The case of Dilek Edwards has posed the rather fascinating question: Is firing someone for being 'too cute' a type of discrimination?

Edwards, a massage therapist was employed by chiropractor Charles Nicolai and his wife Stephanie Adams.

In 2013, Edwards was fired, after Nicolai admitted to Adams that she might 'become jealous' because Edwards was 'too cute'.

Edwards, aged 33, filed a lawsuit to the effect she had faced gender discrimination in her dismissal.

In the original case in 2016, the 'cute' remark was rejected as grounds for discrimination, and therefore considered a legitimate reason to fire someone.

Edwards appealed, and in 2017 the appeals panel overturned the earlier ruling.

One of the judges in the appeals trial, Judge David Friedman wrote that Edwards was fired because Nicolai's business partner believed he was sexually attracted to Edwards.

[Dilek] was fired for no reason other than Adam's belief that Nicolai was sexually attracted to her...This states a cause of action for gender discrimination under New York State Human Rights Law.

The appeals panel's decision therefore overturns an earlier ruling by a court in the state of Iowa.

A similar case in 2013 in the state of Iowa had OK'd a male dentist's reason to fire his hygienist, on the grounds that she was an 'irresistible attraction'.

Maimon Kirschenbaum, Edward's lawyer in the 'cute' case, told the New York Post that this is the first time that firing a woman because you might be attracted to her, was considered grounds for discrimination.

HT News Au, New York Post

Keep reading...Show less
Please log in or register to upvote this article
The Conversation (0)