Can you fire an employee for being too attractive?

Started by
32 comments, last by Greg Quinn 11 years, 2 months ago
There's no question that "sleep with me or you're fired" is rape.
That's a pretty big statement to make. It's certainly an evil thing to do, but I don't thunk you can equate the experience of someone being physically violated with coercion. As for this case, I think it's pretty messed up. It's pretty simple; you're married, don't sleep with other people. Having an attractive person around is not an excuse. Learn to keep it in your pants.
if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight
Advertisement

If the courts did say it was illegal to fire her then it means the business would be basically immune from sexual discrimination and harassment in the future. It would be a very easy case: "We tried to fix the situation before the harassment took place but the supreme court forced us not to, and here is the proof." All three courts realized just how insane that would have been.

Admitting to intending to sexual harass someone should be a crime in and onto itself. It's like planning to swindle someone or worse.

That's pretty thoughtcrime-y. That's like convicting a recovering alcoholic of drunk driving for not going to the bar because they know they'd get drunk and drive home if they went there.

If the courts did say it was illegal to fire her then it means the business would be basically immune from sexual discrimination and harassment in the future. It would be a very easy case: "We tried to fix the situation before the harassment took place but the supreme court forced us not to, and here is the proof." All three courts realized just how insane that would have been.

Admitting to intending to sexual harass someone should be a crime in and onto itself. It's like planning to swindle someone or worse.

That's pretty thoughtcrime-y. That's like convicting a recovering alcoholic of drunk driving for not going to the bar because they know they'd get drunk and drive home if they went there.

Or that's like telling people you're going to swindle someone out of their SS checks and the police finding documentation of your plans and the person's personal information.

Beginner in Game Development?  Read here. And read here.

 



If the courts did say it was illegal to fire her then it means the business would be basically immune from sexual discrimination and harassment in the future. It would be a very easy case: "We tried to fix the situation before the harassment took place but the supreme court forced us not to, and here is the proof." All three courts realized just how insane that would have been.



Admitting to intending to sexual harass someone should be a crime in and onto itself. It's like planning to swindle someone or worse.
That's pretty thoughtcrime-y. That's like convicting a recovering alcoholic of drunk driving for not going to the bar because they know they'd get drunk and drive home if they went there.
It is a business.

It is not so different from if a business owner who sees a high risk of "employee dishonesty" (theft) and then fires an otherwise good worker merely on suspicious behavior without actual proof.

Or a business owner who can see that certain employees are a high risk for damaging goods, and then firing them.

Or a bar owner who stops serving drinks to somebody when they look drunk. (In many places this is mandated by law, it is such a high legal risk.)

Business owner sees a very legitimate legal concern (high probability of a sex-related infraction) and takes action to avoid the legal problem.


As the defense pointed out, and all three levels of the courts pointed out, this is an entirely legitimate business move. It has happened many times, gone through the courts many times, and repeatedly seen to be a perfectly legal business decision. They see a legitimate risk, and they take steps to manage the risk. It is not discrimination.

I agree with the ruling.

The employee is not just being fired for 'being too attractive', the employee was fired because she was putting stress on the boss's marriage, even though that stress was initiated by the boss's wife most likely.

If the bosses relationship with his wife is strained because of an employee, one could argue it is causing distress of some degree in the work place, and the only way to keep a company running successfully is to remove something causing problems in the work place.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement