[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.

[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]

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.

[skeeter]

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.

The employee and employer had an agreement regarding conditions of employment which the employer subsequently changed. If the employee had promised to be available to work Mondays and changed their minds afterwards the employer would be within their rights to terminate employment.

Though I do not agree with the lawsuit route I don't know what other option is available to employees in cases like these.

[discostu]

I’ve worked in food service during uniform changes, nobody grandfathers, everybody changes. The business is trying to present a unified image, if some people are in one uni and others in another the place looks disorganized and confused, bad for customer confidence.

[SaraJohnson]

Plus she was not hired to serve as a slut at Hooters. The employer wants to change the game midway so he should pay her off while she seeks non-slut employment.

[CA Conservative]

That alone is retaliatory and that is what gets you nailed in a courtroom.

That is only significant if the "retaliation" is in response to a legally protected activity - say, union organizing or filing a harassment or discrimination complaint. There is nothing illegal about "retaliating" against an employee that complains about a change in the dress code, unless that change violates a contract or unless the change violates another protected right. I would not have a right so sue my employer if they suddenly decided that I must wear a suit and tie every day.

[antceecee]

I agree with you completely. This restaurant apparently has changed to an "Adult" business, complete with feeling they own the bodies of their servers and exposure thereof to benefit them financially. Existing employees of their business did not sign on to be "pimped out" as eye candy. If they wanted to change their business model they should have closed down, eliminated all positions and made everyone re-apply under the new business model. Restaurants do this all the time. To seemingly agree with the employee not wearing the sexy costume and then retaliate against her is wrong.

I wonder how some would feel if their sons worked for this establishment and it decided to cater to homosexual clientele, requiring male servers to expose their "attributes" in order to attract more business.

As we continue down the path of public acceptance of partial nudity and public sexual displays... the slope is slipping quickly as to what is now mainstream and you better get with the program or you are a prude.

The family went to see the Disney Pixar Brave movie last weekend and the previews for future offerings included a 3-D look at the upcoming Katy Perry biopic about her concert experience and her life in general. Obvious pandering to young girls 6 to 10 year olds by a woman wearing cupcake bras with cherry nipples and pinwheel spinning tittie bras. Prancing around on stage like a deranged female version of PeeWee Herman. Amazing how many parents find no problem with allowing their young girls to look up to this crap. I guess they are just breeding future servers for the likes of this business model.