An Iowa dental assistant who was fired for being an "irresistible attraction" to her employer will get another chance at her sexual discrimination lawsuit after the state Supreme Court took the unusual step of withdrawing an opinion it issued in the case in December, according to the Des Moines Register.
A judge has signed an order resubmitting the lawsuit filed by Melissa Nelson, and a new decision could come this week, the story stated.
Fort Dodge dentist James H. Knight, DDS, hired Nelson in 1999, shortly after she graduated from community college. Nelson worked for Dr. Knight for more than 10 years.
On several occasions during the last year and a half when Nelson worked in the office, Dr. Knight complained to Nelson that her clothing was too tight, revealing, and "distracting," according to legal documents. They started exchanging texts about various things outside of work, but said they were not intimately involved.
Dr. Knight's wife eventually found out about the texting and told her husband he had to fire Nelson because she was a threat to their marriage. He subsequently did.
In August 2010, Nelson sued Dr. Knight, alleging that she had been discriminated against because she was a woman.
However, the district court dismissed the case, saying Nelson was fired not because she was a woman but because she posed a threat to Dr. Knight's marriage, and an appeals court upheld the dismissal.
In December, the state Supreme Court then upheld the two lower court rulings.
In her court petition for reconsideration, Nelson says she was fired "simply for existing as an attractive female." The dental assistant, who has a young daughter, said she was devastated by the termination, and said it sends a message that men can do whatever they want in the workforce.
Nelson's lawyer had argued on appeal 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."
In a 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," according to the story.
The high court's opinion 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," the justices wrote. "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."
