Comments on: Court: OK for man to fire woman because he was sexually attracted to her http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Fri, 24 May 2013 12:09:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Xof http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1615482 Xof Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:17:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1615482 I'm amused that on the one hand, you argue hypotheticals such as "What if were unattractive to him!" or "What if he were bisexual and the plaintiff were a man!", and then say that we have to decide the case on the facts in front of us. To claim that this has nothing to do with gender is simply absurd (and I'll point out that there's no reason we have to accept everything a defendant says as being true on its face). The easiest way to evaluate this case is: The court has, in effect, stripped protection on the basis of gender from a wide range of women in Idaho, since now all a male employer has to do is claim that the woman is too attractive to him (which, apparently, is a claim we must accept on face value without challenge), and then she can be dismissed without recourse. Really, all this claim of "Well, what if she had been a particularly attractive marmoset" is pointless. The facts of the case are: She was fired for being a woman (adding the adjective "attractive" to the front is really beside the point). Had she not been a woman, he would not have fired her. The court decided this was not gender discrimination, but the court was wrong. I’m amused that on the one hand, you argue hypotheticals such as “What if were unattractive to him!” or “What if he were bisexual and the plaintiff were a man!”, and then say that we have to decide the case on the facts in front of us.

To claim that this has nothing to do with gender is simply absurd (and I’ll point out that there’s no reason we have to accept everything a defendant says as being true on its face).

The easiest way to evaluate this case is: The court has, in effect, stripped protection on the basis of gender from a wide range of women in Idaho, since now all a male employer has to do is claim that the woman is too attractive to him (which, apparently, is a claim we must accept on face value without challenge), and then she can be dismissed without recourse.

Really, all this claim of “Well, what if she had been a particularly attractive marmoset” is pointless. The facts of the case are: She was fired for being a woman (adding the adjective “attractive” to the front is really beside the point). Had she not been a woman, he would not have fired her. The court decided this was not gender discrimination, but the court was wrong.

]]> By: Angelo Barovier http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1615467 Angelo Barovier Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:31:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1615467 Actually, it is separable from the case because the court's job was to decide if this was gender discrimination, which it is not. Had she been unattractive to him he would not have fired her for being a woman. Had he been bisexual and she a man whom he found similarly attractive, he could have done the same thing on the same grounds. Same two conditions had he been a woman, just swap the gender. His stated reason, while most of us agree was indicative of a greater personal issue, is not dependent upon her gender and is not discriminatory toward all women, regardless of the distaste it creates. Thanks for teaching me a new word but there's nothing Pharisaical about arguing the separation of gender from this case because that is entirely the argument of the case. Was she illegally dismissed solely because of her gender? In this instance, her gender -- like her ethnicity or age -- is not the causative reason (given by the defendant). Pointing out the fallibility of courts is a pointless argument. As you quipped earlier, I know how the courts work, thank you. However, each case must still be argued on its own merit and here the court found that the stated reason was both factual and legal. Is it indicative of a moral failing within the courts and its containing society? That is a different argument altogether. Legally, I support the court's decision. Her case was founded on strong moral grounds but weak legal grounds. Actually, it is separable from the case because the court’s job was to decide if this was gender discrimination, which it is not. Had she been unattractive to him he would not have fired her for being a woman. Had he been bisexual and she a man whom he found similarly attractive, he could have done the same thing on the same grounds. Same two conditions had he been a woman, just swap the gender.

His stated reason, while most of us agree was indicative of a greater personal issue, is not dependent upon her gender and is not discriminatory toward all women, regardless of the distaste it creates.

Thanks for teaching me a new word but there’s nothing Pharisaical about arguing the separation of gender from this case because that is entirely the argument of the case. Was she illegally dismissed solely because of her gender? In this instance, her gender — like her ethnicity or age — is not the causative reason (given by the defendant). Pointing out the fallibility of courts is a pointless argument. As you quipped earlier, I know how the courts work, thank you. However, each case must still be argued on its own merit and here the court found that the stated reason was both factual and legal.

Is it indicative of a moral failing within the courts and its containing society? That is a different argument altogether. Legally, I support the court’s decision. Her case was founded on strong moral grounds but weak legal grounds.

]]> By: Angelo Barovier http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1615461 Angelo Barovier Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:58:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1615461 I think so. To be clear, I'm not speaking about moral grounds, just legal grounds. However, you also have to take into account jurisdiction. State employment laws vary. I think she may have had a better case to bring unless there is a restrictive list for civil suits which may have forced her choice. The issue at hand behind the legal wranglings boils down to, I believe, motive. It is the core of prejudicial accusations. Considering how this case made a splash, I'd like to see some decisive legal details and commentary. I think so. To be clear, I’m not speaking about moral grounds, just legal grounds. However, you also have to take into account jurisdiction. State employment laws vary. I think she may have had a better case to bring unless there is a restrictive list for civil suits which may have forced her choice.

The issue at hand behind the legal wranglings boils down to, I believe, motive. It is the core of prejudicial accusations. Considering how this case made a splash, I’d like to see some decisive legal details and commentary.

]]> By: abstract_reg http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1615224 abstract_reg Tue, 25 Dec 2012 02:00:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1615224 Man, Canadian law is so much easier to understand. Man, Canadian law is so much easier to understand.

]]> By: NI MEN HAO-DY TRAMPOLINA http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1615215 NI MEN HAO-DY TRAMPOLINA Tue, 25 Dec 2012 00:42:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1615215 Doubt it. Men do not see woman as human. Doubt it. Men do not see woman as human.

]]> By: Spieguh http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1615084 Spieguh Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:08:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1615084 Yes, I know. That's why it's fucked up. Yes, I know. That’s why it’s fucked up.

]]> By: Gloria Yip http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614886 Gloria Yip Mon, 24 Dec 2012 02:45:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614886 I think you just compared a living, breathing human being to a bottle of liquor. Just in case you didn't notice. I think you just compared a living, breathing human being to a bottle of liquor. Just in case you didn’t notice.

]]> By: bolamig http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614599 bolamig Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:33:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614599 Family values:  My family is more valuable than anyone else in the world. Family values:  My family is more valuable than anyone else in the world.

]]> By: DeMyztikX http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614548 DeMyztikX Sun, 23 Dec 2012 03:19:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614548 Being attractive is NOT a protected class. Equal protection refers to protected classes, not whatever the hell you feel like.  Being attractive is NOT a protected class. Equal protection refers to protected classes, not whatever the hell you feel like. 

]]> By: Lindsay Beyerstein http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614520 Lindsay Beyerstein Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:48:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614520 IIRC, the "good" "Christian" dentist tried to cheap out and fire her on short notice with minimal severance. If he was an honorable guy and he really wanted to get her out of his office, he could probably have made that happen for 6 months' severance and the promise of excellent references. It would have been a lot cheaper and less painful than going to court and exposing himself to the entire nation (pun intended) as a weak-willed creep who can't control his urges at work or stand up for himself at home. IIRC, the “good” “Christian” dentist tried to cheap out and fire her on short notice with minimal severance. If he was an honorable guy and he really wanted to get her out of his office, he could probably have made that happen for 6 months’ severance and the promise of excellent references. It would have been a lot cheaper and less painful than going to court and exposing himself to the entire nation (pun intended) as a weak-willed creep who can’t control his urges at work or stand up for himself at home.

]]> By: Masquirina http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614509 Masquirina Sun, 23 Dec 2012 00:24:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614509  A doodle Don't  A doodle Don’t

]]> By: Xof http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614466 Xof Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:03:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614466 The fact that she was attractive and the fact that she was a woman cannot be simply separated and said to operate independently. He can have other female employees and still be liable for sex discrimination. The fact that she was attractive and the fact that she was a woman cannot be simply separated and said to operate independently. He can have other female employees and still be liable for sex discrimination.

]]> By: Mike Bryan http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614462 Mike Bryan Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:00:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614462  Except he didn't fire her because she was a woman.  He likely still has other women working for him.  He fired her because she was attractive.   Except he didn’t fire her because she was a woman.  He likely still has other women working for him.  He fired her because she was attractive. 

]]> By: Count Frolic http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614447 Count Frolic Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:35:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614447 I'm not trying to be a dick here but can't you just lay someone off, pay them a severance and be done with it? What is morally wrong about doing that for any reason? If it is your own company doesn't it sound fair then to be able to work with whom you choose? I never understood why an employer has a responsibility for someones continued employment. Sure, its not nice to lay someone off and I think that in this case its fair for the court to impose that the defendant pays for a few months for people to find a new job. I’m not trying to be a dick here but can’t you just lay someone off, pay them a severance and be done with it?

What is morally wrong about doing that for any reason? If it is your own company doesn’t it sound fair then to be able to work with whom you choose?

I never understood why an employer has a responsibility for someones continued employment. Sure, its not nice to lay someone off and I think that in this case its fair for the court to impose that the defendant pays for a few months for people to find a new job.

]]> By: abstract_reg http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614435 abstract_reg Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:59:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614435 I personally would not stay married to a woman who told be to fire a good worker that I've depended on for ten years. I personally would not stay married to a woman who told be to fire a good worker that I’ve depended on for ten years.

]]> By: abstract_reg http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614431 abstract_reg Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:46:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614431  This argument only works if the dentist is 100% bisexual, which could be the case, but seems unlikely.  This argument only works if the dentist is 100% bisexual, which could be the case, but seems unlikely.

]]> By: abstract_reg http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614427 abstract_reg Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:42:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614427 You forget that "equal protection" refers not only to gender. In theory a beautiful person should have the same rights as an ugly person. If you can't fire someone because they are ugly, then you shouldn't be able to fire someone because they are attractive. You forget that “equal protection” refers not only to gender. In theory a beautiful person should have the same rights as an ugly person. If you can’t fire someone because they are ugly, then you shouldn’t be able to fire someone because they are attractive.

]]> By: pimlottc http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614377 pimlottc Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:57:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614377 Part of controlling yourself is understanding your limitations and changing your environment.  If you have a drinking problem, you remove all alcohol from your house, you don't leave it in the liquor cabinet and just 'try harder' to control yourself.  I'm not saying this attraction is the same thing as an alcoholic addition but the principle is similar: avoiding transgressions by removing the source of temptation. Part of controlling yourself is understanding your limitations and changing your environment.  If you have a drinking problem, you remove all alcohol from your house, you don’t leave it in the liquor cabinet and just ‘try harder’ to control yourself.  I’m not saying this attraction is the same thing as an alcoholic addition but the principle is similar: avoiding transgressions by removing the source of temptation.

]]> By: mortdieu http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614372 mortdieu Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:46:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614372  ... Alexander the Great?  … Alexander the Great?

]]> By: pebird http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614321 pebird Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:11:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614321 If the justification for firing was at will status, why did the employer give a reason at all? If the justification for firing was at will status, why did the employer give a reason at all?

]]> By: Xof http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614295 Xof Sat, 22 Dec 2012 16:26:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614295 That is what the court decided, but that doesn't make it good law. Courts, even state supreme courts, issue wrong rulings all the time. Yes, she was fired for being attractive to her employer, but in this particular case, that's not separable from the fact of her being a woman, and attempting to do so is Pharisaical. As mentioned above, it's like firing someone because the employee might become pregnant, and then claiming her being a woman had nothing to do with it. That is what the court decided, but that doesn’t make it good law. Courts, even state supreme courts, issue wrong rulings all the time.

Yes, she was fired for being attractive to her employer, but in this particular case, that’s not separable from the fact of her being a woman, and attempting to do so is Pharisaical. As mentioned above, it’s like firing someone because the employee might become pregnant, and then claiming her being a woman had nothing to do with it.

]]> By: 106milesite http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614291 106milesite Sat, 22 Dec 2012 16:17:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614291 "The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate." The dentist sounds like a real creep. I can't blame the wife for keeping a close eye on him. I do have to wonder about that pastor, though. How Christian is it to counsel someone to fire someone else (especially in this job environment) when the fault is the employer's, not the very innocent employee's? Wouldn't the advice of a true Christian be a bit different? I seem to recall Jesus Christ Himself saying (Matthew, chapter five): 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Seems to me, if the pastor were truly preaching The Lord's Word, he should have told the dentist to cut off his balls. (Or, perhaps, his wife could have done that for him.) “The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.” The dentist sounds like a real creep. I can’t blame the wife for keeping a close eye on him. I do have to wonder about that pastor, though. How Christian is it to counsel someone to fire someone else (especially in this job environment) when the fault is the employer’s, not the very innocent employee’s? Wouldn’t the advice of a true Christian be a bit different? I seem to recall Jesus Christ Himself saying (Matthew, chapter five): 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Seems to me, if the pastor were truly preaching The Lord’s Word, he should have told the dentist to cut off his balls. (Or, perhaps, his wife could have done that for him.)

]]> By: Gulliver http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614283 Gulliver Sat, 22 Dec 2012 16:00:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614283 So if she had sued for discrimination toward appearance, would she have had a case to stand on? I employed dozens of people over the course of the last  decade, and I never once imagined I had the legal right to fire someone for physical appearance (as opposed to attire, which I could stipulate), but maybe I was wrong. I have to admit, it never crossed my mind to look it up. So if she had sued for discrimination toward appearance, would she have had a case to stand on? I employed dozens of people over the course of the last  decade, and I never once imagined I had the legal right to fire someone for physical appearance (as opposed to attire, which I could stipulate), but maybe I was wrong. I have to admit, it never crossed my mind to look it up.

]]> By: Aloisius http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614281 Aloisius Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:57:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614281 Actually he fired her because his wife told him to after she found out he was attracted to her according to the article. Actually he fired her because his wife told him to after she found out he was attracted to her according to the article.

]]> By: Gulliver http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614269 Gulliver Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:41:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614269 Hot or Not is now judicial precedent? Does this mean Facebook and Instagram have to hand your party pictures over to US Courts? Pretty soon TSA can cut out the middle-man and just subpena our naughty pics to whack off to in the breakroom, leaving more on-the-job time for molesting children. Yay progress! Hot or Not is now judicial precedent? Does this mean Facebook and Instagram have to hand your party pictures over to US Courts? Pretty soon TSA can cut out the middle-man and just subpena our naughty pics to whack off to in the breakroom, leaving more on-the-job time for molesting children. Yay progress!

]]> By: Gulliver http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614261 Gulliver Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:27:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614261 Antinous, that's what I love about you, right to the marrow of the matter! Antinous, that’s what I love about you, right to the marrow of the matter!

]]> By: magpiekilljoy http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614245 magpiekilljoy Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:02:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614245 Fail. Gender discrimination in our society is almost always based on the fact that men often sexualize women in inappropriate ways and then act on it. That's what gender discrimination is. Fail. Gender discrimination in our society is almost always based on the fact that men often sexualize women in inappropriate ways and then act on it. That’s what gender discrimination is.

]]> By: miasm http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614243 miasm Sat, 22 Dec 2012 14:55:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614243 You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads!

]]> By: Angelo Barovier http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614240 Angelo Barovier Sat, 22 Dec 2012 14:49:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614240 Yes, because given the clear indication of emotional turmoil in the man's life, the first thing he should have done was think rationally. Yes, because given the clear indication of emotional turmoil in the man’s life, the first thing he should have done was think rationally.

]]> By: millie fink http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/court-ok-for-man-to-fire-wome.html#comment-1614237 millie fink Sat, 22 Dec 2012 14:40:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=202528#comment-1614237 ...which is not as unlikely as it sounds. "The Masturbating Judge" http://www.judiciaryreport.com/the_masturbating_judge.htm …which is not as unlikely as it sounds.

“The Masturbating Judge”

http://www.judiciaryreport.com/the_masturbating_judge.htm

]]>