DES MOINES – In a 32-page ruling released Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld an earlier decision that stated that an employer can fire an employee for being too attractive.
In its “final analysis” of the case, the court wrote in its opinion that “this court has carefully considered the issue presented and has sought to understand its complexity with the seriousness and attention demanded of all cases. Research has failed to uncover any appellate court in the nation that has recognized sex discrimination under facts similar to those in this case, and it has failed to identify any state legislature that has defined sex discrimination to include adverse employment consequences from a consensual personal relationship. If, in fact, Congress or our legislature intended for adverse employment consequences from consensual personal relationships between employers and employees to be protected as sex discrimination, these legislative bodies can clarify or change the law to reflect such intent. In the meantime, our law and this court remains devoted to carrying out the important legislative goal of eradicating discrimination from society, but this case simply lacked the facts to establish discrimination. Without proof of sex discrimination, the employment-at-will doctrine followed in Iowa guides the outcome.”
I was fired for “performance” after 25+ years at a big lawfirm. I needed my job. I was not ready to retire. Yet, they keep another secretary who has a relationship with her attorney. She is not expected to learn new technology. She is protected because of her personal relationship. Don’t I have any protection.
First they say you don’t need a reason so why do they give one on the pink slip…they should just write “no reason” OR, “she’s too pretty” .. after ten years(!) All that legal doublespeak makes me sick.
We have laws, but we don’t have laws. Women, in the end, are often treated badly and unfairly. It’s a man’s world.
What this means in practical terms is that bosses in Iowa have far more leeway in Iowa. Learn from this. If you don’t like an employee for ANY reason simply claim you are firing this person to help preserve your marriage. This is particularly going to help males who have a hard time firing females.
Learn how to make these crazy decisions work for you. The Governor can speed because he can get away with it. YOU can fire that chick because she’s too hot baby! LEARN and take advantage in this society. It is the future.
So I’m hoping they won’t discriminate when the ugly one gets booted.
Did I read this correctly?? A person can get fired for being TOO attractive?! Is this a joke?? We, as a whole in society, have gone absolutely mad. I don’t know if I have heard of a more absurd ruling in my life, except when OJ was ruled innocent after he murdered 2 people in cold blood. Well then, I guess all of those obese people trying to sue airlines because they can’t fit in a sit better either just shut their mouth or start eating more fruits and vegetables and get off their duff and move more often. There also should be no recourse for any individual who is fired for being too ugly. What an insane world we live in.
I meant to say “seat” not sit in the sentence regarding obese people.
Under Iowa law you can fire anyone at any time without a reason. You can not discriminate but you can fire them. All you have to do is pay unemployment. Now, that being said, you better have your ducks in a row and it is a good idea to have lots of documentation.
An unfortunate ruling. But, as they said, unless a law is passed stating that personal relationships can be used as a basis in sex discrimination cases, then we will have to live with it. Darn judges anyway, don’t they know they can change the law? (That is sarcasm for those of you who don’t get it}
Well, if you can get fired for being ‘too’ attractive my boss has one more reason to fire me. 🙂
🙂 Thanks for the smile, Carl!
Considering the court’s combined intelligence it amazes me that it took that many words to say “We find no president or evidence of sex discrimination, especially in Iowa, a Hire-at-will state.” That other pile of verbiage (verbage) is a waste.
After reading the decision, I did not see any wasted verbiage since it modeled every other opinion from any other supreme court, on most every kind of subject.
Instead something tells me you through your comment, you are not happy with the Justices for underlying reasons.