be realistic. When discussing a news story of a woman being fired for being too hot, the first thing every guy is gonna do is google a photo ;p

[bush_cheney2004]

You gotta be realistic. When discussing a news story of a woman being fired for being too hot, the first thing every guy is gonna do is google a photo ;p

Of course....obviously she didn't mind going national with her image to fight the case in public. If her claim is maximum hotness, then let her prove it.