An employee fired because her boss’s wife was jealous of her does not have a viable sex discrimination claim according to one trial court judge in New York.
Dilek Edwards worked as a yoga instructor and massage therapist at Wall Street Chiropractic and Wellness (“WSCW”), which was owned by husband and wife Charles Nicolai and Stephanie Adams. Nicolai hired, trained and supervised the employees, including Edwards.
The work relationship between Nicolai and Edwards was strictly professional, though Nicolai once remarked that Adams might become jealous because Edwards was “too cute.” Nicolai’s hunch came true a few months later when Adams texted Edwards that she was no longer welcome at WSCW and to “stay the f*** away” from Nicolai. The next day, Nicolai fired Edwards via email and threatened to call the police if she returned to WSCW.
Edwards then sued Nicolai and Adams for sex discrimination in violation of state and city law.
A Spouse’s Jealously Prevails
The state statute and city administrative code at issue both prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of an individual’s sex or gender, among other protected classes. Edwards specifically alleged that she was fired because Nicolai (and Adams) thought Edwards was “too cute” and that this would not have happened to her if she was male.
The judge disagreed, however, dismissing the case because Edwards failed to articulate a viable legal claim. The judge observed that Edwards’ complaint was devoid of any contention that she was “treated differently than male employees,” or that she was fired based on her “status as a woman.” Instead, Edwards only claimed that she was discriminated against because of a spouse’s jealously, and being the target of that emotion is not protected under the applicable laws.
The judge specifically explained:
“With respect to whether appearance can be the basis of a discrimination claim…..courts have not found discrimination when the subject conduct or policy was not applied differently to men and women.”
Not the First Time
The judge explained that there is legal precedent for this decision, pointing to a 2013 Iowa case where an employer fired an employee because his wife felt that the employee posed a threat to their marriage. Interestingly, this belief came about after she discovered that her husband had sent a series of personal and sexually-oriented text messages to the employee.
The judge in that case ruled that firing an employee because of a spouse’s perception of a threat to the marriage does not constitute unlawful sex discrimination. Unfortunately for Edwards, the judge in her case felt the same way.
Bottom Line
This case reinforces that employment actions based on purely personal characteristics are not likely to be deemed illegally discriminatory unless, of course, those characteristics (e.g. race) have been specifically protected in the laws.
As such, this decision is a comfort to employers, but not to those of us who must live every day knowing that we could lose our jobs because we bear the burden of being too cute.