Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://t.today.com/money/iowa-court-its-ok-fire-employee-you-find-too-hot-6C10619426


Looks like this is the courts final ruling on the case. Looking at the nature of the texts, it would appear he's a first class sack of gak, and his assistant isn't far behind him.
I can't sympathize with either side here.

Is Iowa one of those really overly christian burn-the-gays states? If so, I'd love to see the reaction when a homosexual boss fires another man because he and his partner are worried about the guys possible effect on their relationship.

 motyak wrote:
Is Iowa one of those really overly christian burn-the-gays states? If so, I'd love to see the reaction when a homosexual boss fires another man because he and his partner are worried about the guys possible effect on their relationship.

"Overly christian burn-the-gays state"??

Eh... what?

Iowa is commonly referred to as an “at-will state,” which means that unless an employment contract details the duration of the employment relationship and/or under what circumstances an employee can be fired (for example- “good cause”), an employer can pretty much come up with any reason it wants to terminate an employee.

Could it be any more obvious the guys wife pressured him into firing her...? Not that we can really tell if she did anything to egg it on or not (who knows what was in those messages).

 motyak wrote:
Is Iowa one of those really overly christian burn-the-gays states?

It was the third state to legalize gay marriage, so no, not really.

So far as the case, it was probably the right call despite the totally awful looking headlines, because if you dig into the case there's also a pretty lousy set of facts. He didn't fire her for discriminatory reasons, and as Whembly said, it's an at-will state... so, there you have it.

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Is Iowa one of those really overly christian burn-the-gays states? If so, I'd love to see the reaction when a homosexual boss fires another man because he and his partner are worried about the guys possible effect on their relationship.

"Overly christian burn-the-gays state"??

Eh... what?

Iowa is commonly referred to as an “at-will state,” which means that unless an employment contract details the duration of the employment relationship and/or under what circumstances an employee can be fired (for example- “good cause”), an employer can pretty much come up with any reason it wants to terminate an employee.

Or no reason at all.

Just Like Illinois.

Employers do not even need a reason to let you go, but that is what unemployment compensation is there for.

 Super Ready wrote:
Could it be any more obvious the guys wife pressured him into firing her...? Not that we can really tell if she did anything to egg it on or not (who knows what was in those messages).

She was talking to him about her orgasims, he was talking to her about his erections, and his wife saw the texts. Fun ensues.

Ah, I missed that bit. Then fair enough. You mix work and pleasure, especially with married people, then you have to accept there are going to be consequences.

I'm only sad that the other tangoer of the two doesn't suffer any kind of job loss or pay cut, but instead replaces her WITH ANOTHER WOMAN IN HIS ALL WOMAN STAFF. Sounds like somebody didn't learn their lesson.

I'm having OT deja vu. Is it just me?

It's not, feeder.

There was a case of a dentist having a hot receptionist or nurse or something, who was then fired because the wife pressured the dentist to do it. It was discussed a lot.

And having clicked the link, it's the same case.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It's not, feeder.

There was a case of a dentist having a hot receptionist or nurse or something, who was then fired because the wife pressured the dentist to do it. It was discussed a lot.

And having clicked the link, it's the same case.

Yeah I was wondering that too.

IIRC, the general consensus was, the dentist is a pathetic little man, and working in an "at-will" state sucks.

feeder wrote:
I'm having OT deja vu. Is it just me?

This is the court's final ruling on the case that started a while ago.