Iowa Supreme Court re-affirms statutory
right of jittery, insecure spouses to interfere in the workplace
25 Jul 2013 by Curt Surls, Lawyer
Imagine the pilot episode of a revival of
the 1970’s situation comedy “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.” It is July
2013. After a painful break-up with her fiancé, 30-year-old Mary Richards
relocates to Des Moines, Iowa, to start a new life.
Mary interviews for a secretarial position
at a local television station with Executive Producer Lou Grant. Lou is
an overweight, balding, married father of three grown daughters. Lou
offers Mary an associate producer position, reporting directly to him.
Lou’s wife Edie is threatened by the presence of an attractive, young
woman in the workplace. Edie demands that Mary be fired
immediately. Lou admits that he is attracted to Mary, even though their
workplace relationship has been strictly professional. Lou fires
Mary. He replaces her with Rhoda. In Iowa in 2013, Mary has no
legal recourse.
This month, the Iowa Supreme Court
reaffirmed its controversial December 2012 decision holding that a
fifty-something Fort Dodge, Iowa dentist acted legally when he fired his
32-year-old dental assistant for being too attractive. Although the
dental assistant had shown no interest in her married boss, both the dentist
and his wife feared that he would be powerless to resist her charms. In a
decision insulting to both major genders, the Court reasoned that the firing
did not constitute gender discrimination because it was not “because of
sex.” Instead, the Court reasoned, it was motivated by the dentist’s
feelings of attraction for a specific person (I suppose you could call it
“because of sexy”).
The latest version of the case, Melissa
Nelson v. James H. Knight, DDS, P.C. can be read in full here (available with a www.Google.com search).
Here is the official photo of the Justices
of the Iowa Supreme Court. See if you can spot what they all have in
common.
Melissa Nelson was only 20 when she was
hired by Dr. James H. Knight as a dental assistant. For ten years, she
was an exemplary employee. She regarded her boss as a “father
figure.” Dr. Knight, on the other hand, found himself growing
increasingly attracted to his young assistant. In 2009, Dr. Knight’s
wife insisted that her husband’s unilateral attraction to Ms. Nelson was a
threat to their marriage. Dr. Knight and his wife consulted with the
senior pastor of their church, who blessed the decision to terminate Ms.
Nelson. Ms. Nelson sued for gender discrimination. The trial court
and the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa agreed with the Knights — and their
pastor–and held that firing Ms. Nelson for being a potential threat to Dr.
Knight’s marriage did not constitute illegal gender discrimination.
The Court’s original decision in late 2012
was greeted with outrage and ridicule. In June 2013, the court withdrew
its opinion and agreed to reconsider the matter, giving rise to the hope that
they had seen the light and would permit the case to go to trial. Those
hopes were dashed when the Court reaffirmed its position that there is a
difference between an employment decision based on personal feelings towards an
individual and a decision based on gender itself. “In the former case,
the decision is driven entirely by individual feelings and emotions regarding a
specific person,” stated the opinion’s author, Justice Edward M. Mansfield
(he’s the one in the back row, far left). “Such a decision is not
gender-based, nor is it based on factors that might be a proxy for gender.”
Wait a minute, argued Ms. Nelson’s
attorneys and reasonable people everywhere. Of course it was “because of
sex.” If she were not female, she wouldn’t be in danger of involuntarily
attracting the unwanted attention of her heterosexual male boss. If it is
illegal to sexually harass an employee, why should an employer escape liability
for firing an employee out of fear that he was just about to harass her.
Under this logic, even an employee who spurns the sexual advances of her supervisor
is vulnerable to dismissal under a fabricated “my wife made me fire you to save
our marriage” defense.
But back to Mary Richards. In the
eponymous spin-off series “Lou Grant,” Lou found a job as a newspaper editor
for the fictitious Los Angeles Tribune. What if he re-hired Mary?
Could Edie get her fired again in California? Not likely.
The Iowa Supreme Court was interpreting
Iowa law and federal law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit. The Court relied heavily on 8th Circuit precedent holding that
sexual favoritism is, in essence, a private matter between the parties that
doesn’t warrant regulation as gender discrimination. California state law
takes a broader view of the impact of sexual favoritism on the workplace environment.
Our Supreme Court has recognized that sexual favoritism is not merely a private
matter. Instead, favoritism can create an atmosphere demeaning to women,
giving rise to claims of a hostile work environment by both men and
women. California courts are, therefore, likely to view conduct such as
Dr. Knight’s in the broader context, and find a termination under similar
circumstances in California to be discriminatory.
And besides. Why would Lou even
listen to Edie? They got divorced after the third season of “The Mary
Tyler Moore Show,” and Edie promptly remarried. You can watch the wedding
here.
