The Iowa Supreme Court upheld the firing in part because Melissa was not canned based on gender, race, or even misconduct. Melissa was simply too attractive and Jim was walking around with his meat-whistle whistling happy tunes during business hours.
The ruling is not out of line. The Federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a business owner's firing of a valued employee who was seen by his wife as a threat to their marriage. In that case, the fired employee had engaged in flirtatious conduct.
But Melissa wasn't flirting with Jim. Apparently Melissa's clothing choices were making Jim's middle leg spasm and the wife noticed.
Of course the defendant and the jack-boots among women's groups are outraged. The premise they claim puts the onus of keeping male hormones in check on women. Or does it?
If Jim had come to the office wearing just a jock-strap and a couple of nipple rings would Melissa have fired him were the roles reversed? And oh yea, how about Jim's female patients? Is Jim gonna have to fire all of them too?
