Amen to Waitress Who Refused Sexed Up Uniform

The Christian Diarist ^ | June 27, 2012 | JP

[CHRISTIAN DIARIST]

I do not know Courtney Scaramella’s faith life. But I applaud the 23-year-old waitress for taking a stand against the owner and general manager of the Los Angeles sports bar where she worked when they decided to sex up the uniforms worn by female employees.

When she was hired by the sports bar nearly five years ago, Courtney and her fellow female employees wore a uniform of shirt and pants. But that changed recently, when the ownership ordered waitresses to wear tiny little school-girl skirts.

Courtney went so far as to try on the skirt, but the petite young woman found she couldn’t bend – even a little – without exposing herself. Her biggest fear was that some liquored up customer would pull off her skirt – which was fastened at the waist by mere Velcro – either by accident or intention.

After submitting a written complaint back in January, Courtney was no longer required to squeeze into an itty-bit skirt sized for a pre-teen girl. However, she contends, her hours were cut, and her income diminished.

Finally, management decided to rid themselves of their more-modest-than-thou waitress, according to Courtney. So now she’s fighting back with a lawsuit claiming sexual harassment, wrongful termination and unpaid wages.

Now, had young Courtney been a longtime employee of one of those so-called “breastaurants,” establishments that put well-endowed, underdressed waitresses on display for lustful male customers, I would have little sympathy for her.

Because she would have known what she was getting herself into when she took the unwholesome job.

But Courtney never tried to trade on her bodily assets. She passed up Hooters, Titled Kilt, Twin Peaks, Mugs and Jugs and other such beastaurants to take a waitress position at a sports bar where the required attire was not a tight-fitting tank top and short shorts, or plaid bra and matching tiny plaid skirt, but a less provocative shirt and pants.

It took great courage for young Courtney to refuse to accept the degrading new un-dress code the managers of her sports bar instituted.

Especially, in an economy in which most are inclined to hold on to even the most disagreeable job rather than risk joining the ranks of the out-of-work.

Again, I do not know her faith life. But I do know an act of Godliness when I see it.

[discostu]

No specifics don’t matter. At question is what happens if a company changes their dress code/ uniform to something that some of the employees refuse to wear. Why they refuse to wear it is immaterial, there’s no functional legal difference between clothes the employee finds morally offensive and clothes the employee finds uncomfortable or ugly. What matters is the uniform changed and she refused to wear the new one.

Men just get refused jobs because they want attractive women in that post. This is how life bounces.

[Pollster1]

A server’s job is to serve food, be hospitable, and be attentive. They are being paid to be there and aren’t there to be the targets of the customers romantic attentions or base desires. If these people want a date, they should find someone who isn’t being paid to talk to them.

Really? I would say that varies from one restaurant to another.

An employee's job is to do what the employer decides needs to be done, at a mutually agreed rate of compensation. If the details of the job change, and if either party no longer finds the arrangement satisfactory, it's time to change jobs. I do not patronize restaurants that feature skimpy outfits as their primary attraction, but the place is private property, and it is the owner's place to make employment decisions - and the employee's role to decide whether to accept those decisions or move on. I agree with you morally, but a court is not the place to regulate moral conduct. Legally, this should not be a question subject to government interference. I'd say the same thing if my daughters had quit or been fired from a job working for a dog like this guy. She's moved on. It's over.

[antceecee]

Why thank you!

[trailhkr1]

Nobody finds a tie degrading (uncomfortable perhaps). Men are very rarely asked to show skin or degrade themselves physically

No one is forcing these women to work there. As another poster pointed out there is awaiting list for these "degrading jobs" and the tips are very good.

I have been to Hooters before and the food is not priced three times higher than other places as you mentioned and is actually quite good and priced reasonable and have never seen the men degrading the staff. Actually the reverse..the men are somewhat intimidated.

What is degrading anyway about Hooters/Twin Peaks etc. I see more revealing bikini's on the beach-especially thong bikinis and those women are not getting paid.

[colorado tanker]

The uniform in question

Those defending the employer should check this out. Looks like the employer is trying to rip off the Tilted Kilt concept. I wonder if he'll be getting a letter from their lawyers.

[MarkL]

It would appear that many also don't have a grasp of the principles of contract law...

I look at an employer/employee relationship as being like any other business relationship or contract. It's not "please sir, may I have a job? I'll do anything!", it's: Let's come to an agreement where I agree to trade some of my time/expertise/energy for compensation. In that scenario, one side does not have the right to unilaterally change the terms of that contract. They can negotiate change, but they cannot dictate. Refusal to negotiate such changes is tantamount to a breach of contract and will be dealt with accordingly.

Your views on the employer/employee relations are pretty far off in an "at will" state. Here's an example... A company decides to change from one IT networking system, email system, or software package to another. They will then dictate to their employees that they WILL work on the new systems. There's no negotiation. The company employees WILL use the new systems. The IT staff will either comply and learn the new system (usually by spending every waking hour of their own time trying to learn the new system) or they'll have to find a new employer.

Given your views, a company's employeesand IT staff could keep the company from switching to new systems.

Mark

[Tau Food]

This is how life bounces.

Yep, and sometimes the bounce includes a trip to the courthouse. No big deal.

Apparently, this employer is a pervert. I don't fault him for that, but he should have told his prospective employees that he is a pervert before he hired them. I think that he had a duty to disclose that fact during the hiring process.

We deal here with a species of fraud.

[Pollster1]

Those defending the employer should check this out. Looks like the employer is trying to rip off the Tilted Kilt concept. I wonder if he'll be getting a letter from their lawyers.

If they were infringing, I would agree. However, the new kilt is significantly shorter(!), pleated, and a different plaid. I doubt that this new uniform would or should be interpreted as a violation of Tilted Kilt's intellectual property.

[discostu]

I doubt he’s a pervert, he sees how the market is going. “Breastaraunts” are growing the revenue (there was an article about them in Yahoo yesterday), in a tough economy if you can’t set yourself apart from the crowd with the menu your options are limited.

Maybe during the hiring process he wasn’t contemplating this change. Change happens. Like I said earlier I’ve worked in food service when the uniforms changed. Luckily it was fast food and we changed from ugly occasionally needing ironing to ugly never needing ironing so it was a good change. But employees weren’t informed or queried until it was time for the change, then it was “here’s your new uniform you have two weeks to turn in the old ones”.

There’s no fraud, she’s been there for almost 5 years. He responded to a changing market, adapt or die.

[trailhkr1]

If they were infringing, I would agree. However, the new kilt is significantly shorter(!), pleated, and a different plaid. I doubt that this new uniform would or should be interpreted as a violation of Tilted Kilt's intellectual property.

One is also based upon a Catholic girls skirt albeit skimpy and the other is the kilt. Kinda like comparing a shirt and a sweater.

[colorado tanker]

intellectual property

In this case both establishments seem to be appealing to another region of the body. :-))

[trailhkr1]

There’s no fraud, she’s been there for almost 5 years

Bingo!!!!!! I missed that..... This is the key to this whole thing...Good Job. It's not as if she was hired 2 weeks before the dress code changed. It's been 5 years!!

[Pollster1]

Huh? Where do you think laws come from? Plenty of things are illegal because they are immoral, including sex discrimination. To all the old folk here, do you think age discrimination is okay? Are you okay with racial discrimination (that includes affirmative action)?

Most conduct that should be illegal is also immoral, but there are a whole lot of actions that are certainly immoral and should not be illegal. This employment action is in that very large category. I'd rather see decent patrons abandon this guy's business and allow the free market to punish him, rather than using government force to take his property, when he is making a work uniform decision and an employment decision that both should be within the scope of his control.

Having been found guilty of "racial discrimination" in a hiring decision (I hired the Hispanic man with the higher degree and better attitude and aptitude for the work but rather foolishly advised a white applicant that an advanced degree in the field would make him more competitive. Since blacks and Hispanics are under-represented in that degree field, my comment proved racial discrimination!), I am not terribly fond of the way employment laws are enforced. I no longer give any feedback to job applicants, so the rat who complained about me won some money, and all future job applicants lost out. I don't see that as a gain for society.

[Tau Food]

There’s no fraud, she’s been there for almost 5 years. He responded to a changing market, adapt or die.

I doubt that she's asking for the death penalty. She's probably just looking for some compensation for the losses that she has incurred as a result of his decision to change the rules to require that she begin dressing like a whore for him.

If, like you say, it's just about money, he should understand why she feels the need to take him to court. He should compensate her for her monetary losses and get on with his life.

[Fightin Whitey]

>>>I suggest a long spanking. I’m free immediately.<<<

Being a physician you would certainly agree that after the spanking a cool moistening lotion should be applied.

And I am free for that. Hell, I’d even pay a little.

[Cyber Liberty]

This is an implied contract.

All "implied contracts" are worth the paper they're written on.

[little jeremiah]

I agree with everything you said; I would add that the debauched (or null) moral values is not due to political correctness or tolerance, it is due to a conscious push by those promoting evil, and PC and tolerance were and are some of their weapons to shut us up. They want to destroy every remnant of moral based absolutes whether in private or public life. Fearful, trembling hedonist living-for-the-moment animals are much easier to control.

[Doctor 2Brains]

On my private property you wear clothes that suit me, or you leave. Period.

[Edward Teach]

That is not even CLOSE to the same as directing that female staff dress up in skimpy costumes. Unless the costume (notice I’m not calling it a uniform as it doesn’t deserve to be referred to as such. Uniforms are what policemen, or Airline employees etc. wear) is a bona fide part of the employee’s job (think Disney as an example), then the employer doesn’t really have much of an argument. I notice that several people have trotted out “At Will” as an justification, which is fine and on principle I agree with the right of a business owner to run their business as they see fit. However you have to admit that what they’ve done here is a pretty greasy thing to do. That’s definitely a business that I wouldn’t be patronizing.

[Pollster1]

Wait a sec, a disgruntled white applicant sued you for discriminating against minorities? How did he have standing?

It's been a few years, and I never could entirely explain that aspect, but he won. The concept of using surrogates for race in employment decisions was used to argue successfully that by acknowledging that I was giving preference to applicants with an advanced degree, when that degree was not a job requirement, I was acknowledging a proxy form of racism. Because of the "disparate racial impact" (their exact phrase), hiring the credentialed minority applicant was racist. It's not supposed to make sense; it's government.

[Revolting cat!]

Sue me, sue you. It’s interesting how people who complain about the American judicial system, frivolous lawsuits, ambulance chasers like the Edwards couple, etc, all of a sudden say “oh, but in this case sue them for all they’ve got!”, and for each of us it’s a different “in this case”, so that the cumulative effect is the corrupt judicial system we’ve got ourselves! Mirror, mirror!

[Pollster1]

I found myself stuttering and repeating myself when I first heard the outcome too.

[CodeToad]

“On my private property you wear clothes that suit me, or you leave. Period.”

Which is why we have laws, to protect people from belligerent idiots like you. If you want people on your property then you also have the responsibility to accept them properly. If you can’t do that then we shut you down as a business. Only a juvenile idiot would think he can open his proeprty to people but then act like a dictator about it. If you can’t accept other people’s property rights then your property needs shut down.

[cherry]

she's suing because after complaining, she got less hrs and was basically pushed out...

its not a strip club and what that idiot owner did was basically want them to be stripers...

she'd worked there a good amount of time....if the owner wanted to become a strip club then he should have offered a big severance pay up front...

people stand up to evil and pandering and it seems all they get is grief here on FR....which is why the US is not the great and good country it once was...too many iffy Christians and too many anti morality...

[cherry]

she's suing because after complaining, she got less hrs and was basically pushed out...

its not a strip club and what that idiot owner did was basically want them to be stripers...

she'd worked there a good amount of time....if the owner wanted to become a strip club then he should have offered a big severance pay up front...

people stand up to evil and pandering and it seems all they get is grief here on FR....which is why the US is not the great and good country it once was...too many iffy Christians and too many anti morality...

[Doctor 2Brains]

On my private property you wear clothes that suit me, or you leave. Period.

[Doctor 2Brains]

On my private property you wear clothes that suit me, or you leave. Period.

[antceecee]

Kudos! Well stated and I concur.

[Doctor 2Brains]

So, on my private property, if I have a complaining employee, I cannot “push her out”? It’s my business and my fortune that can be flushed down the toilet (not hers) if I go out of business, but I MUST keep her around even if I determine that she is on my private property endangering my private property (money) further. If I convert my restaurant to a bookstore, I should be forced by the government to pay all my waitresses a “BIG severance” before I can get rid of ‘em? Really, Marx? Should they give me a “BIG” check if I’m relying on them and they decide to quit one day? You’re a liberal. Wealthy property owners, in your view, should be subjected to coercion by the state that you would never subject poor people to. Nice talkin to you, Michael Moore.

[Pollster1]

she'd worked there a good amount of time....if the owner wanted to become a strip club then he should have offered a big severance pay up front...

Severance pay, for a waitress? I disagree. It's community outrage that should have kept this moron from treating a waitress poorly, not government force, and certainly not a mandatory severance package.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I suspect the attny that took this case feels pretty confident they will win.

Yeah, where "win" = threaten the company with prolonged legal proceedings until finally the company gives in and ponies up $XXX,XXX to make you go away.

Awesome.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I wonder what all the middle aged office workers on this thread would think if the boss told them they should come to work in a thong and then fired them for non-compliance. Then all the sanctimonious comments about contracts and the free market would stop. As long as it’s a young woman, the manly men don’t mind pimping her out. Do any of them have daughters?

It's always about the genitals with you people. What if the boss forced her to wear a Carmen Miranda fruit hat on her head, and she didn't dig it? Should she be able to sue her employer and get a big payday in court for her "distress?"

It's amazing how quickly social "conservatives" applaud big government statist tactics and identity politics whenever anything risque rears its head.

[discostu]

That’s what the company faces. When your market changes you adapt or you die. Breastaurants are very popular and make a lot of money, that money is money not being spent in other places, either restaurants without a lot of cleavage.

There’s no reason for her to compensate her. The direction of the company changed but she was still welcome to be a part of it. Had she stayed she probably would have seen her income rise (more customers spending more money generally equates to more tips), she chose not to. He shouldn’t compensate her for her repercussions of her decisions. He would be getting on with his life except she’s suing. She should be getting on with her life, there’s still plenty of non-breastaurants in the world for her to work at.

[Tau Food]

That’s just baloney. This employer participates in setting standards in the industry. Would he reduce expenses by no longer washing dishes if his competitor across the street did? Show me a study that concludes that a restaurant can’t survive unless it looks like a whorehouse.

This lady invested years of her life in this business. She is fully justified in refusing to be treated like a whore and if the transition caused by her employer’s sudden decision to play pimp causes her some losses, she’s got a valid claim as far as I am concerned.

[discostu]

There’s no baloney about it. This employer can read the trades and see the money. You want a study here you go:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/24/breastaurant-boom-hooters-style-eateries-experience-mini-boom/

“The nation’s top three “breastaurant” chains behind Hooters each had sales growth of 30 percent or more last year, according to Technomic, a food industry research firm. They still represent less than 1 percent of the nation’s top restaurants, but the upstart chains are benefitting as other mid-priced options like Applebee’s and Bennigan’s have experienced declines during the economic downturn.”

Now if you’re a restaurant owner which do you want to sign up for 30% growth or decline? The answer is pretty easy.

The employee is fully justified in refusing to make the change. But that means leaving the company. Her employer’s decision didn’t cause her any losses, HER decision did. SHE decided not to make the change with the restaurant. Her call, not his. He decided he’d rather sign up for 30% growth, the smart business decision, she opted not to. Which is a valid call for her to make, but it was her decision that cost her money, not his. His decision would have given her money.

[Tau Food]

Well, we agree that it’s “his call” to come out of the closet and announce that he’s a pervert and that he wants his employees to dress like whores for him. If he tried to pull that on my daughter, if he asked my daughter to dress like a whore for him, I’d cure him with a scalpel. She’s just asking for the cost of the transition he’s forced her to make.

[discostu]

I don’t agree to that, that’s you using hyperbole to pretend you have a point. Out here in reality 30% growth is worth chasing even if you aren’t in a down economy, no perversion necessary. He didn’t force her to make a transition, that was her decision.

[Tau Food]

Filth is filth. Perversion is perversion. It can’t be justified.

Let the jury decide.

[trailhkr1]

If he tried to pull that on my daughter, if he asked my daughter to dress like a whore for him, I’d cure him with a scalpel

You are unstable..seek help.

[discostu]

And having women wearing more cloth than the average cheerleader outfit while serving food is neither filth nor perversion. It’s a business decision.

[Tau Food]

And, if I was the judge, I’d tell the employer that unless he appeared in court with the words pervert and pimp on the front and back of his shirt, he should not show up at all.

And, if he decided not to show up, that would be “his call.”

The jury will take care of this guy.

[trailhkr1]

And, if I was the judge, I’d tell the employer that unless he appeared in court with the words pervert and pimp on the front and back of his shirt, he should not show up at all.

And this is why we have separation of church and state for good reason...Admit it..if this woman wanted her employer to pay for birth control you would be 100% on the side of the employer.

Hemingway's Ghost said it way better than I ever could in his post above and he is 100% correct.

[trailhkr1]

And having women wearing more cloth than the average cheerleader outfit while serving food is neither filth nor perversion

I bet you the woman in question wears skimpy string or thong bikini's to the beach and flaunts her bod.. sometimes employees just want to be difficult and stir up shiiite.