Over the years, many studies have shown that physically attractive people are likelier to get hired for jobs, and to move up the employment ladder faster, than well, the rest of us. But a few years ago there was some good news for ugly people: the Iowa Supreme Court decided it's perfectly okay to be fired because your boss decides you're, well... too good-looking.
It started back in 1999, when Melissa Nelson, then twenty, was hired as a dental assistant by Dr. James Knight. Nelson worked for Dr. Knight for more than 10 years, and he later testified that she was the best dental assistant he'd ever employed. She, in turn, testified that Knight "generally treated her with respect, and she believed him to be a person of high integrity."
Well, yeah -- until that one little incident when he fired her.
The Iowa high court summarized the question before it: "Can a male employer terminate a female employee because the employer's wife, due to no fault of the employee, is concerned about the nature of the relationship between the employer and the employee?" This might sound like the problem was with Dr. Knight's wife -- but on closer inspection it's not really clear.
During the last 18 months that Nelson worked for Knight, he began commenting on things like how she wore clothing that was too tight "and revealing and distracting." At times, Knight asked her to put on a lab coat, and she began doing so whenever he complained about her attire.
Then, during the last six months Nelson worked for Knight, they began to text one another. Most of the conversations were innocuous, dealing with things like their children (as both were married -- just not to each other). But at some point Knight's texts began to betray more than a...professional interest in Nelson. He again commented on her clothing, for example. And when she mentioned the infrequency of her love life, he responded, "[T]hat's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."
Oh boy.
There was more, but one can only quote so much in a family newspaper. Suffice it to say that while Knight may have run a successful dental practice, he apparently had the self-control of a 13 year-old boy.
In late 2009, Knight took his children to Colorado for Christmas. Knight's wife stayed home, and later found out her husband and Nelson texted each other during his trip. When Knight returned home, she demanded he fire Nelson because "she was a big threat to our marriage." Besides texting, her complaints included that Nelson liked to hang around after work when she and Dr. Knight were alone in the office.
Oh, c'mon. They were undoubtedly just discussing things like amalgams and epoxies.
Well, anyway, in January 2010, Knight terminated Nelson, reading from a prepared statement. (That was a warm, personal touch.) He gave her a month's severance pay.
Nelson started crying and said she loved her job -- but she soon dried her tears and turned to Iowa's job discrimination agency. The case eventually landed in court, where the trial court dismissed the case, after which it got to the Iowa Supreme Court.
The high court analogized what happened to Nelson to similar federal cases, and concluded that Knight's (or perhaps Mrs. Knight's) motivations didn't amount to unlawful discrimination. (Perhaps of equal significance, Nelson failed to argue that what Knight did was sexual harassment -- which might have strengthened her case. Blame that on her lawyer.)
The court also found it significant that Nelson was replaced by another female dental assistant...except that it turns out Knight had only ever hired women to work in his office. (And considering that the whole dental assistant/hygienist field is disproportionately female anyway, it's hard to see the significance of that particular fact.)
The court's opinion also has a number of head-scratching comments, including, "Nelson raises a legitimate concern about a slippery slope. What if Dr. Knight had fired several female employees because he was concerned about being attracted to them? Or what if [Mrs.] Knight demanded out of jealousy that her spouse terminate the employment of several women?
But those would have been different cases. If an employer repeatedly takes adverse employment actions against persons of a particular sex because of alleged personal relationship issues, it might well be possible to infer that the employees' sex, and not a relationship, was the motivation.
So it's too bad Knight didn't fire all of the other women in the office -- or at least the cute ones. Of course, Nelson and those other women would still have been unemployed.
But then each of them would also have had better cases.
Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah attorney.
No comments:
Post a Comment