Amen to Waitress Who Refused Sexed Up Uniform

The Christian Diarist ^ | June 27, 2012 | JP

[CHRISTIAN DIARIST]

Not all attractive young women want to dress up like trollops.

[afraidfortherepublic]

[ZinGirl]

Why didn't she just quit and leave it at that? What if she didn't agree to a menu change, or if the restaurant started to cater to homosexuals?

I applaud her decision to NOT want to wear scanty uniforms, but a lawsuit is the wrong direction. A privately-owned business should be able to make legal changes in how they do business. If she doesn't like the changes, she can leave.

[CA Conservative]

I have mixed feelings about this story. First, as a Christian I applaud and support this young woman for her stand, and for refusing to expose herself and give up her modesty just to keep her job.

That being said, I disagree with her decision to sue the employer. The employer has the right to change the working conditions, including hours of work and work uniform. If she does not like those changes, she has the right to quit. But to sue over those changes indicates that she believes that she had a RIGHT to that job under HER conditions.

[Doctor 2Brains]

If that’s her, she should be punished most severely for not wearing the new uni’s. I suggest a long spanking. I’m free immediately.

[Doctor 2Brains]

You are 100% correct. She (like most Americans, sadly) has NO understanding of private property.

[stuartcr]

I agree.

[fr_freak]

Agree completely. We truly have a skewed value system when using the crooked tort system to extract money from an employer is considered a sign of Christian devotion.

[SampleMan]

Concur with you on both points.

[G Larry]

She could wear burlap bags and still be sexy.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I disagree with the “If she didn’t like it she should just leave.” comment on this.

- This isn’t a menu change or a change in clientele. This is a change in a work uniform and her working conditions.

I’m very much for a loser pays situation in civil suits. However in this case, I believe the restaurant is in the wrong.

The right thing to do would be this, let her come as she had as always and let the new hires make the change and any existing employees that wished to as well. If the earnings of one vs the other were superior, equal or less than you could say the market was working itself out.

I for one think any business that doesn’t label itself as “adult” in nature is going to be able to stand in front of a judge or jury, show a velcro mini-skirt with no coverage unless standing wholly upright and claim its perfectly normal as a uniform.

Furthermore they starting cutting her hours seemingly with the uniform issue the primary reason. That alone is retaliatory and that is what gets you nailed in a courtroom.

[ZinGirl]

The right thing to do would be this, let her come as she had as always and let the new hires make the change and any existing employees that wished to as well. If the earnings of one vs the other were superior, equal or less than you could say the market was working itself out.

geez. way too much goes into that. "here's the new uniform. You don't like it? Work somewhere else". Quitting on her supposed "Christian" principles look better than getting fired because she, personally, didn't like the way the business was changing, including the new uniform.

Now, if the new uniforms cause the business to tank, so be it.

[agere_contra]

Agreed. This looks like constructive dismissal.

[miele man]

We do not know if this young woman is a “Christian” and that she is taking the employer to court because of “Christian” values. She may well be but we cannot assume so since the article does not mention it.

[sauropod]

I applaud her decision and agree with the unpaid wages and
wrongful determination. She would probably win the sexual harrassment charge b/c of the creation of a hostile work environment.

I just happen to think that the law regarding sexual harrassment is too broad and too vague. I don’t agree with that charge.

[PoliticalArsonist]

I pretty much agree with you against the others. I hate lawyers and frivolous lawsuits but in this case, a change was made that effected her work environment and she objected to it. The management allowed her to wear the old uniform and then took action against her. They should have just said that this was required and she didn’t have to stay. Once they allowed her to continue the old uniform, their actions are retaliatory and I support her suit.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

But I do know an act of Godliness when I see it.

"Godliness" is suing a company when you don't like the working conditions there anymore?

Wow.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

This isn’t a menu change or a change in clientele. This is a change in a work uniform and her working conditions.

So what? The restaurant isn't forcing her to work there with a gun pointed to her head. If she didn't like the new working conditions, she should have done the honorable thing and quit.

[Larry Lucido]

I pray she loses. Then goes to work somewhere else.

[Edward Teach]

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.