'Too cute' yoga instructor can't make case in sex bias suit

Being “too cute” doesn't make it as grounds for a gender discrimination lawsuit, says a New York judge, in dismissing case filed by a yoga instructor.

Being “too cute” doesn't make it as grounds for a gender discrimination lawsuit, says a New York judge, in dismissing case filed by a yoga instructor who was allegedly the unhappy target of a jealous wife.

Dilek Edwards had been hired as a yoga and massage therapist by Charles V. Nicolai, co-owner of Wall Street Chiropractic and Wellness in New York, in April 2012, according to the May 11 ruling by the New York Supreme Court in Dilek Edwards v. Charles V. Nicolai and Stephanie Adams.

According to the ruling Mr. Nicolai warned Ms. Edwards that his wife — who is a former Playboy Playmate, according to news reports — might become jealous because she was “too cute,” although Ms. Edwards contended she and Mr. Nicolai had a “strictly professional relationship.”

On Oct. 29, 2013, Ms. Edwards received a text from Mr. Nicolai's wife, whom she had only met once, warning her to stay away from her husband and family. She was fired by Mr. Nicolai the next day.

Ms. Edwards filed suit charging gender discrimination. But, unfortunately for Ms. Edwards, cuteness cannot be the basis of a gender discrimination charge, according to Judge Shlomo S. Hagler's ruling.

“Even were this court to consider plaintiff's new theory of 'appearance-based discrimination,' this Court is constrained under the law to make a determination that defendants' behavior, no matter how abhorrent, fails to constitute gender discrimination,” said Judge Hagler, in dismissing the case.