CASE #9:

Fired for Being

Sexy
 CASE #9: Fired for Being Sexy
Melissa Nelson, married with children, had worked for James Knight, a dentist for 10 years, as his
secretary. Her services had been terminated because of her body revealing apparel. Nelson filed a case
against Knight and she 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 9 years into the job, Knight started to complain that
her clothes were “distracting” because they “accentuated her body.” At one point, Knight told Nelson
that “if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing.”
After Nelson 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 her tight pants too “because that would get him coming and
going,” the court records showed. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, put her foot
down when she discovered that the two were texting each other.
After meeting with their pastor, Knight agreed to fire Nelson because she was a “big threat to his
marriage.” He also admitted that even if there was no sexual affair between him and Nelson, “he
would try to have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her.”
 QUESTIONS: How would you evaluate the actions of Nelson and
Knight? Who do you think has a greater moral responsibility in this
case? Cite the moral theory that best addresses this dilemma.
If your male boss tells you that your wardrobe is too revealing and provocative, you should take it seriously. The
workplace is a professional environment in which you make a living, so you have to conduct yourself decently. This
involves observing company regulations or commitment to proper decorum and wearing suitable clothes.
It's not a big deal to follow the fashion trends provided that you tailor your clothing that suits the workplace. As a decent
woman, you can make your outfits part of your self-expression and personality, but they don't have to be compromising,
and one that won’t definitely be in the interest of your male superior.
On the part of Mr. Knight acting responsibly and as the owner, I would advise Ms. Nelson to stick to the acceptable
clothes. I'm not going to make any inappropriate remarks because she's an employee of mine. In any case, both of them
behaved inappropriately, but I think the greater moral responsibility rests with Nelson, who does not seem to know how
to dress properly at work. She had already been told by her employer that her clothes at work were distracting and
revealing, yet she didn't do anything about it until she was fired. If she chooses to dress that way, even if it's another
clinic or enterprise, it's still going to be a matter of concern. If she's not able to make compromises, she may need to
move to the fashion or modeling industry where she's likely to get the exposure she wants.
Melissa Nelson was in the wrong in this case because she couldn’t prove any of the
normal features of unlawful discrimination. Even though her termination may have
been unfair, it is still legal because Knight did not have any reason to fire her based on
her gender. The termination was brought about by Knight’s wife's objection to the
relationship, and not to Nelson’s gender.
In conclusion, both parties behaved wrongly. Nelson has worked at Knight's clinic for
the past 9 years, and there seems to be no sign of issues at work until she started to
wear tight fitting clothes that are not suitable for work. This became tempting to her
boss. Knight, on the other hand, was expected to have known better. Instead of
reminding his secretary to dress decently, he began flirting while making suggestive
remarks to Nelson in text messages. Deontology fits in with the relevant interpretation
to justify why the behavior of both sides are faulty and unprofessional.
The moral theory that best addresses this dilemma is the Rawlsian theory of ‘justice as fairness’. Fairness
in the workplace is about respecting the rights of all those who work with us. By working in collaboration
with others and through a process of continuous improvement, we aim to achieve fairness in the
workplace for all the people with whom we work. In its narrower sense, justice is fairness. It is action that
pays due regard to the proper interests, property, and safety of others. While justice in the broader sense is
often thought of as transcendental, justice as fairness is more context-bound.
The difference principle is the second part of the second principle of John Rawls's theory of justice. The
first principle requires that citizens enjoy equal basic liberties. The first part of the second principle
requires fair equality of opportunity. As in the case of Nelson and Knight, the protection of sex-
discrimination or gender equality law or contract may resolve the prohibition against gender
discrimination in the workplace. This may protect a woman from discrimination based on her status as a
woman in the workplace and not on her consensual sexual relationships or personal affiliations with the
employer. The same protection or contract applies to men. As for the case of Nelson and Knight, the
response of the employer (Knight) to a consensual personal or romantic relationship that becomes a reason
for termination is not based on the sex of the employee, but a conduct arising from the relationship. Only
the practical reality of its presence in the workplace as a potential of adverse employment consequences.