(CNN) -- It may not be fair, but it's not illegal -- not in Iowa.
Melissa Nelson, a workerfired for being "irresistible" to her boss, spoke out Saturday about ahigh court decision that said her termination broke no discriminationlaw.
"The last couple of dayshave just been an emotional roller coaster. I'm trying to stay strong.It's tough," she told CNN's Don Lemon. "I don't think it's fair. I don'tthink it's right."
Nelson spoke one dayafter the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled on her case. The high courtsided with a lower court, ruling that Nelson's termination did notconstitute sex discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
She was not fired becauseof her gender, the court decided, but because her boss and his wifefelt Nelson was a threat to their marriage.
Nelson was hired in 1999as a dental assistant for James Knight. She stayed on at the Fort Dodgebusiness for more than 10 years.
"The court got itabsolutely right," said Stuart Cochrane, Knight's attorney. He said thatfor the Iowa Supreme Court to have acted otherwise, it would have hadto "ignore every other case we could find" with similar facts.
At first blush, he said,the result might sound bizarre. But Cochrane stressed that if all thefacts of the case were known, the court's decision would seem more fair.
"He and his wife really agonized about it," Cochrane said about Knight. "He didn't want to terminate her."
According to the highcourt's decision, Knight complained to Nelson toward the end of heremployment that her clothes were tight and "distracting." Cochrane saidKnight asked her repeatedly to dress differently.
Nelson denied that whatshe wore was out of place, and when asked by CNN's Lemon whether shedressed appropriately at work, she said she wore scrubs.
At one point, Knighttold Nelson that "if she saw his pants bulging, she would know herclothing was too revealing," the decision read.
At another point, inresponse to an alleged comment Nelson made about the infrequency of hersex life, Knight responded: [T]hat's like having a Lamborghini in thegarage and never driving it."
Nelson and Knight, bothmarried with children, also exchanged text messages to each otheroutside of work. Neither objected to the texting.
But Knight's wife, whowas employed at the same dental office, found out about those messagesin late 2009 and demanded he fire Nelson.
In early 2010, he did just that.
In the presence of apastor, Knight told Nelson that she had become a "detriment" to hisfamily and for the sakes of both their families, they should no longerwork together. Knight gave Nelson one month's severance.
In a subsequentconversation between Knight and Nelson's husband, Knight said Nelson haddone nothing wrong and that "she was the best dental assistant he everhad," the decision read.
Nelson filed a lawsuit,arguing that Knight fired her because of her gender. She did not contendthat he committed sexual harassment.
In response, Knightargued that Nelson was fired because of the "nature of theirrelationship and the perceived threat" to his marriage, not because ofher gender. In fact, he said, Knight only employs women and replacedNelson with another female worker.
A district court sided with Knight; Nelson appealed.
Framing the issue forthe Iowa Supreme Court, Justice Edward M. Mansfield wrote: "The questionwe must answer is ... whether an employee who has not engaged inflirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the bossviews the employee as an irresistible attraction."
Answering the question,he continued: "The issue before us is not whether a jury could find thatDr. Knight treated Nelson badly. We are asked to decide only if agenuine fact issue exists as to whether Dr. Knight engaged in unlawfulgender discrimination when he fired Nelson at the request of his wife.For the reasons previously discussed, we believe this conduct did notamount to unlawful discrimination, and therefore we affirm the judgmentof the district court."