On December 22nd, Melissa Nelson, a dentist’s assistant in Iowa, was fired for being too irresistible for her male boss. Now, she is filing a petition for the Iowa Supreme Court to rehear her case.

Nelson, a 32-year-old with children, had worked for James Knight, a professional dentist, for over ten years. She and Knight held a professional relationship for the entire length of her employment. Reportedly, she and Knight began texting a year and a half before her dismissal, talking about their lives. One message was inappropriate, asking her how “often she experienced orgasm,” to which she did not reply.

Knight then began remarking on Nelson’s clothing, claiming that it was too tight and revealing. Nelson asserted that she wore the same kind of scrubs as other workers employed at his practice. Knight even went so far as to say if his “pants are bulging,” that her clothing was too tight.

Knight’s wife saw the text messages and demanded that he fire her to save their marriage. Knight had a pastor help him prepare a statement to fire her for being “too irresistible.” Nelson then filed a discrimination lawsuit and lost. She appealed with the Iowa Supreme Court and lost again, 7-0. They asserted that her firing did not violate the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

One thing to note is that the Iowa Supreme Court is made up entirely of males. This may have played a big part in the decision to strike down her claim that she was discriminated against in the workplace.

One of Nelson’s arguments is that she “did not do anything to get herself fired except exist as a female.” However, the Court found that this incident “does not amount to unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act.”

After reading the decision for the appeal, which readers can find here, it seems apparent that the court did not understand Nelson’s point of view. She was terminated because she existed as a female and because she was found to be attractive. She indicates that firing someone “to avoid committing sexual harassment should be treated similarly [to sexual harassment].” Knight considered her a threat to his marriage and thought he would sexually harass her if he did not let her go. This stands to create a negative or hostile work environment. He had already commented on her body and her sex life before, so by admitting that he would start to sexually harass her, does that not make her termination a violation under gender discrimination? Evidently, the Supreme Court did not agree.

Another interesting point that has not been discussed at length is whether 1) the case would be found as gender discrimination if it were a woman firing a man, and 2) if the case would be found as gender discrimination if it were a gay employer firing a same-sex employee. I have researched at length and have been unable to find any articles or court proceedings discussing these questions.

After scrutinizing the decision of the appeal, there is no indication whether this would apply in either of the aforementioned situations. In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld Varnum v. Brien, which said that limiting marriage violated the equal protection clause in Iowa. There is also language in the Iowa Civil Rights Act, stipulating that “both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.”

On January 6th, the Des Moines Register reported that Nelson is asking for the court to rehear her case. It remains to be seen whether they will rehear it or not at this time.

My friend sent me a funny picture the other day from Reddit. It was a link to a book called “7 Basic Needs of a Wife.” One chapter has the following heading: “2. Make sure that your wife meets, interviews, and approves your secretary.” It explains, “technically, a secretary is working for your wife, because she is doing things to assist you that your wife is not able to do.”

Although this book was written in 2010, it embodies the sentiments of decades past. Women should not be discriminated against in the workplace, nor should anyone else. The Iowa Supreme Court did not make the right decision for Nelson, and hopefully they will rehear her case. This decision is a step backwards for women everywhere and sets a precedent for other sexually discriminatory legislature in the future.

Written by Nicole Del Casale