New York Employment Lawsuit Makes Legal Headlines As Plaintiff Claims She Was Fired For Being “Too Cute”
A New York employment lawsuit alleging wrongful termination is making legal headlines. The plaintiff, a Manhattan message therapist and yoga instructor, maintains that she was fired because her boss’s spouse found her to be “too cute.”
While the trial court dismissed the claims, a New York appeals court recently held that Dilek Edwards’ claims for gender discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) may proceed. The decision in Edwards v. Nicolai highlights that courts are increasingly construing gender discrimination claims very broadly.
Allegations of Wrongful Termination
Defendant Charles V. Nicolai and his wife, defendant Stephanie Adams, own Wall Street Chiropractic and Wellness (WSCW). Nicolai is the head chiropractor and oversees the medical operations, while Adams is the chief operating officer. In April of 2012, Nicolai hired plaintiff, Dilek Edwards, as a yoga and massage therapist, and subsequently served as her direct supervisor.
According to Edwards’ complaint, the relationship between her and Nicolai was “purely professional” and that Nicolai “regularly praised Plaintiff’s work performance throughout her period of employment.” In June 2013, however, Nicolai allegedly “informed Plaintiff that his wife might become jealous of Plaintiff because Plaintiff was too cute.'” Approximately four months later, on October 29, 2013, at 1:31 a.m., Adams sent Edwards a text message stating, “You are NOT welcome any longer at Wall Street Chiropractic, DO NOT ever step foot in there again, and stay the [expletive] away from my husband and family!!!!!!! And remember I warned you.”
A few hours later, Edwards allegedly received an email from Nicolai stating, “You are fired and no longer welcome in our office. If you call or try to come back, we will call the police.'” The complaint further alleges that, on October 30, 2013, Adams filed a complaint with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) alleging – falsely – that Adams had received “threatening” phone calls from plaintiff that so frightened her as to cause her to change the locks at her home and business.
Following her termination, Edwards filed an employment lawsuit alleging a cause of action for gender discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL, a cause of action for gender discrimination in violation of the NYCHRL, and a cause of action for defamation. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to the extent of dismissing the two gender discrimination claims.
NY Appeals Court Reinstates Employment Suit
The appeals court reversed. It held that “adverse employment actions motivated by sexual attraction are gender-based, and therefore, constitute unlawful gender discrimination.” The court further explained:
While plaintiff does not allege that she was ever subjected to sexual harassment at WSCW, she alleges facts from which it can be inferred that Nicolai was motivated to discharge her by his desire to appease his wife’s unjustified jealousy and that Adams was motivated to discharge plaintiff by that same jealousy. Thus, each defendant’s motivation to terminate plaintiff’s employment was sexual in nature.
In reaching its decision, the New York appeals court distinguished the facts of the case with prior cases involving admitted consensual sexual affairs between the employer and the employee. “In such cases, it was the employee’s behavior – not merely the employer’s attraction to the employee or the perception of such an attraction by the employer’s spouse – that prompted the termination,” the court noted.
The court also acknowledged that it is not necessarily unlawful for an employer to terminate an at-will employee at the urging of the employer’s spouse. However, it held that such a discharge is actionable if the spouse urged the discharge for unlawful, gender-related reasons. “Taking plaintiff’s allegations as true, what makes her discharge unlawful is not that Nicolai’s wife urged him to do it, but the reason she urged him to do it and the reason he complied,” the court explained.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Jorge R. de Armas or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Can a Worker Be Fired for Being “Too Cute?”
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
New York Employment Lawsuit Makes Legal Headlines As Plaintiff Claims She Was Fired For Being “Too Cute”
A New York employment lawsuit alleging wrongful termination is making legal headlines. The plaintiff, a Manhattan message therapist and yoga instructor, maintains that she was fired because her boss’s spouse found her to be “too cute.”
While the trial court dismissed the claims, a New York appeals court recently held that Dilek Edwards’ claims for gender discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) may proceed. The decision in Edwards v. Nicolai highlights that courts are increasingly construing gender discrimination claims very broadly.
Allegations of Wrongful Termination
Defendant Charles V. Nicolai and his wife, defendant Stephanie Adams, own Wall Street Chiropractic and Wellness (WSCW). Nicolai is the head chiropractor and oversees the medical operations, while Adams is the chief operating officer. In April of 2012, Nicolai hired plaintiff, Dilek Edwards, as a yoga and massage therapist, and subsequently served as her direct supervisor.
According to Edwards’ complaint, the relationship between her and Nicolai was “purely professional” and that Nicolai “regularly praised Plaintiff’s work performance throughout her period of employment.” In June 2013, however, Nicolai allegedly “informed Plaintiff that his wife might become jealous of Plaintiff because Plaintiff was too cute.'” Approximately four months later, on October 29, 2013, at 1:31 a.m., Adams sent Edwards a text message stating, “You are NOT welcome any longer at Wall Street Chiropractic, DO NOT ever step foot in there again, and stay the [expletive] away from my husband and family!!!!!!! And remember I warned you.”
A few hours later, Edwards allegedly received an email from Nicolai stating, “You are fired and no longer welcome in our office. If you call or try to come back, we will call the police.'” The complaint further alleges that, on October 30, 2013, Adams filed a complaint with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) alleging – falsely – that Adams had received “threatening” phone calls from plaintiff that so frightened her as to cause her to change the locks at her home and business.
Following her termination, Edwards filed an employment lawsuit alleging a cause of action for gender discrimination in violation of the NYSHRL, a cause of action for gender discrimination in violation of the NYCHRL, and a cause of action for defamation. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to the extent of dismissing the two gender discrimination claims.
NY Appeals Court Reinstates Employment Suit
The appeals court reversed. It held that “adverse employment actions motivated by sexual attraction are gender-based, and therefore, constitute unlawful gender discrimination.” The court further explained:
While plaintiff does not allege that she was ever subjected to sexual harassment at WSCW, she alleges facts from which it can be inferred that Nicolai was motivated to discharge her by his desire to appease his wife’s unjustified jealousy and that Adams was motivated to discharge plaintiff by that same jealousy. Thus, each defendant’s motivation to terminate plaintiff’s employment was sexual in nature.
In reaching its decision, the New York appeals court distinguished the facts of the case with prior cases involving admitted consensual sexual affairs between the employer and the employee. “In such cases, it was the employee’s behavior – not merely the employer’s attraction to the employee or the perception of such an attraction by the employer’s spouse – that prompted the termination,” the court noted.
The court also acknowledged that it is not necessarily unlawful for an employer to terminate an at-will employee at the urging of the employer’s spouse. However, it held that such a discharge is actionable if the spouse urged the discharge for unlawful, gender-related reasons. “Taking plaintiff’s allegations as true, what makes her discharge unlawful is not that Nicolai’s wife urged him to do it, but the reason she urged him to do it and the reason he complied,” the court explained.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Jorge R. de Armas or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
