You're too hot to work here, you're fired. Court says OK. Seriously.

[Morrison_Lad]

One thing though..
We don't know that.

We don't KNOW that, you're right. But we can make a pretty good assumption about it.

And I'd ask anyone to look at the various Title VII decisions over the years, especially those having to do with flight attendants.

[Morrison_Lad]

I think she has a case to pursue further legal action in a higher court.

I do too. Again, I ask: Would she had been fired if she had not been a woman? Under Title VII, if she had been able to keep her job regardless of her gender, then firing her was wrong.

[C.B. Nerdlinger]

Well, you can't force the guy to keep her employed. I guess the court could award damages, but I don't see any grounds for them doing so.

[NickT]

Is there generally any actual legal way for someone to lose their job due to an affair?

[t.c.johnson]

Yes. You can get fired for pretty much anything as long as it is not because of race, religion, gender, etc. etc.

[Mwstattel]

I've had that problem . . .

[AthenAltena]

What the ever loving fuck were they smoking when they made that decision.

And of course it was an all male panel of judges. Of course. Because the mere presence of a woman is enough to make men's brains turn off because they have no impulse control and are ruled by their erections.

This is just plain insulting to every gender.

[zemo]

I do too. Again, I ask: Would she had been fired if she had not been a woman? Under Title VII, if she had been able to keep her job regardless of her gender, then firing her was wrong.

Unless he is bisexual, in which case you yourself stated that your argument breaks down. You are working too much on assumptions here. You say her being attractive is tertiary, and she was predominantly fired because she was a woman. But the way this case is presented, this is not true. Here, the argumentation that if she was an unattractive woman, she'd still have the job has at least as much ground as yours.

Honestly said, I can't see how she could ever prove this is a case of sexism, not with the evidence given in the article. And this being regarded as sexism in court is the only way how she can get damages paid out of this.

However, I think this could be made into a case of religious oppression, as both the doctor and his wife stated that their decision was influenced by their pastor. It would be a hard sell, but it might be possible.

[Morrison_Lad]

Unless he is bisexual, in which case you yourself stated that your argument breaks down. You are working too much on assumptions here. You say her being attractive is tertiary, and she was predominantly fired because she was a woman. But the way this case is presented, this is not true. Here, the argumentation that if she was an unattractive woman, she'd still have the job has at least as much ground as yours.

Honestly said, I can't see how she could ever prove this is a case of sexism, not with the evidence given in the article. And this being regarded as sexism in court is the only way how she can get damages paid out of this.

However, I think this could be made into a case of religious oppression, as both the doctor and his wife stated that their decision was influenced by their pastor. It would be a hard sell, but it might be possible.

She doesn't need to prove "sexism." She needs to show that she was fired because of being female. It seems pretty damned obvious that she proved that.

[zemo]

She doesn't need to prove "sexism." She needs to show that she was fired because of being female. It seems pretty damned obvious that she proved that.

If she proves that she has been fired because she is female, she has proven that she was fired because of sexism. She has neither. The situation as it represents itself right now only proves that she was fired because she is attractive enough to be a distraction. Your interpretation that "she could only be attractive to him if she was female, ergo she was fired because she is female" can't be found in any law on the planet, I'd wager. Correlation does not imply causation, after all.