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

[Morrison_Lad]

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.

I have no idea how to respond to you.

This is an OBVIOUS situation. God, it's right out of either "This Is 40" or "Horrible Bosses." How much more obvious could it be?!

Look at the decisions made on Title VII. You cannot say that "she has great legs, I need to fire her." Jesus Christ, Title VII was passed in 1964, before most of us were even born! And we're arguing it, in 2012? Really? Look up the United Airlines case, which pretty much anyone in law school has studied. Saying SHE is too sexy automatically makes her gender an issue. Is this really that complicated?

[zemo]

I have no idea how to respond to you.

This is an OBVIOUS situation. God, it's right out of either "This Is 40" or "Horrible Bosses." How much more obvious could it be?!

Look at the decisions made on Title VII. You cannot say that "she has great legs, I need to fire her." Jesus Christ, Title VII was passed in 1964, before most of us were even born! And we're arguing it, in 2012? Really? Look up the United Airlines case, which pretty much anyone in law school has studied. Saying SHE is too sexy automatically makes her gender an issue. Is this really that complicated?

My point is that you, and some others, get up in tithers about how this was a sexist ruling because the court was all-male. While this was unfortunate, I can't see how, with the evidence provided, a court that was 50/50 or all female could have decided differently.

And no, gender and attractiveness are obviously not inseperably connected, or any other thing that is only possible because a person happens to have a certain gender, for that matter. If I stand on top of my office building and pee on the head of a colleague I don't like, they don't fire me because only as a man, having a penis, I am able to aim that accurately. They fire me for my misconduct. While the woman who has fired hasn't partaken in any misconduct whatsoever, the legal groundwork in her state does not seem to sepparate between firing someone for misbehaving, or firing them just because their existence causes a problem. It is unfortunate, but it is what the law says it is.

My problem is making this automatically a case of institutionalised sexism in court just because the trigger words "attractive" and "all-male" have been mentioned. It is not that easy.

[Morrison_Lad]

You seem to misunderstand how different state laws and federal laws are.

WOULD HE HAVE FIRED HER IF HE HAD BEEN A MAN?!

Rao-Almightly, how complicated is that?

[zemo]

You seem to misunderstand how different state laws and federal laws are.

WOULD HE HAVE FIRED HER IF HE HAD BEEN A MAN?!

Rao-Almightly, how complicated is that?

I am impressed to find out that the US legal system has progressed so far that it can judge on "would have" arguments. The rest of the world is still centuries behind on that.

Correlation does not imply causation, and with that I am done with teaching you basic logical thinking. Peace out.

[Morrison_Lad]

Oh thanks. And ... Fuck you.

[Treacle]

Oh thanks. And ... Fuck you.

Dude, that is completely unnecessary.

[Kingsmythe]

Oh thanks. And ... Fuck you.

Kinda seems an over reaction to someone not agreeing with your viewpoitn, and doing so fairly logically, ML.

[Morrison_Lad]

Kinda seems an over reaction to someone not agreeing with your viewpoitn, and doing so fairly logically, ML.

You are completely correct. I should never have said that.

[Patrick Gerard]

This dude said "once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing.” And commented on his assistant's lack of sex with her husband. And she says she's not interested in him, so what's the danger to his marriage?

The whole thing is sexual harassment. He makes unwanted advances. She turns him down. He fires her under the idea that... ah... he might rape her? That she might change her mind?

Huge sexual harassment case, AFAIC.

[C.B. Nerdlinger]

This dude said "once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing.” And commented on his assistant's lack of sex with her husband. And she says she's not interested in him, so what's the danger to his marriage?

The whole thing is sexual harassment. He makes unwanted advances. She turns him down. He fires her under the idea that... ah... he might rape her? That she might change her mind?

Huge sexual harassment case, AFAIC.

I disagree. It sounds to me like they were really close friends and the joking was mutual. Too close for his wife.