Sure, something like this:

class Employee(object):
    def __init__(self, initial_data):
        for key in initial_data:
            setattr(self, key, initial_data[key])

Update

As Brent Nash suggests, you can make this more flexible by allowing keyword arguments as well:

class Employee(object):
    def __init__(self, *initial_data, **kwargs):
        for dictionary in initial_data:
            for key in dictionary:
                setattr(self, key, dictionary[key])
        for key in kwargs:
            setattr(self, key, kwargs[key])

Then you can call it like this:

e = Employee({"name": "abc", "age": 32})

or like this:

e = Employee(name="abc", age=32)

or even like this:

employee_template = {"role": "minion"}
e = Employee(employee_template, name="abc", age=32)

Setting attributes in this way is almost certainly not the best way to solve a problem. Either:

  1. You know what all the fields should be ahead of time. In that case, you can set all the attributes explicitly. This would look like

    class Employee(object):
        def __init__(self, name, last_name, age):
            self.name = name
            self.last_name = last_name
            self.age = age
    
    d = {'name': 'Oscar', 'last_name': 'Reyes', 'age':32 }
    e = Employee(**d) 
    
    print e.name # Oscar 
    print e.age + 10 # 42 
    

    or

  2. You don't know what all the fields should be ahead of time. In this case, you should store the data as a dict instead of polluting an objects namespace. Attributes are for static access. This case would look like

    class Employee(object):
        def __init__(self, data):
            self.data = data
    
    d = {'name': 'Oscar', 'last_name': 'Reyes', 'age':32 }
    e = Employee(d) 
    
    print e.data['name'] # Oscar 
    print e.data['age'] + 10 # 42 
    

Another solution that is basically equivalent to case 1 is to use a collections.namedtuple. See van's answer for how to implement that.