Many of us, myself included, were in an uproar over the recent case of a Georgia woman being charged more for a pedicure because, according to the salon, the client was overweight and so could potentially damage the salon’s pedicure chairs.

Now, a few weeks later there’s another case about discrimination in a nail salon with regard to pricing — but this time, it’s not so clear cut. It seems like Jimmy Bell, a lawyer no less, is suing Rich’s Nails in Landover, Md., for $200,000, because of a $2 charge the salon imposed on him because he is a man. According to the complaint, Bell and a female friend got manicures and pedicures at the salon, “then when Mr. Bell reached the Rich's Nail Salon payment counter to pay for his female friend’s manicure and pedicure as well as his own, the cashier told Plaintiff that both his manicure and pedicure would each cost him $2 more than his female friend's manicure….When Mr. Bell inquired as to why…he was told the pricing was based solely on the fact that he was a man.”

One of the things that I think is so bizarre about this is that, in the vast majority of nail salons that charge different prices for male clients and female clients, it’s the FEMALE manicure and pedicure that are more expensive. So, if Bell wins, does that mean women everywhere will be suing because they didn’t get the “man-icure” price? Or should all salons just raise their men’s manicure prices in anticipation of this happening? Plus, while I’m all for equality, let’s be serious: women have to pay more than men for lots of products and services: shaving cream, haircuts, swimsuits (with less material than men’s, I might add), and that list goes on and on.

I’m interested to see how this all plays out. We’ll keep you posted.

Weigh in with your opinions in the comments section.

—Sree