Last week the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of dentist, James Knight's decision to fired one of his self-proclaimed best employees, Melissa Nelson, because he found her too attractive and therefore a risk to his marriage.
The (all-male) Court ruled that Knight was acting within his legal rights and not within the byline of sex discrimination to fire Nelson from the dental assistant position which she has held for more than 10 years. While she had been noted as a "stellar" employee, Knight's wife believed his attraction to her was affecting their marriage. As a result, Nelson was let go.
The (all-male) Court ruled that Knight was acting within his legal rights and not within the byline of sex discrimination to fire Nelson from the dental assistant position which she has held for more than 10 years. While she had been noted as a "stellar" employee, Knight's wife believed his attraction to her was affecting their marriage. As a result, Nelson was let go.
While this is the baseline story, there was a lot of other stuff going on. 'Stuff' that makes this decision so much more than that of a husband and wife discussing faith and loyalty within their marriage, so much more than a stint of female jealousy.
Now, there are a lot of other details to consider in this particular case...
Nelson had been employed for ten-plus years at Knight's office - where his wife was also employed.
Both Knight and Nelson were married with children, both had family lives and responsibilities.
During the last several months of Nelson's employment, Knight and her had begun to exchange text messages - some regarding work, and others mundane personal updates such as the happenings of their children.
Their 10-year professional relationship, and familiar text communication soon came to an end.
Knight admitted to asking Nelson to wear a lab coat to "cover up" her "irresistible" body, which he found distracting - "If you see my pants bulging, you know your clothing is too revealing."
Nelson recalled a text she received from Knight inquiring "how often she experienced an orgasm."
Nelson claims that she had never engaged in any inappropriate or flirtatious behavior, that these text messages (a common contemporary form of communication) were not a gateway for sexual activity.
Knight's lawyer was quoted as saying: "Our position has always been Mrs. Nelson was never terminated because of her gender, she was terminated because of concerns her behavior was not appropriate in the workplace. She's an attractive lady. Dr. Knight found her behavior and dress to be inappropriate."
Hmmmmm...
If Nelson wasn't engaging in flirtatious behavior why didn't she report the violating text message?
Good point, Self. While it is possible that Melissa Nelson didn't report the text message because she was engaged in such inappropriate behavior, there are some other issues to explore. First, who would she have reported the sexual misconduct to? Her boss? Oh snap. Secondly, having been his employee for ten years how could she be assured her job security had she not tolerated such commentary?
What about the fact that Melissa Nelson worked with Mrs. Knight - would she not have been friendly and professional with her during her 10 year term? Would Mrs. Knight not have acted sooner if Nelson's dress or behavior were inappropriate?
What about the fact that Melissa Nelson worked with Mrs. Knight - would she not have been friendly and professional with her during her 10 year term? Would Mrs. Knight not have acted sooner if Nelson's dress or behavior were inappropriate?
While we may never know if Nelson truly engaged in any sort of inappropriate behavior or not, we do know for sure that Dr. James Knight most definitely did. We know that Knight repetitively made commentary regarding Nelson's gender, sexuality, and body. We know that Knight engaged in behavior that crossed the proverbial line.
And yet what I find to be most disturbing isn't the obvious notions of sexual harassment, but the decision of the Court that could potentially serve as a gateway to the rejuvenation of sexual harassment without any framework for quantifiable protection for its victims.
The Iowa Court in their decision noted: "whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction."
The Court ruled on feelings; because of Knight's feelings he was within his rights to terminate Nelson.
Nelson had filed the lawsuit as a result of what she believed was a violation of her civil rights. She believed she was fired because she was a woman.
No no, Nelson... you weren't fired because you're a woman. You were fired because you're an attractive woman. Iowa says it's different.
The Court put forward that had Knight fired Nelson for her gender-specific characteristics, then it would have been a violation of her civil rights. However, his mere attraction to her gender-specific characteristics - which resulted in her loosing her job - were not enough to cite discrimination.
Here is where my head begins to spin. By the Iowa Court ruling with "feeling" not once, but twice since December on this case, they have created a precedent that should scare the living daylights out of professional women across the country.
The Court gave the nod that sexual harassment isn't a civil rights issue when backed by feelings of attraction. The "attraction" of an employer to their subordinate isn't a matter of gender - it just simply happens. They also preserved that this "feeling" is enough to act on - regardless if the feeling is mutual. Regardless of actions or lack-there-of by the employee.
The problem with using attraction as a baseline (besides the fact that it's stupid) is that we can neither measure or anticipate it. Attraction is a completely arbitrary notion. It can change, or develop over time. A good personality can make-up for physical features you found initially unattractive, or a bad attitude can make a Greek God look like a total tool.
This ruling paves the way for employers to fire employees for all sorts of reasons. Iowa employers can fire employees they've sexually harassed and then cite "overwhelming attraction" to no regard. White employers can fire black employees because "the exotic temptation" tried their at-home relationships. What about the employer who fires an un-expecting employee for their lack of attractiveness? Do we protect them?
The worst part about this ruling is that Nelson, in her physicality, was doing exactly what society would want her to. She is a young attractive woman, married with two children. She is, by all conventional standards, beautiful. She is educated, and was employed.
As women we have been so heavily socialized to be beautiful or to strive to attain beauty. We are never thin enough, or have long enough legs. Our lashes aren't thick enough, and our skin is never the perfect tone or tan.
Yet, every day, and every image pushes the notion of conventional beauty on us. This is what is expected from us. Now conventional beauty isn't just a social pressure, it adversely is a risk to our employment. The ever-changing immeasurably arbitrary notion that attraction may get you fired may make you think twice about engaging in our very own beauty culture.
But remember, at the end of the day: you can not get fired because you're a woman or because of your gender-specific characteristics. You can get fired because straight men tend to be attracted to women, and because the fact that you have a vagina may prove too much of a temping distraction to your boss.
And yet what I find to be most disturbing isn't the obvious notions of sexual harassment, but the decision of the Court that could potentially serve as a gateway to the rejuvenation of sexual harassment without any framework for quantifiable protection for its victims.
The Iowa Court in their decision noted: "whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction."
The Court ruled on feelings; because of Knight's feelings he was within his rights to terminate Nelson.
Nelson had filed the lawsuit as a result of what she believed was a violation of her civil rights. She believed she was fired because she was a woman.
No no, Nelson... you weren't fired because you're a woman. You were fired because you're an attractive woman. Iowa says it's different.
The Court put forward that had Knight fired Nelson for her gender-specific characteristics, then it would have been a violation of her civil rights. However, his mere attraction to her gender-specific characteristics - which resulted in her loosing her job - were not enough to cite discrimination.
Here is where my head begins to spin. By the Iowa Court ruling with "feeling" not once, but twice since December on this case, they have created a precedent that should scare the living daylights out of professional women across the country.
The Court gave the nod that sexual harassment isn't a civil rights issue when backed by feelings of attraction. The "attraction" of an employer to their subordinate isn't a matter of gender - it just simply happens. They also preserved that this "feeling" is enough to act on - regardless if the feeling is mutual. Regardless of actions or lack-there-of by the employee.
The problem with using attraction as a baseline (besides the fact that it's stupid) is that we can neither measure or anticipate it. Attraction is a completely arbitrary notion. It can change, or develop over time. A good personality can make-up for physical features you found initially unattractive, or a bad attitude can make a Greek God look like a total tool.
This ruling paves the way for employers to fire employees for all sorts of reasons. Iowa employers can fire employees they've sexually harassed and then cite "overwhelming attraction" to no regard. White employers can fire black employees because "the exotic temptation" tried their at-home relationships. What about the employer who fires an un-expecting employee for their lack of attractiveness? Do we protect them?
The worst part about this ruling is that Nelson, in her physicality, was doing exactly what society would want her to. She is a young attractive woman, married with two children. She is, by all conventional standards, beautiful. She is educated, and was employed.
As women we have been so heavily socialized to be beautiful or to strive to attain beauty. We are never thin enough, or have long enough legs. Our lashes aren't thick enough, and our skin is never the perfect tone or tan.
Yet, every day, and every image pushes the notion of conventional beauty on us. This is what is expected from us. Now conventional beauty isn't just a social pressure, it adversely is a risk to our employment. The ever-changing immeasurably arbitrary notion that attraction may get you fired may make you think twice about engaging in our very own beauty culture.
But remember, at the end of the day: you can not get fired because you're a woman or because of your gender-specific characteristics. You can get fired because straight men tend to be attracted to women, and because the fact that you have a vagina may prove too much of a temping distraction to your boss.
