"You're sacked...you're just too hot!"

[thushan]

http://www.theage.com.au/world/dental-nurse-hits-out-as-court-upholds-decision-to-sack-her-for-being-an-irresistible-attraction-20121224-2bu9t.html

Epic LOL.

[brenden]

Pretty disturbing really. Three cheers for patriarchy.

[thushan]

Hipip...what the f**k! Hipip...what the f**k! Hipip...what the f**k!

[Russ]

AFAIK this isn't an example of patriarchy at all, she was fired because the wife had a problem with her, not the dentist, and she was replaced by another female worker so it's not gender discrimination. She was also sending him text messages about her sex life and so forth, so it wasn't sexual harassment either. This case got a weird amount of publicity for something that was rather straightforward

[brenden]

AFAIK this isn't an example of patriarchy at all, she was fired because the wife had a problem with her, not the dentist, and she was replaced by another female worker so it's not gender discrimination. She was also sending him text messages about her sex life and so forth, so it wasn't sexual harassment either. This case got a weird amount of publicity for something that was rather straightforward

In this scenario it was his male privilege under a patriarchy that allowed him to make a decision on the basis it was made. I haven't read multiple article but from this article the bolded writing seems untrue. I'll cherry pick the points that were disturbing to me.

However, in the final months of her employment, Dr Knight began to make comments about her clothing being too tight or distracting.
"Dr Knight acknowledges he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing," the Supreme Court justices wrote.

Here we see that Mr. Knight's arousal is of direct responsibility of a female's choice of cloth.

Six months before Mrs Nelson was fired, she and her boss began exchanging text messages about work and personal matters, including their children's activities, the justices wrote.
The messages were mostly mundane, but Mrs Nelson recalled one text she received from her boss asking "how often she experienced an orgasm".
Mrs Nelson did not respond to the text and never indicated that she was uncomfortable with Dr Knight's question, according to court documents.

That would be contrary to "also sending him text messages about her sex life and so forth" - She wasn't responding to sexual questions (or that sexual question) but more on general conversation.

The accused even stated that she was a good worker. Whilst not gender discrimination entirely I think it's still  patriarchal that he was able to fire her essentially because she is good looking. Because of his own potential desires and subsequent possible affair she was fired rather than him calming his cock. To me, the onus is on him to not be a fucking retard than on her to... get plastic surgery to be less attractive?

[nisha]

Offtopic post guys.

George from Seinfeld did this, it was hilarious at the time. I can't believe its actually real, in real life. People can actually do this.

[Professor Polonsky]

Male employer sexually harasses female employee. Employer's wife finds out about his interest in her. Wife gets said employee fired.

If this sounds okay to you, get out.

[Mao]

She's not even that hot.

[Mao]

Male employer sexually harasses female employee. Employer's wife finds out about his interest in her. Wife gets said employee fired.

If this sounds okay to you, get out.

Consider the opposite:

Female boss finds male worker attractive. Boss's husband finds out, and threatens to divorce. Female boss fires the male worker.

This court ruling says the above case is also fine. The ruling is not gender specific, there is no gender discrimination, but people wish to interpret it as such.

At the end of the day, an employee is not 'entitled' to employment.

[Professor Polonsky]

Actually, if the opposite occurred, I'd be just as outraged.

Once you are employed, there should be a legitimate reason to fire you. People's livelihoods are dependent on this. Your employer finding you too hot is not a valid reason. This is reflected in Australian legislation by the way, as it always has been - without a doubt, this would qualify for Unfair Dismissal here. Would you want to live in a world where employers can fire employees for any reason? There's a reason why we protect employees from exploitation.

Whether or not there is gender discrimination, it is discrimination based on physical appearance, which in Victoria is prohibited under the Equal Opportunity Act.

[Special At Specialist]

At the end of the day, an employee is not 'entitled' to employment.

Employers are allowed to fire employees without stating a reason, however, if the employee believes that it was a matter of discrimination (which seems to be the case here), then the employer can get sued.

This isn't discrimination against females (sexism), but rather discrimination based on physical appearance, which is still an equal form of discrimination.

[JellyDonut]

Pedo smile with rapey comment. Probably the best thing to come out of the story

At the end of the day, an employee is not 'entitled' to employment.

But they are entitled to not get fired for bullshit reasons.

[Russ]

Not in Iowa, the law there is very clear on what you cannot be fired for.

In this scenario it was his  read multiple article but from this article bolded writing seems untrue.

She was complaining about her sex life, which led to those questions. Unfortunately, its more news worthy if the paper  doesn't acknowledge that.

[Professor Polonsky]

The Court probably got it right based on Iowa law. I haven't had time to read the decision, I'll hopefully do that soon.

The issue here is that the law is clearly wrong.

Okay, read it. Basically, it's not sex discrimination because Nelson's relationship with Knight was the main motive for the firing, not her gender. Knight admits Nelson has done nothing wrong. Court hints that Knight's actions could qualify as sexual harassment, and state that Nelson has done nothing wrong to 'deserve' the firing. However, Iowa Civil Rights Act is not a 'fairness' statute.

[Wazzup]

Hahahahahahah what the helll?!