Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Keep CounterPunch ad free. Support our annual fund drive today!

The Case of the Irresistibly Beautiful Woman


Faithful readers know that I do not normally use my knowledge of the law to expound upon its virtues and flaws.  Occasionally, however, I feel it incumbent upon me to explain intricacies that seem peculiarly suited to a matter of current interest to non-lawyers among my readers.  This is true with respect to the now famous case of Nelson vs. Knight, a case from the Supreme Court of Iowa.

The case involves an apparently irresistibly beautiful woman, Melissa Nelson, and her easily distracted employer, James H. Knight. Jim is a dentist and Melissa was one of his assistants whom he fired because of her beauty after she had worked in  his office for 10 ½ years.  The problems she presented to Jim were well described by the court in its opinion. It said that during the 1 ½ years preceding her firing Jim had complained to her that “her clothing was too tight and revealing and ‘distracting.’” During the trial Jim said:  “I don’t think it’s good for me to see her wearing things that accentuate her body.”  To help him avoid the distracting sight he sometimes asked her to put on a lab coat, presumably on occasions when her body was being particularly accentuated by her clothing.   Melissa did not think her clothing was particularly revealing and nor did she think her clothing inappropriate.  Jim tried to help her understand when it was inappropriate by telling her that “if she saw his pants bulging, she would know that her clothing was too revealing.”  It is not clear from the court’s opinion what Jim expected her to do on such an occasion although presumably she could ask to be excused to return home and put on clothing that did not have an untoward effect on Jim’s pants. On another occasion Jim told the court that Melissa had made some reference to infrequency in her sex life and that he, apparently being a car buff as well as a connoisseur of beautiful women, told her “That’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”  There is no indication in the opinion whether Melissa objected to being compared to a car.

In 2009 Jim took his children on a vacation and during his absence his wife, Jeanne, discovered that Melissa and Jim had exchanged text messages.  She demanded that Jim fire Melissa “since she was a big threat to our marriage.” She and Jim went to their pastor who agreed with Jeanne.  Shortly thereafter Jim called Melissa into his office and in the presence of another pastor from his church, read Melissa a prepared statement that said she was fired.  He then handed her an envelope containing one month’s severance as reward for her 10-½ years of service, a sum the court described as “rather ungenerous.”   Melissa was not happy at having been fired.  She sued Jim saying she had been fired on the grounds of gender discrimination.  And this is where my offering readers an instruction on the law comes into play.

Would-be-lawyers will assume that Jim defended himself on the grounds that Melissa was an attractive nuisance. Clearly Melissa was attractive and being attractive and, in the eyes of Jim’s wife, a threat to their marriage, she was a great nuisance.  The layperson would, therefore, assume that Jim would defend himself saying Melissa was an attractive nuisance and that would be the end of the matter.  That is, however, not how the law works.

People can never be attractive nuisances.  That doctrine, reduced to its simplest terms, only applies to a hazardous object or condition on real estate and then, only if the injured person is a child.  If a dangerous piece of equipment is located on a piece of property and a youngster  is injured playing on it, the  owner of the property may be liable for injuries the child incurs as a result of playing on the equipment even though the child was trespassing.  An adult can never be an attractive nuisance even if, for example, a person as beautiful as Melissa, sunbathing in the nude caused someone in a neighboring swimming pool to execute a dive imperfectly and sustain an injury because of being distracted by the sunbather.  The sunbather will never be convicted of being an attractive nuisance.  For the foregoing reasons, Jim’s defense was not that Melissa was an attractive nuisance, as attractive as such a defense would seem to the non-lawyer.

Melissa sued Jim under an Iowa law that “makes it generally unlawful to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because of the employee’s sex.”  After examining many cases involving firings of members of the opposite (and sometimes same) sex, the court concluded that Melissa’s firing because his wife thought her a threat to her marriage, was an employment decision based on personal relations, not gender-based nor based on factors that might be a proxy for gender. She lost. Jim’s attorney described the outcome as a victory for family values since Melissa was fired so Jim could save his marriage.  Melissa, it turns out, was a sacrificial lamb rather than an attractive nuisance.

Christopher Brauchli is an attorney based in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at:

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine


Weekend Edition
October 21, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Wight
Hillary Clinton and the Brutal Murder of Qaddafi
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Trump’s Naked and Hillary’s Dead
John W. Whitehead
American Psycho: Sex, Lies and Politics Add Up to a Terrifying Election Season
Patrick Cockburn
13 Years of War: Mosul’s Frightening and Uncertain Future
Rob Urie
Name the Dangerous Candidate
Pepe Escobar
The Aleppo / Mosul Riddle
David Rosen
The War on Drugs is a Racket
Sami Siegelbaum
Once More, the Value of the Humanities
Neve Gordon
Israel’s Boycott Hypocrisy
Mark Hand
Of Pipelines and Protest Pens: When the Press Loses Its Shield
Victor Wallis
On the Stealing of U.S. Elections
Michael Hudson
The Return of the Repressed Critique of Rentiers: Veblen in the 21st century Rentier Capitalism
Brian Cloughley
Drumbeats of Anti-Russia Confrontation From Washington to London
Howard Lisnoff
Still Licking Our Wounds and Hoping for Change
Brian Gruber
Iraq: There Is No State
Peter Lee
Trump: We Wish the Problem Was Fascism
Stanley L. Cohen
Equality and Justice for All, It Seems, But Palestinians
Steve Early
In Bay Area Refinery Town: Berniecrats & Clintonites Clash Over Rent Control
Peter Linebaugh
Ron Suny and the Marxist Commune: a Note
Andre Vltchek
Sudan, Africa and the Mosaic of Horrors
Keith Binkly
The Russians Have Been Hacking Us For Years, Why Is It a Crisis Now?
Jonathan Cook
Adam Curtis: Another Manager of Perceptions
Ted Dace
The Fall
Cathy Breen
“Today Is One of the Heaviest Days of My Life”
Susana Hurlich
Hurricane Matthew: an Overview of the Damages in Cuba
Dave Lindorff
Screwing With and Screwing the Elderly and Disabled
Chandra Muzaffar
Cuba: Rejecting Sanctions, Sending a Message
Dennis Kucinich
War or Peace?
Kristine Mattis
All Solutions are Inadequate: Why It Doesn’t Matter If Politicians Mention Climate Change
Jack Rasmus
Behind The 3rd US Presidential Debate—What’s Coming in 2017
Ron Jacobs
A Theory of Despair?
Gilbert Mercier
Globalist Clinton: Clear and Present Danger to World Peace
James A Haught
Many Struggles Won Religious Freedom
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Dear Fellow Gen Xers: Let’s Step Aside for the Millennials
Uri Avnery
The Peres Funeral Ruckus
Winslow Myers
Christopher Brauchli
Wonder Woman at the UN
James McEnteer
Art of the Feel
Lee Ballinger
Tupac: Holler If You Hear Him
Charles R. Larson
Review: Sjón’s “Moonstone: the Boy Who Never Was”
October 20, 2016
Eric Draitser
Syria and the Left: Time to Break the Silence
Jeffrey St. Clair
Extreme Unction: Illusions of Democracy in Vegas
Binoy Kampmark
Digital Information Warfare: WikiLeaks, Assange and the US Presidential Elections
Jonathan Cook
Israel’s Bogus History Lesson
Bruce Mastron
Killing the Messenger, Again