You're fired and don't come "back" ..... at least not for a while!

Firing woman for being 'irresistible 'OK': Court
QMI Agency
Friday, December 21, 2012

An Iowa court ruled Friday in favour of a dentist who fired his assistant because he was attracted to her.

The all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously that James Knight, 53, was justified in sacking Melissa Nelson after 10 years, even though she'd been a good employee and had never flirted with her boss.

Knight, who found Nelson to be "irresistible," fired her in 2009 at the behest of his wife and pastor.

She filed a discrimination lawsuit, alleging she would never have been fired if she was man. A district court agreed, but the Iowa Supreme Court overturned that ruling Friday.

"Dr. Knight acknowledges he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing," the court ruling reads.

"On another occasion, Dr. Knight texted Nelson saying the shirt she had worn that day was too tight. After Nelson responded that she did not think he was being fair, Dr. Knight replied that it was a good thing Nelson did not wear tight pants too because then he would get it coming and going."

Another time, court documents say, Knight compared Nelson's infrequent sex life to "having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

He also once texted her to ask how often she has orgasms. She didn't respond.

When Knight's wife Jeanne discovered the two had been sending text messages, which court documents describe as "relatively innocuous," she "confronted her husband and demanded that he terminate Nelson's employment."

"Both of them consulted with the senior pastor of their church, who agreed with the decision," it reads.

When Nelson's husband Steve confronted Knight, the dentist said "that nothing was going on but that he feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her."

Based on previous court cases in which employees had been fired over perceived spousal jealousy, the court ruled the case did not amount to gender discrimination, citing that Knight exclusively employs women and replaced Nelson with another woman.

Instead, the court said the case was about "individual feelings and emotions regarding a specific person."

"The civil rights laws seek to insure that employees are treated the same regardless of their sex or other protected status. Yet even taking Nelson's view of the facts, Dr. Knight's unfair decision to terminate Nelson ... does not jeopardize that goal," the judges ruled.