According to the principle of fair treatment, people should be judged only on their merits. A potential employer should select candidates only on the basis of their skills and experience, without judging them on their misdeeds if they have atoned for them. Obviously, a person’s “image” does not affect his/her ability to perform excellently at a job.

But even if it is not fair to ban tainted celebrities from taking part in shows, let’s not rush to conclusions.

First, there are no rights without limitations. Some professionals who violate the law have to be banned from public life. For example, stock traders guilty of inside trading do not deserve a second chance and athletes who take drugs should be banned from competitions, because their actions seriously violate basic professional ethics.

But because of the lack of universally accepted professional ethics for actors, film and TV program directors, and other artists associated with the performing arts, there still exists a large gray area for discussion.

Second, given that the value of celebrities who have a negative public image is substantially reduced, it is understandable that agencies will think more than twice before inviting them to perform in the programs they help produce because of cost-and-benefit analysis. In addition, a number of celebrities are individual contractors, not typical employees according to the Labor Law. An independent contractor is a business entity that enjoys the same legal status as any showbiz company or agency. By this token, both parties are liberty to choose to work with whoever they think suits their needs and business.

It is thus hard to determine whether banning tainted celebrities from taking part in shows constitutes employment discrimination. Each case should be judged on its merit and according to the facts and evidence related to it.

The author is a fellow with the research office of Shunyi district people’s court in Beijing.