Fired for being hot

[BC_chick]

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.

I don't sign them but I do consult with management and on this issue I would strongly advise against dismissal because I know we'd be in big trouble for it. Iowa laws are obviously different and that's the part I have trouble understanding.

Either way, I do commend the guy for his honesty and in spite of the fact that I appreciate working in a jurisdiction that would not allow this, I have sympathy for all the parties involved.

[Bonam]

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.

She'll probably make off like a bandit. Can start a line of designer clothing or perfume or something: by the girl that was so hot no guy could work in the same room with her without going crazy. Good publicity to be had there for sure ;p

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep...she is on her way to a new reality TV show.

My dental hygienist isn't very hot, but she has huge breasts that always hit me in the face.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't sign them but I do consult with management and on this issue I would strongly advise against dismissal because I know we'd be in big trouble for it. Iowa laws are obviously different and that's the part I have trouble understanding.

Right...each state/province has different laws. Such contracts would be vetted by an attorney. I don't mind signing them, except for the one-year no compete clauses that prevent me from getting another contract with other firms or employment brokers.

Either way, I do commend the guy for his honesty and in spite of the fact that I appreciate working in a jurisdiction that would not allow this, I have sympathy for all the parties involved.

Okay, but he probably should have kept his mouth shut and just fired her after some notice...like a layoff.

[Guest American Woman]

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

It's the first thing I did, too.

Then, of course, I looked into the the judges' decision, and of course their decision does not say what's being claimed. The decision they had to make was whether or not she was fired because of her gender - since that's what the lawsuit that she filed was about.* Interesting to note that Nelson didn't claim sexual harassment, in spite of the comments he made, and it sounds as if there's a reason for that. Also, he was her boss, and seems to me if he told her that her clothes were too tight, since it was his practice, she should have had to abide by his dress code. The comments about her infrequent sex life makes me wonder what kind of conversations they were having. The text messages back and forth suggest an improper work relationship at best. His wife, who also works at the office, therefore Nelson's co-worker, found the text messages. I'm guessing that's why Nelson didn't sue for sexual harassment.

It sounds as if there's much more to this story than is being presented in the media, but bottom line, the judges didn't decide it was ok to fire someone for being too hot. That wasn't the case - the case was whether or not she was fired simply because she's a woman - and she wasn't. At any rate, sounds to me as if her behavior was less than professional and that she held some responsibility for being fired.

*"As we have indicated above, the issue before us is not whether a jury could find that Dr. Knight treated Nelson badly," read the high court's decision.

"

We are asked to decide only if a genuine fact issue exists as to whether Dr. Knight engaged in unlawful gender discrimination

when he fired Nelson at the request of his wife. For the reasons previously discussed, we believe this conduct did not amount to unlawful discrimination, and therefore we affirm the judgment of the district court."

http://www.cnn.com/2...rker/index.html

Edited December 23, 2012 by American Woman

[TheNewTeddy]

I've heard a lot about this story on facebook, but the one thing nobody has bothered to try to answer, is what do they think should have been done?

[Guest American Woman]

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.

An employer doesn't have to have "just cause" to fire an employee in B.C.; (s)he just has to provide notice and compensation in instances where there is no "just cause," and the dental assistant in this case was given compensation. As for firing for a "just cause," no such warning or compensation is required in BC.

Edited December 23, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest Manny]

I've heard a lot about this story on facebook, but the one thing nobody has bothered to try to answer, is what do they think should have been done?

I think it was wrong for him to fire her, and give her only 1 months severance. At least he could have given her 6 months. Better yet, he should have fired himself.

He could have instead asked her to leave voluntarily, with a good severance, or if she declined, consider leaving voluntarily himself. Another option which would allow them both to continue is some sort of intervention, therapy, meetings with HR.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Manny

[jbg]

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 would hope they could find a better option than a firing. Such as relocation within office.

That being said if two people can't work together and problem is insoluble one must go.

[jbg]

I think it was wrong for him to fire her, and give her only 1 months severance. At least he could have given her 6 months. Better yet, he should have fired himself.

Or he could have gotten her another job. Or himself one.

[Guest American Woman]

That being said if two people can't work together and problem is insoluble one must go.

Which is why an employer has the legal right to terminate an employee.

In this instance, the wife, who also worked there, found the text messages between the dentist and assistant. I can see why that would make the work situation intolerable.

[jbg]

In this instance, the wife, who also worked there, found the text messages between the dentist and assistant. I can see why that would make the work situation intolerable.

I can see where it would create some difficulties.

[Guest American Woman]

I can see where it would create some difficulties.

There's more to satisfactory job performance than doing one's work well; there's also the element of professionalism. I have to wonder how the dentist got information regarding the frequency of the assistant's sex life, for example. I don't think this was quite what it's being made out to be - a matter for her being fired simply because "she's hot." If the work environment is justifiably uncomfortable for an employee because of another employee's actions, I don't see that other employee as automatically blameless.

Whether or not the dentist is guilty of being unprofessional too, and it certainly sounds as if he was, is moot - as it's his practice, his business.

[Argus]

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.

Granted. But what I find bizarre is the court's statement that her being fired is not related to her gender. OF COURSE its related to her gender!

[Guest American Woman]

Granted. But what I find bizarre is the court's statement that her being fired is not related to her gender. OF COURSE its related to her gender!

The court said she wasn't fired because of her gender.

[cybercoma]

It's work-related. http://www.cba.org/b...oyment/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.

Just to let you know, employers don't need just cause to fire you. They can pay you severance and termination pay, fire you on the spot, and call it a day in most provinces.

[Argus]

The court said she wasn't fired because of her gender.

If you wish to refine the terminology far enough then a female employee fired because she got pregnant wasn't fired for her gender either.

She was fired because her male boss considered her attractive and was afraid he would start an affair with her. How that can be seen as unrelated t her being a woman is beyond me.

[Argus]

Just to let you know, employers don't need just cause to fire you. They can pay you severance and termination pay, fire you on the spot, and call it a day in most provinces.

Agreed. And I'm not suggesting he shouldn't have been able to fire her for any reason he deemed appropriate. However, 1 month of severance should not be sufficient given her length of service and that he considered her a 'stellar employee'.

[Guest American Woman]

If you wish to refine the terminology far enough then a female employee fired because she got pregnant wasn't fired for her gender either.

She was fired because her male boss considered her attractive and was afraid he would start an affair with her. How that can be seen as unrelated t her being a woman is beyond me.

The 'refinement of the terminology' changes the meaning - and the legality; she was preceded by a woman and replaced by a woman. She was not fired because she's a woman.

Edited December 23, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Just to let you know, employers don't need just cause to fire you. They can pay you severance and termination pay, fire you on the spot, and call it a day in most provinces.

Including BC.

[Argus]

The 'refinement of the terminology' changes the meaning - and the legality; she was preceded by a woman and replaced by a woman. She was not fired because she's a woman.

Suppose I choose to fire her because she's not very attractive, and replace her with a really hot woman?

Edited December 23, 2012 by Argus

[Guest American Woman]

Suppose I choose to hire here explicitly because she's hot. Would you consider that related to her being a woman?

You have to understand the distinction between "related to" and "because of." Again. She was preceded by a woman and replaced with a woman - she was not fired because she was a woman - which is what the statement that I've seen says.

[cybercoma]

Agreed. And I'm not suggesting he shouldn't have been able to fire her for any reason he deemed appropriate. However, 1 month of severance should not be sufficient given her length of service and that he considered her a 'stellar employee'.

Severance is based on whatever the provisions are in the legal code for them. Ten years of service with a company and there's a cap in NB of 4 or 6 weeks, I don't remember exactly. Get fired in ON, you would be given 10 weeks severance and 10 weeks termination for a total of 20 weeks pay.

[Argus]

You have to understand the distinction between "related to" and "because of." Again. She was preceded by a woman and replaced with a woman - she was not fired because she was a woman - which is what the statement that I've seen says.

Okay, but you replied before I changed the post. Suppose I fired her because she was ugly and I wanted some eye candy to make my day brighter, so hired a hot young chick instead... You don't think that involves gender discrimination given I'd never do such a thing with a man?

Edited December 23, 2012 by Argus

[Guest American Woman]

Okay, but you replied before I changed the post. Suppose I fired her because she was ugly and I wanted some eye candy to make my day brighter, so hired a hot young chick instead... You don't think that involves gender discrimination given I'd never do such a thing with a man?

Then most likely you'd have a lawsuit on your hands - and it would be up to the courts to render a decision. But again, he didn't fire her simply because of her looks - just because her lawyer and the media are playing it out that way.