‘Irresistible’ Iowa woman fired for being too sexy


CHICAGO – An “irresistible” Iowa dental assistant fired for threatening her boss’s marriage – even though she turned away his advances – has lost her discrimination lawsuit.

Melissa Nelson, who is married with children, had worked for James Knight for 10 years before his wife complained about his infatuation with her.

Nelson told the court that she had seen Knight as a father figure and a man of “integrity” who generally treated her with respect.

But about nine years into the job, Knight started to complain that her clothes were “distracting” because they “accentuated her body,” and he sometimes asked her to cover up with her lab coat.

At one point, Knight told Nelson that “if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing,” court records showed.

After she told him that his complaint about the tightness of her shirt wasn’t fair, he texted back that it was a good thing she didn’t wear tight pants too “because then he would get it coming and going,” the court records showed.

And at one point when Knight discussed infrequency in Nelson’s sex life, he told her “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, put her foot down when she discovered the two were texting each other.

After meeting with their pastor, Knight agreed to fire Nelson because she was a “big threat to our marriage.”

Knight had his pastor by his side when he told Nelson that their relationship – even if there was no sexual affair – had become a “detriment” to his family and that for the sake of both their families they shouldn’t work together.

He later told Nelson’s husband she had not done anything wrong or inappropriate, but that he was worried “he would try to have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her.”

Since Nelson did not consider Knight’s behavior to be sexual harassment, the Iowa Supreme Court determined the question to be “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.”

While Iowa law prohibits discrimination against employees based on gender, the all-male court ruled that Knight’s conduct was “unfair” but “did not amount to unlawful discrimination.”

“I’m trying to stay strong. It’s tough,” Nelson told CNN on Saturday, two days after the ruling was released. “I don’t think it’s fair. I don’t think it’s right.”

She denied wearing provocative clothing, telling the television network she wore loose-fitting scrubs to work under her lab coat.

Knight’s attorney said there was a clear precedent to allow employers to fire employees who aroused jealousy in their spouses.

“He and his wife really agonized about it,” Stuart Cochrane told CNN. “He didn’t want to terminate her.”

Get Inquirer updates while on the go, add us on these apps:

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • joaquin_fajardo

    After meeting with their pastor, Knight agreed to fire Nelson because she was a “big threat to our marriage.”


    • Makoy Marquez

      Religious freaks are not qualified professionals. 

      • shots_fired

        so as perverts

    • http://Yahoo.com/ Ragdeleafar

      The bottom line should be strictly & severly same sex for business for workforce but not necessarily the same will apply for its prospective clients/customers.

      Under modern world practices male & female can work together this doesn’t matter really as long that matter doesn’t go beyond the limit. The nature of work applicable to men only or women only is a thing of the past, both gender can work progressibly without the hitch. For example, before in Military its dominated by men only now  women are also employed together with men in combat operation without problem! So it is really the clothing that’s matter???

  • AllaMo

    Why must aarseholes get more in law than others? Small wonder even rampage shooters all think and do get away with it…

  • regd

    That’s what happens when you put ill malice in any relationship. Once a flirtatious objective is form it’s all downhill from thereon. 

  • dequis

    blame the clothing designers

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VPSXDLCQEZGZDJSX32G7PYHNCI Noel

    If I were the boss, I don’t mind her being nude in the work place.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QHGUJ3OJZAOIMBYYWTABNV2EEM Ai

    why after 10 years? haha

    • Lord_patawad

      probably, the girl gets too hot lately, hehehe. 

  • turbogirl9

    Maybe it feel comfortable for the wear

  • Lord_patawad

    then, After meeting again with their pastor, Knight agreed to get his neighbor ejected because his neighbor is now the new big threat to their marriage.
    – and the list don’t stop there. jeez. 

    then, After meeting again and again with their pastor, Knight agreed to get his family to live in a secluded island because there are so many beautiful women these days that are treat to their marriage.

    how’s that for a news? ;-)


    Now it is ruled that women commits sexual harassment too. Showing bulging young breast to an old married man is sexual harassment. It is a temptation for the man to commit suicide …… he’s wife will kill him actually.  

  • Mux

    This article needs a picture of the woman so we can judge for ourselves if what she is wearing is too revealing or not. 

    • Laura B.

      I believe  I read that she wore scrubs, most dental assistants do.

      • Mux

        Then how could she have been “too sexy” ? 

  • $22459697

    so she was threatening his marriage fro 10 years by being too sexy , what kind of bullshit is this ? i’m surprised that people can’t see through his fake allegations and that the most likely reason behind it because she doesn’t wanna have sex with him .

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks



latest videos