Court Upholds Woman's Firing For Being Too Attractive

[RivkahChaya]

I was once fired from a job for being "too nice".

Oh, please, can we hear more of this story?

[Magpie]

I was once fired from a job for being "too nice".

[RivkahChaya]

In the case you quote, I can quite see why the girl lost her case. She wasn't being asked to hide away at all, although I do see why she wanted to cover her arm and I think the company were insensitive not to allow it.

Part of the reason she lost was that she agreed to the terms of employment (the dress code) when hired, and didn't bring up an exemption at that time, then asked for one later. She had a myo-electric hand-forearm, not a mechanical hook, and it looks natural from a distance. She wanted the long sleeve to cover up the join, which is the giveaway, even from a distance. Thing is, close up, you can still tell it's a prosthesis.

In the UK, we have 'protected characteristics' which prevent people from being discriminated against at work and in their lives as citizens (for instance, when seeking goods and services) and it would be very difficult for a person to be dismissed because they were 'too attractive' or 'too unattractive'.

We have "protected classes." Gender, race, age and religion are protected classes. Disabled people are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is a little bit different. Sometimes a disability really is a job performance issue. You really can be dismissed from a job that involves driving, if you have a head injury, and afterwards, develop seizures, for example. But you can't be dismissed from a job where having seizures isn't relevant, especially if they are well-controlled with medication. A truck driver can't be at risk for a seizure even once. If a paralegal has once seizure in three years, it's not that big a deal.

Under the ADA, companies with more than 15 employees are required to attempt to accommodate a disability, or laterally transfer an employee who can't perform their current job due to an acquired disability-- a trucker might be offered a dispatching position, for example. If a place with 16 employees does not currently have an accessible bathroom, the ADA requires them to remodel if an employee develops a condition that requires use of a wheelchair. The "15 employees" has to do with not putting excessive financial burden on a very small operation, with just a few employees, that is run out of someone's home, or some unconventional space.

A disability is a legally defined term, and so are gender, race (even though people can be biracial, and lately, who belongs to what race has been controversial) and age. Religion tends to be more self-defined, but there's a lot of very complicated law around what employers can and can't require regarding religion, and at any rate, other than having a Jewish last name, your religion isn't "out there" the way other characteristics are, so the employee can always choose not to make it one. (It can be maddening when less observant Jews make your employers wonder why you insist on such-and-such, but that's the way it goes.) Attractiveness is subjective, and not legally defined, so it can't be a protected class; this is why, when it's an issue, people try to shoehorn it into something else, like gender discrimination.

[c.d.]

But surely, people should only really be fired if they cannot do the job or if they are guilty of unprofessional conduct or misconduct of somke kind?

Well you can argue the "should be" part but unfortunately that is not the way it works. The courts are already clogged and courts for the most part simply do not want to interfere in the employer/employee relationship. Great deference is given to the rights of employers since they are the ones writing the paychecks.

You can also be fired for no reason at all even if you are a model employee and have worked for the same place for thirty years. And even if you feel you can claim some type of discrimation, i.e., age, gender, race etc. the employee has the burdern of proof.

c.d.

[Limehouse]

In the US, you can, in fact, reject someone for not being attractive enough, if that is in some way relevant to the job, and then, you can always hire the more attractive person who is just as qualified for the job. If asked why, you can even say something like the less attractive person was "over-qualified," and therefore likely to quit as soon as something better came along.

What you can't do is be obvious about the fact that the boss wants a woman receptionist with a very specific look, qualifications be dammed, because he wants to ogle her butt. That is both gender discrimination, and sexual harassment. You can, however, hire a cute actress who can't type, for a part in a TV movie about sexual harassment at work, if that makes sense. The acting profession is specifically exempted from discrimination laws based on gender, race, age, looks, etc.

There have been some pretty complicated lawsuits in the US about looks and disability. There was one where Abercrombie and Fitch required employees to wear its clothes, including things "in season," and a young employee with a prosthetic arm asked to be allowed to wear long sleeves during the summer. Her direct manager OK'd it, but when a regional manager stopped by, she (IIRC, it was a she, but I could be wrong), said the girl (IIRC, she was a teenager under 18) had to wear the correct sleeve length, or stay in the back stock room. The girl sued for disability discrimination ("disabled" is a protected class, like "gender"). The ruling went against her, in spite of the media reporting the story as A&F hiding deformed people in the storage rooms. All she was really being told to do was to dress like everyone else, and so what if her prosthesis showed? If she didn't like it, she could stay out of sight, but A&F didn't care, so it was actually the opposite of the way the media was presenting it.

Hi Rivkah,

I can see that, for some jobs, a reasonable amount of physical attractiveness is somewhat necessary.

In the case you quote, I can quite see why the girl lost her case. She wasn't being asked to hide away at all, although I do see why she wanted to cover her arm and I think the company were insensitive not to allow it.

In the UK, we have 'protected characteristics' which prevent people from being discriminated against at work and in their lives as citizens (for instance, when seeking goods and services) and it would be very difficult for a person to be dismissed because they were 'too attractive' or 'too unattractive'.

Thanks for your comments. They do help me undertand how the law works in the USA.

[Limehouse]

Hello Limehouse,

Yes, someone can be legally fired for being unattractive or too fat or bald or wearing too much cologne or supporting a particular political party or sports team.

If such things were illegal then nobody could ever be fired because the employee could always come up with some form of discrimination as the cause for his or her firing.

c.d.

But surely, people should only really be fired if they cannot do the job or if they are guilty of unprofessional conduct or misconduct of somke kind?

[RivkahChaya]

What worries me about aspects of this case is that, if a person can be fired for being too attractive on the grounds discussed, could someone then be rejected for a job or fired on the grounds that they are unattractive and might scare or put off potential clients ?

In the US, you can, in fact, reject someone for not being attractive enough, if that is in some way relevant to the job, and then, you can always hire the more attractive person who is just as qualified for the job. If asked why, you can even say something like the less attractive person was "over-qualified," and therefore likely to quit as soon as something better came along.

What you can't do is be obvious about the fact that the boss wants a woman receptionist with a very specific look, qualifications be dammed, because he wants to ogle her butt. That is both gender discrimination, and sexual harassment. You can, however, hire a cute actress who can't type, for a part in a TV movie about sexual harassment at work, if that makes sense. The acting profession is specifically exempted from discrimination laws based on gender, race, age, looks, etc.

There have been some pretty complicated lawsuits in the US about looks and disability. There was one where Abercrombie and Fitch required employees to wear its clothes, including things "in season," and a young employee with a prosthetic arm asked to be allowed to wear long sleeves during the summer. Her direct manager OK'd it, but when a regional manager stopped by, she (IIRC, it was a she, but I could be wrong), said the girl (IIRC, she was a teenager under 18) had to wear the correct sleeve length, or stay in the back stock room. The girl sued for disability discrimination ("disabled" is a protected class, like "gender"). The ruling went against her, in spite of the media reporting the story as A&F hiding deformed people in the storage rooms. All she was really being told to do was to dress like everyone else, and so what if her prosthesis showed? If she didn't like it, she could stay out of sight, but A&F didn't care, so it was actually the opposite of the way the media was presenting it.

[c.d.]

What worries me about aspects of this case is that, if a person can be fired for being too attractive on the grounds discussed, could someone then be rejected for a job or fired on the grounds that they are unattractive and might scare or put off potential clients ? I mean, where would this type of discrimination end?

Also, what type of stable marriage is rocked by the appearance of a pretty girl? Is this man really so weak ?

Hello Limehouse,

Yes, someone can be legally fired for being unattractive or too fat or bald or wearing too much cologne or supporting a particular political party or sports team.

If such things were illegal then nobody could ever be fired because the employee could always come up with some form of discrimination as the cause for his or her firing.

c.d.

[Limehouse]

What worries me about aspects of this case is that, if a person can be fired for being too attractive on the grounds discussed, could someone then be rejected for a job or fired on the grounds that they are unattractive and might scare or put off potential clients ? I mean, where would this type of discrimination end?

Also, what type of stable marriage is rocked by the appearance of a pretty girl? Is this man really so weak ?

[jason_c]

No I get it. I swear to god. I get it. People do dumb crap. Make stupid decisions, sometimes they even totally screw themselves over in a spectacular fashion. I get it.

None of that however has anything to do with standing up in a court of law and saying that you had no choice but to fire your nurse because she was too attractive for your wayward penis to resist. Stand up in front of a court and say that if you didn't fire her, your wife was going to leave you, and in the end you decided to keep the wife. That I have no problem with. The 'too attractive for a man to bear" is just dangerous macho bullshit. He had options other than firing her. He had other defenses for firing her other than the laughable idea that if he didn't he was going to sleep with her in violation of both his will and morals. What utter crap. The man was not a helpless slave to his genitals. That he argued that he was, and that a court agreed, is just damned scary.

We are talking of legal matters here. I assume(but have no proof) that the wife was the instigator in her firing. If so, then that may have had a bearing on the legal case. the law courts are a minefield, his lawyers may have told him his own admitted "weakness" was the best form of defense. Admitting his wife told him "it's her or me" may not have played well in front of the court.

All this is of course speculation. However, what you seem to be upset about is the story rather than the case itself. We only know a small part of the entire case, the juicy details and few quotes which for all we know were taken out of context.

[Errata]

Well, your obviously unwilling to comprehend that many many people have moments of weakness. In fact I'd say weakness is our default setting. Now, simply becauae you in theory do not see this does not mean it isn't there. Working together 5 or 6 days of the week, with the pressure that involves, sometimes means we(both sexes) do dumb things. Humans are not reasonable 100% of the time. Passions become inflamed, even if ideally we wish this weren't so. I think you ought to view the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.

No I get it. I swear to god. I get it. People do dumb crap. Make stupid decisions, sometimes they even totally screw themselves over in a spectacular fashion. I get it.

None of that however has anything to do with standing up in a court of law and saying that you had no choice but to fire your nurse because she was too attractive for your wayward penis to resist. Stand up in front of a court and say that if you didn't fire her, your wife was going to leave you, and in the end you decided to keep the wife. That I have no problem with. The 'too attractive for a man to bear" is just dangerous macho bullshit. He had options other than firing her. He had other defenses for firing her other than the laughable idea that if he didn't he was going to sleep with her in violation of both his will and morals. What utter crap. The man was not a helpless slave to his genitals. That he argued that he was, and that a court agreed, is just damned scary.

[Beowulf]

I believe the dentist and the girl got each other's numbers.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to do her teeth...

[Errata]

It should also be pointed out that the man's wife worked in the office. He probably risked a daily braining every time his wife caught him checking out the assistant. Far less risky to just fire her. I personally would have found it hysterical if he didn't fire her and the WIFE turned around and sued them both for creating a "sexually charged working environment".

But I'm warped that way.

No.. you're right. That would have been HILARIOUS. And fitting.

[Cogidubnus]

How many to tango?

On the evidence in the article as originally presented it's still not a just scenario...and I do recall posting that my views reflected only what was posted...I do agree with an earlier poster though that the wrong case was brought...but maybe this reflects either a limitation (eg a lack of relevant legislation) or precedent (eg some prior ruling in similar cases) in the US legal system...I wouldn't know...

What I do know though is that in the UK the alleged admissions by the married couple would leave the way wide open for a counter-suit of sexual harassment as well as unfair dismissal, and they'd probably be totally slaughtered in court - unless they could prove they'd followed exactly and precisely the correct procedure re firing the employee...

I make no comment on which set of legislation is the more correct, although both (in my honest view) leave a great deal to be desired.

[jason_c]

Of course not all office relationships are predatory. I don't even think this one was. I think it was two people with bad judgement engaging in behavior that anyone with two brain cells to rub together ought to be able to deal with. I object to the idea that he HAD to fire her because she was so attractive to him that it was the only way for him not to have an affair. He could just as easily not have an affair with her by not having an affair with her. Hell he could have fired her for inappropriate sexual advances. It would have been true. But no. For some outlandish reason, he chose the uncontrollable penis defense. I mean, grow the hell up people.

It's not the relationship I object to, because you know, none of my business. It's not even the idea that he would be better off if she didn't work there, which clearly his wife felt to be true. It's not even the 100 other reasons he could have fired her that would have been totally legit, or questionable but at least on the face of things reasonable. No, he fired her because if he didn't, his penis was going to take him on some rampage against his will. That is my objection.

Well, your obviously unwilling to comprehend that many many people have moments of weakness. In fact I'd say weakness is our default setting. Now, simply becauae you in theory do not see this does not mean it isn't there. Working together 5 or 6 days of the week, with the pressure that involves, sometimes means we(both sexes) do dumb things. Humans are not reasonable 100% of the time. Passions become inflamed, even if ideally we wish this weren't so. I think you ought to view the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.