Skip to comments.
Court Backs Firing of Waitress Without Makeup
Reuters ^
| 12/29/04
Posted on 12/29/2004 8:39:47 AM PST by freespirited
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181 next last
Note. Two Dems of 9th circuit said this.
To: freespirited
The Lambda Legal Defense Fund, a gay rights group that backed Jespersen's suit,Figures
2
posted on
12/29/2004 8:41:26 AM PST
by
1Old Pro
To: freespirited
Thank you for not posting her picture so close to lunch time.
3
posted on
12/29/2004 8:41:58 AM PST
by
darkwing104
(Let's get dangerous)
To: freespirited
Hey, any gall who has been serving cocktails in the smoky Reno casinos for 20 years probably needs more than a little makeup. Any pics available??
4
posted on
12/29/2004 8:42:22 AM PST
by
pissant
To: freespirited
Can women write off the cost of makeup if the job requires it?
5
posted on
12/29/2004 8:43:37 AM PST
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
To: freespirited
The Lambda Legal Defense Fund, a gay rights group that backed Jespersen's suit Now there's a real shocker.... NOT
To: freespirited
It is absurd that this case ever made it into court. Employers cannot hire and fire other Americans as they see fit? The government must approve of it? I'm glad that the judicial system was so gracious on this occasion.
7
posted on
12/29/2004 8:44:21 AM PST
by
Voice in your head
("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
To: freespirited
If I was a cocktail waitress I'd want to look my best. More TIPS!!!
8
posted on
12/29/2004 8:44:53 AM PST
by
cyborg
(http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
To: darkwing104
lol... strange days. me thinks she should be able to work w/o make up... however, she MUST be clothed.
9
posted on
12/29/2004 8:45:14 AM PST
by
bedolido
(I can forgive you for killing my sons, but I cannot forgive you for forcing me to kill your sons)
To: freespirited
Companies should be able to hire/fire based on their preferences. That is the benefit of being privately owned. Forcing them to keep this employee on their payroll when she is not conforming to their standards would be just as bad as being forced to hire someone who did not portray the image that they wanted (ie visible piercings/tattoos/strange hair colors, etc.).
To: freespirited
Dem-wits.
Sounds more like Harrah's wanted her out but couldn't do it on age or other discrimination tactics so their lawyers imposed a new makeup rule.
To: cyborg
"If I was a cocktail waitress I'd want to look my best. More TIPS!!!"
Well, she was a bartender, not a cocktail waitress. Reading is fundamental.
12
posted on
12/29/2004 8:47:22 AM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: freespirited
A ruling like this - from the 9th Circus, no less - holds out hope that the federal courts won't try to push same-sex "marriage" on the country. They seem to know the score right now.
13
posted on
12/29/2004 8:49:20 AM PST
by
inquest
(Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
To: MineralMan
The title said waitress. I can read, and no doubt you've NEVER EVER made a mistake right? I thought so. If a woman wants more tips she has to look good so my statement still stands.
14
posted on
12/29/2004 8:49:53 AM PST
by
cyborg
(http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
To: freespirited
I guess I'm on her side with this one. If she worked there for all those years without incident or makeup why should she be forced to wear it now?
I suppose it is the same as enforcing a dress code for employees and I think employers should be able to enforce that.
It's just too bad that a (as far as we know) good employee is lost over this.
15
posted on
12/29/2004 8:50:23 AM PST
by
Damifino
(The true measure of a man is found in what he would do if he knew no one would ever find out.)
To: freespirited
The fact that the courts think they can determine a company's ways of hiring and firing is the bottom line here.
To: freespirited
Was she that ugly to begin with?
17
posted on
12/29/2004 8:51:02 AM PST
by
mhking
To: Conservative Me
Companies should be able to hire/fire based on their preferences. That is the benefit of being privately owned. Private ownership means squat when it comes to affirmative action.
To: MineralMan
Yes, the article states that she was a bartender........however......................check out the title. Waitress. Confusing.
19
posted on
12/29/2004 8:51:20 AM PST
by
EggsAckley
(..............blog pimping is impolite..................)
To: freespirited
And here she is:
20
posted on
12/29/2004 8:51:48 AM PST
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson