A dentist acted legally when he fired a longtime assistant because he had grown too attracted to her and worried he would try to start an affair, the Iowa Supreme Court reaffirmed Friday.
The all-male court found that bosses can fire employees that they and their spouses see as threats to their marriages. Such firings were not s3x discrimination because they were motivated by feelings, not gender.
Nelson, the assistant, 20 years older than the dentist had maintained a good track record at the office over 10 years. Still, Knight fired her for wearing “distracting” and “too tight and revealing” clothing to work.
Nelson’s one month’s salary was paid as a parting fee. Nelson filed a discrimination suit and lost it for good at the state level this Friday.
Paige Fiedler, Nelson’s lawyer, blamed the court of failing to grasp what gender discrimination even is: “It is very common for women to be targeted for discrimination because of their sexual attractiveness or supposed lack of sexual attractiveness. That is discrimination based on s3x.”
“I think it is sending a message that men can do whatever they want in the work force,” Nelson told ABC News after a court session in December. She’s not the first woman facing the situation.
In 2010, New York business banker Debrahlee Lorenzana claimed that she was fired because her male colleagues found her too physically distracting. (Lorenzana sued for wrongful dismissal after her employer claimed the issue was her work performance).
In Nelson’s case, her boss badly remarked on her attractiveness, reportedly once telling her that “If she saw his pants rising, she would know her clothing was too revealing.”
On another occasion, Nelson claimed her leaves her inappropriate text messages. Maybe Jeanne should look for a new husband, and Nelson a sexual harassment suit.
