The Iowa Supreme Court ruled on Friday that employers in the state can legally fire workers they find too attractive.
In a unanimous decision, the court held that a dentist did not violate the state’s civil rights act when he terminated a female dental assistant whom his wife considered a threat to their marriage.
The dental assistant, Melissa Nelson, who worked for dentist James Knight for more than 10 years and had never flirted with him, according to the testimony of both parties, sued, saying she would not have been fired if she were a man.
At trial, Knight testified he had complained to Nelson on several occasions that her clothing was too tight, revealing and “distracting.”
But sometime in 2009, he also began exchanging text messages with Nelson. Most of these were work-related and harmless, according to testimony. But others were more suggestive, including one in which Knight asked Nelson how often she had an orgasm. She never answered the text.
In late 2009, Knight’s wife found out about the text exchanges and demanded her husband terminate the dental assistant because “she was a big threat to our marriage.”
In early 2010, he fired her, saying their relationship had become a detriment to his family.
Nelson sued, saying that she had done nothing wrong, that she considered Knight a friend and father figure, and that she would not have been terminated but for her gender.
Knight argued that Nelson was terminated not because of her gender — all the employees of his practice are women — but because of the way their relationship had developed and the threat it posed to his marriage.
The seven justices, all men, said the basic question presented by the case was “whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction.”
The high court ruled that bosses can fire workers they find too attractive and that such actions do not amount to unlawful discrimination.
The case was Melissa Nelson v. James H. Knight DDS, PC and James Knight.
Whew! One less thing I’ll have to worry about getting canned for.
But I do need to be concerned, I’m an extremely handsome man.
If you are handsome than you are just ‘asking for it”.
The court of the American Taliban has spoken.
And to think this was an unanimous decision.
10 years employment then one unanswered sext is grounds for termination?
This is truly surreal.
It won’t take long to get this in front of the Supreme Court.
For what reason? Here in Maine, an employer doesn’t even have to give a reason to fire someone.
Guess my Aunt Bertha, who drives a skidder up in the County, needn’t worry. She’s a sweet, big ol’ gal and we all love (and fear) her. She’d dress out about 325lbs. and the foul language that spews forth from her mouth could never be mistaken for flirtatious banter. She’d eat the guy alive if he tried to fire her for something like this.
Guess we know who wears the pants in the dentist’s family…
It does appear that the dentist did indeed keep his on !
Just like a lot of other marriages these days. I guess that would help to explain the divorce rate being over 50%.
Seems that the dentist is telling his wife via this firing that he has a predisposition to flirt with the women he has hired! Not the female employee’s fault, but his.
The all male Supreme Court has essentially admitted that men can not control themselves. Really, it is a thin line between this and blaming a rape victim for causing the attacker to lose control.
This seems to fly in the face of sexual harassment laws. So if your boss finds you attractive and you do your job and don’t get personal with anyone, you can still get fired? Progress? Not so much.
No kidding! I’d like to think that the employer discussed the appropriate wear for the workplace, tho.
What’s appropriate when it’s all in the employer’s mind? Sounds as if she could have been wearing a burka and Mr. Horrible Boss would have been excited.
Don’t get me wrong…he has “domestic” issues that shouldn’t have affected this lady’s job.
I think it’s time this country joined the rest of the western world and started to protect employees from indiscriminate and unfair dismissals. We are the only country that permits firing with no good reason, or any reason for that matter so long as it doesn’t fall within the “discriminatory” classes. We are so far behind in protection of employees that it’s almost laughable, except for those who lose their jobs for absurdities like this.
Imagine, base upon her looks ?????? Doesn’t make sense.
Perfect….some inane CEO can’t control himself so instead of addressing his problem at the work place….the female gets fired….REALLY?!?!
“her clothing was too tight, revealing and ‘distracting.'”
Have more women been hired than fired by these criteria?
The humble Farmer
The day I got fired for this (after being asked by my boss about my orgasms) I’d be filing a sexual harrassment suit that would do more harm to Mr. Dentist and his wife than their dull minds can apparently imagine.
WOW! And to think our political machine puts so much stock in a state managed by neanderthals like this. Hopefully this woman has the common sense to appeal this decision. The dentist’s actions are a disgrace. First his unprofessional behavior, then his allowing his wife’s paranoia over his infidelities impact his practice and the careers of his employees.
Horrid. Horrid! “I made a pass at a woman, she did not extend the same feelings, I made a mistake, the wife found out, so I fired her” and that is okay? NO! I hope she can find a way to sue you and your wife.
It would seem to me that this would be covered by the 1st Amendment’s Freedom of Assembly, freedom of association. If I do not want to associate with someone that person has no right to force me to associate with them.
Is the firing of this woman fair? Maybe not, although she was asked to change her clothing habits and it would seem that unprofessional activity would be a firing offense.
I know that the liberals here will disagree but all I can say is that they, as usual, are letting emtion rule and not logic.
She worked for him for over 10 years, and he only fired her after he sent her unsolicited sexual text messages she refused to respond to…
Only a dull “conservative” mind would call this dismissal fair, reasonable, or logical.
I said it might not be fair, but said it was legal and it should be. Remember that life is not fair.
Only a dull liberal mind would not understand that.