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.