Posted on 06/27/2012 9:25:47 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
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.
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.
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!
I found myself stuttering and repeating myself when I first heard the outcome too.
“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.
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...
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...
On my private property you wear clothes that suit me, or you leave. Period.
On my private property you wear clothes that suit me, or you leave. Period.
Kudos! Well stated and I concur.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.