Standing by a December decision, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday that a male dentist who fired a female assistant because she was too attractive and threatened his marriage did not commit sex discrimination. The all-male court ruled against Melissa Nelson, who sued her former employer James Knight, alleging Knight’s wife told Knight to fire Nelson because “she was a big threat to our marriage.” Knight fired Nelson in January 2010 after more than 10 years working for him, later testifying that she was not fired for performance reasons.
I’ve found myself struggling to explain the depths of depravity Conservative White men are capable of. Sometimes, it’s just better to use an example to illustrate that we live in a man’s world; the sooner women accept this (now legal) truth, the better off everyone will be.
If I understand this case correctly, Dr. Knight found himself insanely attracted to Melissa Nelson, and he feared that his wayward and uncontrollable lust would lead him into temptation and, soon thereafter, sin. That he wasn’t concerned about thinking with the wrong head until Nelson had worked for him for more than 10 years is something worthy of another conversation altogether, but Knight went fired Nelson, allegedly to appease his wife. Nelson’s only “crime” was being guilty of being an attractive woman working in a dental practice.
Understanding ow Nelson’s actions don’t constitute the very definition of gender discrimination is something that will take an intellect far nimbler than my own. This is especially true when you consider what the Iowa Supreme Court wrote in its decision:
It is abundantly clear that a woman does not lose the protection of our laws prohibiting sex discrimination just because her employer becomes sexually attracted to her, and the employer’s attraction then becomes the reason for terminating the woman once it, in some way, becomes a problem for the employer. If a woman is terminated based on stereotypes related to the characteristics of her gender, including attributes of attractiveness, the termination would amount to sex discrimination because the reason for termination would be motivated by the particular gender attribute at issue.
That bit of common sense reasoning aside, the Court managed to rationalize their decision against Nelson by focusing on comments Knight about Nelson’s clothing and the fact that they occasionally texted one another outside work.
HOME WRECKER!!! SEDUCTRESS!!! How dare she lead Knight into a situation where he found himself thinking with the wrong head?
If Nelson hadn’t been such a harlot and a temptress, Dr. Knight could have kept his mind on his work and on repairing his evidently floundering marriage. If Nelson hadn’t flaunted her sexuality by moving and breathing, nothing would have been amiss. Dr. Knight would still have a happy marriage and Nelson would still be gainfully employed. If only she’d let herself go and became aggressively frumpy….
The sad thing about this sorry saga is that if Iowa is an “at will” employment state, Knight would have been able to let her go for basically any reason that didn’t smack of discrimination. Because Knight was stupid enough to be honest about his reason for terminating her, Nelson had a legitimate case to pursue against him. That the Court sided with Nelson (apparently and primarily for being a White male) doesn’t alter the fact that Knight fired Nelson for being an attractive woman- the very definition of gender discrimination. Then again, when White men make the rules, White men end up often being above the rules.
Welcome to America, where all MEN are created equal and an increasing body of case law is turning women into second-class citizens. If you won the genetic lottery and were born an attractive female, you might want to keep in mind that, even though you’re undoubtedly the object of much attention, admiration, and lust, you’re still the property of men.
