• FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
        • SEE MORE
          PREMIUM RESOURCES
  • HR DEEP DIVES
        • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources for HR Professionals
          Employment Law
          Labor Law Posting Requirements: Everything You Need to Know
          Recruiting
          businesswoman selecting future employees on digital interfaces
          Recruiting Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
          Performance Management
          vector image of young female making star rating
          Performance Review Resources
          Employment Law
          Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity and the EEOC
          Recruiting
          Onboarding Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
  • CORONAVIRUS & HR

  • LOGIN
  • SIGN UP FREE

HR Morning

  • FREE RESOURCES
  • PREMIUM CONTENT
        • SEE MORE
          PREMIUM RESOURCES
  • HR DEEP DIVES
        • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resources for HR Professionals
          Employment Law
          Labor Law Posting Requirements: Everything You Need to Know
          Recruiting
          businesswoman selecting future employees on digital interfaces
          Recruiting Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
          Performance Management
          vector image of young female making star rating
          Performance Review Resources
          Employment Law
          Understanding Equal Employment Opportunity and the EEOC
          Recruiting
          Onboarding Resources for HR & Hiring Managers
  • CORONAVIRUS & HR
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • Performance Management
  • HR Technology
  • More
    • Leadership & Strategy
    • Compensation
    • Staff Administration
    • Policy & Procedures
    • Wellness
    • Staff Departure
    • Employee Services
    • Work Location
    • HR Career & Self-Care
    • Health Care
    • Retirement Plans

Court upholds decision that firing 'irresistible' worker wasn't bias

Tim Gould
by Tim Gould
July 12, 2013
2 minute read
  • SHARE ON

It’s official. Iowa’s highest court has ruled — again — that a dentist did not break the law when he fired an employee because she was too attractive.  
The Iowa Supreme Court repeated the decision it had made last December, finding that James Knight was not guilty of gender discrimination when he terminated the employment of Melissa Nelson.
The details of the case:
By all accounts, Nelson was a good worker and Knight treated her with respect.
After nine years of employment, however, Knight began to complain to Nelson about her appearance, including;

  • telling Nelson to put on a lab coat because her clothing was too tight and “distracting”
  • saying that if Nelson saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing
  • texting Nelson asking her how often she experienced an orgasm, and
  • after Nelson made a comment about infrequency in her sex life, saying that “That’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

Knight’s wife eventually discovered a trove of text messages between Knight and Nelson, and Knight’s wife, along with the couple’s senior pastor of their church, said that Knight should fire Nelson because Nelson was a threat to the Knight’s marriage.
Knight called Nelson into his office soon after and told her that he was firing her. He noted that their relationship had become detrimental to his family and gave Nelson one month’s severance pay.
Of note: Knight replaced Nelson with another woman, and all of Knight’s dental assistants had been women.

‘Motivated by feelings’

Nelson sued, claiming sex discrimination. The question, as the court put it: Can an employee “who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct … be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction”?
And the answer was yes. The issue, noted the court, was not whether Knight treated Nelson badly. Instead, the court had to decide if Knight engaged in unlawful gender bias by firing Nelson at the request of his wife. Based on the facts of the case and precedent, the answer was no.
According to a story in the New York Times, Nelson’s attorney, Paige Fiedler, had asked the court in January to reconsider, calling the decision a blow for gender and racial equity in the workplace. In a rare move — the court had only granted reconsiderations five times in preceding 10 years — the judges agreed to rehear the case.
But in the end, the decision was the same. According to the Times story, Nelson’s firing didn’t count as illegal sex discrimination because it was motivated by feelings, not gender, the court ruled.
The case is Nelson v. Knight and Knight.

Get the latest from HRMorning in your inbox PLUS immediately access 10 FREE HR guides.

I WANT MY FREE GUIDES

Keep Up To Date with the Latest HR News

With HRMorning arriving in your inbox, you will never miss critical stories on labor laws, benefits, retention and onboarding strategies.

Sign up for a free HRMorning membership and get our newsletter!
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
HR Morning Logo
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linked In
  • ABOUT HRMORNING
  • ADVERTISE WITH US
  • WRITE FOR US
  • CONTACT
  • Employment Law
  • Benefits
  • Recruiting
  • Talent Management
  • HR Technology
  • Performance Management
  • Leadership & Strategy
  • Compensation & Payroll
  • Policy & Culture
  • Staff Administration
  • Wellness & Safety
  • Staff Departure
  • Employee Services
  • Work Location
  • HR Career & Self-Care

HRMorning, part of the SuccessFuel Network, provides the latest HR and employment law news for HR professionals in the trenches of small-to-medium-sized businesses. Rather than simply regurgitating the day’s headlines, HRMorning delivers actionable insights, helping HR execs understand what HR trends mean to their business.

Privacy Policy Terms of Service
Copyright © 2021 SuccessFuel

WELCOME BACK!

Enter your username and password below to log in

Forget Your Username or Password?

Reset Password

Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.

Log In

During your free trial, you can cancel at any time with a single click on your “Account” page.  It’s that easy.

Why do we need your credit card for a free trial?

We ask for your credit card to allow your subscription to continue should you decide to keep your membership beyond the free trial period.  This prevents any interruption of content access.

Your card will not be charged at any point during your 21 day free trial
and you may cancel at any time during your free trial.

preloader