Court maintains 'irresistible employee' lawfully fired

Jeff Eckhoff | The Des Moines Register

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Iowa Supreme Court justices on Friday ruled again that a Webster County dentist did not discriminate against Melissa Nelson when he fired her out of fear that her good looks might prompt him into an extramarital affair.

Nelson, a former assistant to dentist James Knight, sued on a claim of sexual discrimination after Nelson fired her in 2010 based on his stated irresistible attraction to her. Iowa justices, citing prior legal precedent, ruled unanimously last December that Knight's conduct was legal because it was based on specific emotions tied to a specific relationship and not based on his attitude toward an entire gender.

But justices then made a rare move last month by announcing they would reconsider the case without any new evidence being proposed.

Today's unanimous ruling includes a 17-page, majority decision and a 15-page, three-justice concurring opinion. The concurring opinion stresses that Nelson "has stated a claim supported by our law. Yet… the fact of the matter is Nelson was terminated because of the activities of her consensual personal relationship with her employer, not because of her gender."

Court papers say it was roughly 18 months before the end of Nelson's employment that Knight began to complain about the distractions caused by Nelson's appearance. According to the previous ruling, "Dr. Knight acknowledges that he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing."

Documents say Knight's wife discovered in late 2009 that her husband had been exchanging text messages with Nelson (usually about child-related matters) and demanded that the assistant be fired.

The dentist, after consulting with his pastor, eventually explained to Nelson's husband in January 2010 that "she's a big threat to our marriage" and that Knight feared he would attempt an affair if Nelson stayed around.

Nelson's original lawsuit described other harassing behavior by Knight but alleged sexual discrimination and not harassment, today's opinions note. Nelson's lawyer had argued on appeal, according to court documents, that "if Dr. Knight would have been liable to Nelson for sexually harassing her, he should not be able to avoid liability for terminating her out of fear that he was going to harass her."

The December opinion, which received national attention that included segments on Good Morning America and Comedy Central program Tosh.O, saw a difference between decisions based on personal relationships and ones based solely on "gender itself."

"The civil rights laws seek to insure that employees are treated the same regardless of their sex or other protected status," justices wrote last year. "Yet even taking Nelson's view of the facts, Dr. Knight's unfair decision to terminate Nelson (while paying her a rather ungenerous one month's severance) does not jeopardize that goal."

Today's concurring opinion, authored by Chief Justice Mark Cady with support from Justices David Wiggins and Daryl Hecht, adds support for justices' view that Nelson was fired because of her behavior, not her gender.

"It is an undisputed fact in this case, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Nelson, that Nelson and Dr. Knight developed a consensual personal relationship," Cady writes. "Similarly, it is undisputed that this relationship extended well beyond the workplace. Nelson and Dr. Knight communicated with each other outside the workplace on matters extraneous to the employment. Their relationship was personal and closer than the relationships Dr. Knight maintained with the other employees."

Sexual banter by Knight – the dentist responded to comment regarding Nelson's relatively infrequent sexual activity as being "like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it" – would commonly be viewed "as inappropriate in most any setting and, for sure, beyond the reasonable parameters of workplace interaction," the concurring opinion says. The comments "nevertheless were an undeniable part of the consensual personal relationship enjoyed by Nelson and Dr. Knight. The banter, at least revealed a relationship that was much different than would reasonably be expected to exist between employers and employees in the workplace."

The lack of sexual intimacy in the relationship does not change the fact that it was not sexual discrimination, justices found.

"Even if Nelson was fired because Dr. Knight was physically attracted to her, the attraction and resulting threat to the Knights' marriage surfaced during and resulted from the personal relationship between Nelson and Dr. Knight, and there is no evidence in the summary judgment record tending to prove the relationship or Nelson's termination were instead consequences of a gender-based discriminatory animus."