Being hot is not a protected class - employment is a privilege not a right. We are employed at the pleasure of our employer and apparently she did not.

That makes sense, Newmunich. My question then becomes whether or not she'd have had a case if she'd made some kind of gender-based claim rather than an "I'm hot" claim.

I would maintain she does not have a case. Regardless of her sex she could be a distraction - we don't know if the dentist is attracted to both male and female alike. However, since the dentist admitted to "only hiring females" any male that was rejected a job would have a claim.

I just looked at the fired assistant's picture and I have to say… this guy is messed up. How is that "irresistible" in any man's mind?

I'm kinda surprised she stuck around that long. Some of the employer's comments were rather inappropriate for the workplace, to put it lightly.

It's fully within the rights of the employer to fire for any reason though.

Yeah, except for, you know, sexist, ageist, and racist (and any other -ist's) purposes...

If a woman fired a man or if a man fired a man for the same reasons, you wouldn't care. I don't get how this is newsworthy.

"I'm kinda surprised she stuck around that long."

Yes shocking someone would try to hold onto their job in the toughest economy in a few decades.

"It's fully within the rights of the employer to fire for any reason though."

What century are you living in

The 21st, thanks. People should be free to contract (or not) with whomever they please for whatever reasons they please.

And even despite the tough economy, I wouldn't put up with the blatant disrespect of the employer in her position. I can understand why she might, and certainly respect that (given, again, the tough job market), but I can't imagine the comments cited in the article were rare occasions. That workplace environment sounds terrible.

Sure, fire a white woman because she marries a black man like in the good old days. Brave new world you got there PE

"People should be free to contract (or not) with whomever they please for whatever reasons they please."

That doesn't mean they do. You said they "have the right" - not true, legally at the very least, no matter what your opinion is.

but more accurately you were incorrect. People cannot fire anyone for any reason, in your world they can

"And even despite the tough economy, I wouldn't put up with the blatant disrespect of the employer in her position."

You don't know what the you would put up with if you needed money and there were no jobs around. People put p with much worse. I'm not an ageist but I think a college student passing judgement on them is rich.

I'm not speaking of legality, bo, sorry for the confusion. I'm talking about what I think ought to be. In a natural rights sense, one has that "right," even if it's not legally recognized.

PE has been entering Obi territory of naivete lately

You know I'm not passing judgment. "I'm surprised at X" isn't a judgment of anything but that X happening doesn't match my expectations.

You raise a valid point saying that I'm not sure what I'd do in her specific situation, but otherwise you're pretty clearly looking for a fight that I'm not interested in having.

In a natural rights sense, you can also argue that an employee has the right to retain their position unless they are unable to conduct themselves appropriately for that position.

Neither of these views are ever going to prevail. I haven't shared mine and I don't plan to do so.

I don't think that follows, bo. An employee has no more right to compel the employer to retain him/her than the employer has the same right to compel the employee to be retained. If an employee has the right to exit a contract whenever s/he wishes for whatever reason s/he wishes, then the employer should have the same right of exit as well.

so what happens when there is systematic exclusion of minorities and women?

It can unfortunately lead to situations like in the OP, or the example Santa cited. In response, I'd pose the reverse: Suppose an employer decided to marry someone of another race. The employee quits and makes public that his reason is because of this new marriage. Is the employer allowed to sue the employee and use the courts to force the employee to be retained?

"An employee has no more right to compel the employer to retain him/her than the employer has the same right to compel the employee to be retained. If an employee has the right to exit a contract whenever s/he wishes for whatever reason s/he wishes, then the employer should have the same right of exit as well."

Exactly my point. It goes both ways. If you're going to give unilateral rights to one, you are persecuting the other, and vice versa. Thus, the law is compromised. You can fire someone for something of which they deserve to be fired. Nothing else. Simple as that. Works both ways.

are the two anywhere near equivalent? On one hand a worker is losing his entire income, on the other the employer needs to spend time searching for a replacement and training. Its false equivalence

If those excluded are more skilled than their white male counterparts, better businesses offer then jobs and profit from it. There's a lag, yes, and sometimes it takes a long time to end that lag (which is why, for example, I and others aren't bothered in the least by provisions in, say, the '65 Civil Rights Act which ban private discrimination along racial lines), but ultimately the problem should be self-correcting, and we can expect it to correct much more rapidly nowadays, with better telecommunications and more competition from a global workforce, than it did in the more localized days of the early 1900s.

ultimately the problem should be self correcting. Everything is rational, there are no irrational prejudices that cloud this process and perhaps may make this far from "self correcting"

bo, I'm not sure what exactly your point is. I'm not denying what you're saying, someone is going to "lose" (so to speak) regardless. That's the point of my hypothetical. Perhaps if you stated what your position is, your response would be more clear?

@Santa, It depends on the individual circumstance. I would imagine on the whole that employers are out less than employees, but that doesn't change the question to me. I think it would be wrong to force an employee to stay in the hypothetical I outlined because I think it's wrong to force people to stay in contracts which they rightfully terminate (by quitting the job or firing the employee, depending on which party is exiting the contract; here, quitting the job). That logic would necessitate giving the employer the same right of exit. I expect you most likely have a different rationale for your answer to my hypothetical, which leads you to a different answer here. That's fine by me.

Sure, there are still irrational prejudices, but it only takes one* person without them to correct the problem.

*: Not literally one, as one employer couldn't possibly hire all the women and minorities in the workforce if every other employer in the country were hellbent on not hiring them, but you get the point - once those higher-skilled marginalized employees start outperforming their counterparts at whatever people do enter, business owners are directly forced to confront their prejudices by way of losing potential profit.

So in conclusion you believe it is within the rights of an employer to terminate a contract of an employee

1. Because they will not perform sexual favors
2. Because they will not follow the religious or political views of their employer
3. Because (despite your nod to the civil rights act) they are of a different race or origin

If not explain why, I am legitimately trying to understand this

PE, my position is exactly what the law is now. I simply wish it were enforced a tad better. I also wished party factions in courthouses would stop screwing it up. Both of those are far-fetched on my end, unfortunately.

"Sure, there are still irrational prejudices, but it only takes one* person without them to correct the problem.

*: Not literally one, as one employer couldn't possibly hire all the women and minorities in the workforce if every other employer in the country were hellbent on not hiring them, but you get the point - once those higher-skilled marginalized employees start outperforming their counterparts at whatever people do enter, business owners are directly forced to confront their prejudices by way of losing potential profit. "

Or an entire community of people suffer higher than normal unemployment rates because although the super over preforming are hired all others, equal to their peers but hardly superior, aren't. Or in less skilled work where workers are interchangeable, certain communities could be completely locked out.

Upton Sinclair wrote a book about your Utopia entitled "The Jungle"

Actually, I thought about this again and realized I missed a crucial step - the contract itself. A contract should spell out both the obligations of every party to the contract and the rightful means of exiting the contract. Trying to force extra obligations out of the contract that aren't in it - like, say, sexual favors - is clearly wrong. Unless the contract included what amounts to an "I the employer can terminate this contract for any reason" clause, then the employee can sue for damages if the employer fires the employee for not performing sexual favors.

I don't think the employer should be forced to keep the employee (which, IIRC, is what this case was about), but the employee very clearly has grounds for damages (again, absent the "I can fire you whenever" clause).

Sorry for backtracking, I didn't think this through properly. That answer probably makes more sense.