The Iowa Supreme Court is standing by its earlier ruling that a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant because he found her too attractive and worried he would try to start an affair.
The court ruled Friday that bosses can fire employees they see as a threat to their marriages, even if the subordinates have not engaged in flirtatious behavior. The court says such firings are not unlawful sex discrimination because they are motivated by feelings, not gender.
Last December, the court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an "irresistible attraction," even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.
Apparently, this is the second case affirming this legality. A previous attractive female sued a different dentist for the same thing, and the same all-male court upheld her firing as well.
I do realize that it has long been legal in general to fire someone simply because you do not like them; as long as the reasons for your dislike are not protected under EEO laws. But still, why did he hire her in the first place? There was no mention of her work ethic or job performance. He claims he fired her simply because he found her too attractive and he was worried about his own fucking sense of boundaries and lack of self-control.
This goes right along with the general pro-business, anti-worker, anti-lawsuit, anti-harassment zeitgeist, and I again am left to shrug like Atlas, and say, "What the fuck???"
Sign me up for a root canal right now with Dr. Goodsense!