Woman without makeup, fired from her job!

cars · Post by **cars** » Sat May 23, 2009 11:17 am

Victoria;1193283 wrote: Would this man have expected a male employee to wear make up? NO in fact I bet he would have asked a male to remove his makeup.

I worked in a store where some of the male members of staff were bald..when I was ill my hair started to fall out and one of these managers approached me and 'suggested' that if it got any worse I might like to consider a wig..

So I went to the local fancy dress hire shop and got a candy floss pink wig and took it to work. I approached the manager and producing the wig asked him 'shall I start wearing it today'?

After he recovered from the shock I was told the wig would not be necessary!
On the contrary, this establishment did not employ male servers, so it's kind of a slam to the males as well, don'tcha think!!! :-2

(Sort of following in the foot steps of Hooters)

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat May 23, 2009 11:25 am

Most businesses have "Attorney's" they consult with on Employee issue such as this. If he had done that I'm sure they would have told him NO way can you make such a request of employees. Most companies have dress codes that have to be signed by the employees upon hire. If the dress code changes you have to get everyones signature again. As an employer you can't just decide one day that this how it's going to be with your staff that stopped in the 30's. :-5

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sat May 23, 2009 11:32 am

CARLA;1193296 wrote: Most businesses have "Attorney's" they consult with on Employee issue such as this. If he had done that I'm sure they would have told him NO way can you make such a request of employees. Most companies have dress codes that have to be signed by the employees upon hire. If the dress code changes you have to get everyones signature again. As an employer you can't just decide one day that this how it's going to be with your staff that stopped in the 30's. :-5

I am so glad to hear it Carla, I thought I'd slipped into a parallel universe :wah:

I was shocked to think that america could be behind the times when it comes to employment laws.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat May 23, 2009 11:39 am

Here in my state of California there were 7 last year, 8 this year "LABOR LAW REFERENCE" books. As an employer you better know the laws or have attorney's that do. Employee's are to be protected from guys like this who didn't do his homework before firing her.

[QUOTE]I am so glad to hear it Carla, I thought I'd slipped into a parallel universe

I was shocked to think that america could be behind the times when it comes to employment laws.[/QUOTE]

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat May 23, 2009 1:21 pm

Odie;1193236 wrote: - he did give her that choice.

and who knows, maybe his Establishment is high-class?

We have tons of really high-class bars here, they all serve appetizers and meals and and staff look highly professionally.....that makes a huge difference to their customers.

I friend and I, went to eat out last week at a half decent place, waitress had her hair in a ponytail, tied with an elastic band, no make-up, she looked dreadful......it just was not one bit appealing to us.

When I go out, whether its high class or McDonald's, all staff look fabulous, and I appreciate that as I am spending my money, and its an enjoyment to see staff looking their best.

we really don't know what she looked like, I've seen some women with their hair in a pony tail, no make-up and it looks dreadful, so who knows what she looks like?

If she sues him, it will cost her a fortune, and if she gets her job back, he will think of something to fire her.
My family and i were in a well known chain of resturants last week. The waitress was obese, hair scraped into a bun and no make up. She was friendly, efficent, polite, made a fuss of the children and gave excellent service. We left her a generous tip. The previous week we were in another resturant where the waitress looked like a glamour model. She was curt, un-helpfull and slow. She never got a tip. I know what i'd prefer.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat May 23, 2009 2:08 pm

CARLA;1193296 wrote: Most businesses have "Attorney's" they consult with on Employee issue such as this. If he had done that I'm sure they would have told him NO way can you make such a request of employees. Most companies have dress codes that have to be signed by the employees upon hire. If the dress code changes you have to get everyones signature again. As an employer you can't just decide one day that this how it's going to be with your staff that stopped in the 30's. :-5

This story has nothing to do with dress codes.

There are thousands of business's that do not have employees sign anything, nor do they have employee handbooks.

And as I said previously, it is not illegal in the US or Canada to fire employees.

and yes, an employer can decide one day that's just how its going to be.

Waitress says bare face led to firing

By Michael Stetz Union-Tribune Columnist

San Diego

2:00 a.m. May 20, 2009

"I always thought I looked silly wearing makeup," said Shenoa Vild, 27, of North Park. - BRUCE K. HUFF / Union-Tribune

Photo of michael-stetz

Call Michael at

619-293-1720

Shenoa Vild hates to wear makeup. Face goop is simply not for her. She happens to think she has a naturally healthy, vibrant complexion. After meeting her, I have to agree.

But Vild, a waitress, says her former boss had an entirely different opinion.

He wanted Vild to wear makeup.

She wouldn't.

So, she says, she got canned.

Vild had worked at Trophy's in Mission Valley for five years without wearing makeup. Apparently, for all that time, it didn't matter.

But the restaurant was sold earlier this year, and she says the new management wanted the women to doll up. Vild says she got the ax in late April when she wouldn't.

Employers have the right to do this. A few years ago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is not discrimination for employers to make women wear makeup.

But just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

Mark Oliver, the new owner, said he couldn't go into details as to what happened with Vild. Oliver did say she was the only employee who was unable to deal with the transition.

Trophy's, like the other restaurants in the small chain, was a sports bar. Oliver is making it more upscale.

“Shenoa could still be here if she wanted, said Oliver, who used to be a part owner of George's at the Cove in La Jolla. “I had no problem with anybody else. If she would have made the same accommodations that the new ownership was asking, she'd still be here.

Alex left the restaurant, too, but she holds no grudge. Oliver was fair about her leaving, she said.

Still, “she's facing a real uphill battle, said Peter Zschiesche, executive director of the Employee Rights Center in San Diego. Employers have wide latitude on hiring and firing, particularly when it comes to at-will, or nonunion, employees.

One might fault Vild for refusing to budge on the issue, but I give her credit for not caving. It's not the same as, say, putting on a uniform. You're applying something to your skin. And if you overdo it – Tammy Faye, anyone? – you could face ridicule, not praise.

“I always thought I looked silly wearing makeup, Vild, a 27-year-old North Park resident, told me. “And I don't think I need it.

It's not as if Vild isn't interested in her appearance or is a complete rebel. When the new management instituted a dress code of nice jeans and pressed white shirts, Vild said she had no problems conforming.

The Trophy's waitresses used to wear gym shorts and blouses.

Word is the management didn't like Vild's beach-girl look. She bleaches her hair blond.

Look, I have no problem with the establishment going for a makeover and Oliver putting his own stamp on the joint. You buy a place of business, you run it as you see fit. It's your Benjamins.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat May 23, 2009 2:55 pm

I think in the current financial climate, if I wanted to keep working, I'd invest in a little lipstick and a touch of blush, suspend my lofty principles and bend my personal habits just a bit. But I'm older than this kid - and much more cynical. I hope she finds a new job quickly, where she can fit in just as she is. Most employees have to make a few compromises. It's where you draw the line of reasonable and unreasonable.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat May 23, 2009 4:00 pm

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling on Makeup Policy

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling on Makeup Policy

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit alleging Harrah's Entertainment violated federal law by firing a bartender who refused to wear makeup.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to hear the case en banc (with all judges present) after a three-judge panel from the court dismissed the lawsuit in December 2004.

In the most recent ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court and the panel that plaintiff Darlene Jespersen failed to provide sufficient evidence that Harrah's appearance and grooming policy was more burdensome on women than on men.

Harrah's policy required women to wear some facial makeup but prohibited men from wearing any. The policy required men to maintain short hair while women could have long hair. Jespersen refused to comply with the policy, saying she found the makeup requirement offensive and interfered with her job.

After the company fired her for refusing to comply, she filed a lawsuit, claiming the policy discriminated against women. However, a district court, the panel, and the appeals court en banc have ruled that Jespersen failed to provide sufficient evidence that the policy was any more burdensome for women than it was for men, which is a test the courts use for determining whether a grooming policy violates nondiscrimination law.

"We have long recognized that companies may differentiate between men and women in appearance and grooming policies, and so have other circuits" the appeals court wrote. "The material issue under our settled law is not whether the policies are different, but whether the policy imposed on the plaintiff creates an 'unequal burden' for the plaintiff's gender."

Jespersen also argued that the policy was a form of sex stereotyping in violation of federal law. However, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Jespersen failed to provide any evidence to suggest Harrah's motivation was to stereotype female bartenders.

"The policy does not single out Jespersen," the court wrote. "It applies to all of the bartenders, male and female. It requires all of the bartenders to wear exactly the same uniforms while interacting with the public in the context of the entertainment industry. It is for the most part unisex, from the black tie to the non-skid shoes. There is no evidence in this record to indicate that the policy was adopted to make women bartenders conform to a commonly-accepted stereotypical image of what women should wear. The record contains nothing to suggest the grooming standards would objectively inhibit a woman's ability to do the job. The only evidence in the record to support the stereotyping claim is Jespersen's own subjective reaction to the makeup requirement."

This specific case dealt with policy that changed after twenty years of the original contract. The defense was based on unfair bias towards women-which was disproved when the requirements for male employees was entered as evidence. The case was decided on contract issues as well as gender.

The case stated in the OP is different in scope. It is also change of policy with change of ownership. There will be a court case over it, because it has different parameters.

Cars, do you have an original link to this case? Is it a new one, and different from the Harrah's one?

And no, Pammie, I wouldn't dye my hair if that was a job requirement, or cut it to their specifications-as long as it is up and out of the way. I would find another place of employment-in these times we might do some things to appease our employers. Some things are inconsequential within our job specifications. And Odie, I have been axed from my school for no valid reason, so I know what you speak of. But I will find another one, since I will never know why my principal did it. I choose not to file the grievance against her, because there is an opening within my certification field there. I will not stay where I am not wanted.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat May 23, 2009 4:33 pm

chonsigirl;1193373 wrote: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling on Makeup Policy

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling on Makeup Policy

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit alleging Harrah's Entertainment violated federal law by firing a bartender who refused to wear makeup.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to hear the case en banc (with all judges present) after a three-judge panel from the court dismissed the lawsuit in December 2004.

In the most recent ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court and the panel that plaintiff Darlene Jespersen failed to provide sufficient evidence that Harrah's appearance and grooming policy was more burdensome on women than on men.

Harrah's policy required women to wear some facial makeup but prohibited men from wearing any. The policy required men to maintain short hair while women could have long hair. Jespersen refused to comply with the policy, saying she found the makeup requirement offensive and interfered with her job.

After the company fired her for refusing to comply, she filed a lawsuit, claiming the policy discriminated against women. However, a district court, the panel, and the appeals court en banc have ruled that Jespersen failed to provide sufficient evidence that the policy was any more burdensome for women than it was for men, which is a test the courts use for determining whether a grooming policy violates nondiscrimination law.

"We have long recognized that companies may differentiate between men and women in appearance and grooming policies, and so have other circuits" the appeals court wrote. "The material issue under our settled law is not whether the policies are different, but whether the policy imposed on the plaintiff creates an 'unequal burden' for the plaintiff's gender."

Jespersen also argued that the policy was a form of sex stereotyping in violation of federal law. However, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Jespersen failed to provide any evidence to suggest Harrah's motivation was to stereotype female bartenders.

"The policy does not single out Jespersen," the court wrote. "It applies to all of the bartenders, male and female. It requires all of the bartenders to wear exactly the same uniforms while interacting with the public in the context of the entertainment industry. It is for the most part unisex, from the black tie to the non-skid shoes. There is no evidence in this record to indicate that the policy was adopted to make women bartenders conform to a commonly-accepted stereotypical image of what women should wear. The record contains nothing to suggest the grooming standards would objectively inhibit a woman's ability to do the job. The only evidence in the record to support the stereotyping claim is Jespersen's own subjective reaction to the makeup requirement."

This specific case dealt with policy that changed after twenty years of the original contract. The defense was based on unfair bias towards women-which was disproved when the requirements for male employees was entered as evidence. The case was decided on contract issues as well as gender.

The case stated in the OP is different in scope. It is also change of policy with change of ownership. There will be a court case over it, because it has different parameters.

Cars, do you have an original link to this case? Is it a new one, and different from the Harrah's one?

And no, Pammie, I wouldn't dye my hair if that was a job requirement, or cut it to their specifications-as long as it is up and out of the way. I would find another place of employment-in these times we might do some things to appease our employers. Some things are inconsequential within our job specifications. And Odie, I have been axed from my school for no valid reason, so I know what you speak of. But I will find another one, since I will never know why my principal did it. I choose not to file the grievance against her, because there is an opening within my certification field there. I will not stay where I am not wanted.

How I remember you being axed for no reason.:-4

- I am so happy for you that 'you now have choices', just proves to the world how damn fine a teacher you are, and we need good teachers, education is so vital, especially nowadays.

To bad, so sad for your principal, as she doesn't know what she's lost.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sat May 23, 2009 4:33 pm

Betty Boop;1193299 wrote: I am so glad to hear it Carla, I thought I'd slipped into a parallel universe :wah:

I was shocked to think that america could be behind the times when it comes to employment laws.

Don't worry Betty...we Yanks are living in the present:wah:

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat May 23, 2009 5:48 pm

Odie;1193378 wrote: How I remember you being axed for no reason.:-4

- I am so happy for you that 'you now have choices', just proves to the world how damn fine a teacher you are, and we need good teachers, education is so vital, especially nowadays.

To bad, so sad for your principal, as she doesn't know what she's lost.

You're so sweet Odie. :-4

I'll let you know when I get a school-the high school said no, but the close middle school kind of discretely wrote to me this week, and they definitely didn't say no, but not that final definite yes. (they told me a time line)

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat May 23, 2009 5:53 pm

Kathy Ellen;1193160 wrote: :yh_rotfl...It's a sports bar and think the men there like to see makeup on women...

I was taught to put makeup on by my mom...she always says you don't have to wear alot of it...it should look like your hardly wearing any. I for one don't wear it at all either...sometimes some facial creme in the winter but not everyday. I wouldn't even care if my waitress was wearing or not wearing makeup...I'm not tipping her for her looks...I'm tipping her for how she presents the meal and how friendly & informed she is about the menu.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat May 23, 2009 7:43 pm

chonsigirl;1193391 wrote: You're so sweet Odie. :-4

I'll let you know when I get a school-the high school said no, but the close middle school kind of discretely wrote to me this week, and they definitely didn't say no, but not that final definite yes. (they told me a time line)

funny, I preferred the middle school, good luck babe!:-4

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat May 23, 2009 7:57 pm

oscar;1193332 wrote: My family and i were in a well known chain of resturants last week. The waitress was obese, hair scraped into a bun and no make up. She was friendly, efficent, polite, made a fuss of the children and gave excellent service. We left her a generous tip. The previous week we were in another resturant where the waitress looked like a glamour model. She was curt, un-helpfull and slow. She never got a tip. I know what i'd prefer.

I always tip the waitress...but your right if they don't give a crap about the customer...makeup or no makeup...they get a crap tip. also, the laws are different in other countries. IMO, the new owner was sexist...what's next push up wonder bras for new female employees? I think somebody said...he's following the Hooters. One other thing is bugging me about this idiot...if the waitress worked there for years with no complaints against her why was she fired? Cuz she didn't have make up on? I hope his business fails.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat May 23, 2009 8:26 pm

This incident that everyone has been discussing is in the US and it is legal there to fire someone.

The new owner was not sexist if you had of have read the posts.

He decided also to change it to an upscale bar.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat May 23, 2009 8:28 pm

Odie;1193439 wrote: This law that we are discussing is in the US and it is legal there to fire someone.

The new owner was not sexist if you had of have read the posts.

I DID read the posts...if you had read what I said about her being employed at the restaurant before the new owner took over and had no complaints against her...why was she fired suddenly?:-5

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat May 23, 2009 8:36 pm

-a new owner bought the establishment.

he decided to change things.

-and this is in the US and it is legal to fire someone for whatever reason the employer chooses.

This story has nothing to do with dress codes.

There are thousands of business's that do not have employees sign anything, nor do they have employee handbooks.

And as I said previously, it is not illegal in the US or Canada to fire employees.

and yes, an employer can decide one day that's just how its going to be.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waitress says bare face led to firing

By Michael Stetz Union-Tribune Columnist

San Diego

2:00 a.m. May 20, 2009

"I always thought I looked silly wearing makeup," said Shenoa Vild, 27, of North Park. - BRUCE K. HUFF / Union-Tribune

Photo of michael-stetz

Call Michael at

619-293-1720

Shenoa Vild hates to wear makeup. Face goop is simply not for her. She happens to think she has a naturally healthy, vibrant complexion. After meeting her, I have to agree.

But Vild, a waitress, says her former boss had an entirely different opinion.

He wanted Vild to wear makeup.

She wouldn't.

So, she says, she got canned.

Vild had worked at Trophy's in Mission Valley for five years without wearing makeup. Apparently, for all that time, it didn't matter.

But the restaurant was sold earlier this year, and she says the new management wanted the women to doll up. Vild says she got the ax in late April when she wouldn't.

Employers have the right to do this. A few years ago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is not discrimination for employers to make women wear makeup.

But just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

Mark Oliver, the new owner, said he couldn't go into details as to what happened with Vild. Oliver did say she was the only employee who was unable to deal with the transition.

Trophy's, like the other restaurants in the small chain, was a sports bar. Oliver is making it more upscale.

“Shenoa could still be here if she wanted,” said Oliver, who used to be a part owner of George's at the Cove in La Jolla. “I had no problem with anybody else. If she would have made the same accommodations that the new ownership was asking, she'd still be here.”

Alex left the restaurant, too, but she holds no grudge. Oliver was fair about her leaving, she said.

Still, “she's facing a real uphill battle,” said Peter Zschiesche, executive director of the Employee Rights Center in San Diego. Employers have wide latitude on hiring and firing, particularly when it comes to at-will, or nonunion, employees.

One might fault Vild for refusing to budge on the issue, but I give her credit for not caving. It's not the same as, say, putting on a uniform. You're applying something to your skin. And if you overdo it – Tammy Faye, anyone? – you could face ridicule, not praise.

“I always thought I looked silly wearing makeup,” Vild, a 27-year-old North Park resident, told me. “And I don't think I need it.”

It's not as if Vild isn't interested in her appearance or is a complete rebel. When the new management instituted a dress code of nice jeans and pressed white shirts, Vild said she had no problems conforming.

The Trophy's waitresses used to wear gym shorts and blouses.

Word is the management didn't like Vild's beach-girl look. She bleaches her hair blond.

Look, I have no problem with the establishment going for a makeover and Oliver putting his own stamp on the joint. You buy a place of business, you run it as you see fit. It's your Benjamins.

__________________

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat May 23, 2009 8:40 pm

Odie;1193274 wrote: that bar would not have employee handbooks that would state to wear make-up, if that was the case...then yes, she would have been fired.

and dress codes for both men and women are different.

-he is still the owner and he can do whatever he likes.

He can do whatever he likes? I shudder at that thought. Sounds dangerous to me...what if he feels like sexually harrassing his female employees..does he still have a "right"?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat May 23, 2009 8:58 pm

sexual harassment is not even about this topic.

-of course that would be illegal.

As I have stated Canada and the US have thousands of high class bars, where you are served or'derves, meals, desserts etc.

(Word is the management didn't like Vildi's beach-girl look. She bleaches her hair blonde)

it so simple......he is just making his new establishment high-class.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sat May 23, 2009 9:20 pm

WHATEVER YOU SAY IS RIGHT.....WHATEVER:rolleyes:

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun May 24, 2009 12:10 am

qsducks;1193467 wrote: WHATEVER YOU SAY IS RIGHT.....WHATEVER:rolleyes:

:eek:

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun May 24, 2009 1:49 am

Odie;1193449 wrote: sexual harassment is not even about this topic.

-of course that would be illegal.

As I have stated Canada and the US have thousands of high class bars, where you are served or'derves, meals, desserts etc.

(Word is the management didn't like Vildi's beach-girl look. She bleaches her hair blonde)

it so simple......he is just making his new establishment high-class.

It is not so simple after all Odie, he is dictating to her how she should look, regardless of how good she is at her job, disliking bleached blonde hair is his problem. So you now state (like he does) that people with bleached hair are lower class than others! :-3

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun May 24, 2009 3:57 am

It seems things are getting "off topic" here! The OP talked about "rules", & not following them. I don't know where anyone else has worked, but when I worked, I do know that if I didn't follow the rules, I would have been fired as well. Rules are rules! The rules of an establishment apply to all who work at that establishment. They can't be ignored by a particular employee just to suit their whim to do so! If they choose to ignore the rules, then there are consequences, simple as that.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun May 24, 2009 4:23 am

But the rules were changed, cars. There is a difference in that aspect.

Maybe the topic is-is the employee's appearance dictated by the employer's whim, and subject to change? Then it goes into alot of problems-what happens when a woman is expecting, or gains weight, or loses weight, or changes her hair color according to her fancy? And why so many rules about a female's appearance? I will look this afternoon for cases for the males, I am sure there must be some also.

They can't be ignored by a particular employee just to suit their whim to do so! If they choose to ignore the rules, then there are consequences, simple as that.

There is much more to this case then that, it is not a simple yes or no about continuing employment. Did you ever find a link to the case you were refering to, my dear?:)

If it is the Harrah's case, it has been settled, I do not know if it has been appealed, but from the court that ruled on it, I wouldn't be surprised.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun May 24, 2009 4:36 am

Betty Boop;1193522 wrote: It is not so simple after all Odie, he is dictating to her how she should look, regardless of how good she is at her job, disliking bleached blonde hair is his problem. So you now state (like he does) that people with bleached hair are lower class than others! :-3

-I did not state that.

refer to post 67

It was stated in the article by: By Michael Stetz Union

-Tribune Columnist- San Diego

the statement was just copied/pasted.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun May 24, 2009 5:00 am

cars;1193539 wrote: It seems things are getting "off topic" here! The OP talked about "rules", & not following them. I don't know where anyone else has worked, but when I worked, I do know that if I didn't follow the rules, I would have been fired as well. Rules are rules! The rules of an establishment apply to all who work at that establishment. They can't be ignored by a particular employee just to suit their whim to do so! If they choose to ignore the rules, then there are consequences, simple as that.

I full agree, this is getting way off topic.:-5:-5

It's the same in Canada, if you don't follow rules of an establishment, your fired.

plain and simple.....rules are rules.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun May 24, 2009 6:11 am

gmc;1193254 wrote: She's been there five years and presumably doing a good job how does wearing make up make her a better worker? How about if he asked her to work topless? Be different perhaps if he was turning it in to a topless bar and bringing in a bunch of dolly birds and she didn't match the criteria or didn't want to work in such an establishment.

Unless she's a complete minger and looks really scruffy he's got bloody cheek. Most blokes won't even notice is she has make-up on or not anyway-they don't really worry about the detail.

In this country she would probably have good grounds for a tribunal hearing. Maybe she should claim it's against her religious beliefs that seems to scare everybody off. Well said Auld Yin.

I can just imagine this in Britain. If she has been there five years that says she is a good employee with or without make up. I have never read so much bollocks. He didn't like her bleached hair??????????? Is that not his personal preference? What has that got to do with the way she works? It sounds incredibly sexist to me. It sounds like he's trying to turn his employee's into looking like hookers to attract more business. What next? Sexual favours or lap dancing in a back room? Thank god for our British laws that stop these arsse wipes who exploit women to make a fast buck. Shame she doesn't live here, i would imagine she'd be looking at a minimum of £300,000 compensation and he would be hauled before the tribunals for sexist equality.

What's he going to do when he hires new employee's? Dictate hair colour etc? What a knob !!!!!! :-5

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun May 24, 2009 7:35 am

chonsigirl;1193546 wrote: But the rules were changed, cars. There is a difference in that aspect.

Maybe the topic is-is the employee's appearance dictated by the employer's whim, and subject to change? Then it goes into alot of problems-what happens when a woman is expecting, or gains weight, or loses weight, or changes her hair color according to her fancy? And why so many rules about a female's appearance? I will look this afternoon for cases for the males, I am sure there must be some also.

There is much more to this case then that, it is not a simple yes or no about continuing employment. Did you ever find a link to the case you were refering to, my dear?:)

If it is the Harrah's case, it has been settled, I do not know if it has been appealed, but from the court that ruled on it, I wouldn't be surprised.
See post 67.

Yes you're right, in fact the "rules were changed"!! That's exactally what happens whenever a company & or a business changes hands! That's the concern of the current employees, about how things will change, & or how it will affect them personally!

The new managament wants to make their pressence felt! By sometimes starting off by inflicting "new rules", & or even new requirements to keep current jobs! It's just a fact of life in the business world.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sun May 24, 2009 8:52 am

cars;1193585 wrote: See post 67.

Yes you're right, in fact the "rules were changed"!! That's exactally what happens whenever a company & or a business changes hands! That's the concern of the current employees, about how things will change, & or how it will affect them personally!

The new managament wants to make their pressence felt! By sometimes starting off by inflicting "new rules", & or even new requirements to keep current jobs! It's just a fact of life in the business world.

Thank you cars for the post reference.

It is a new case, I see they refered to the Harrah's one. (that was the 9th court's ruling)

Problem with her employment from the employer's position:

1. No makeup

2. Didn't like her bleached hair look

Waitress says bare face led to firing

She's a cute girl-at the end it says she got another job, no makeup required.

Only other link on this case on google-#3 is this thread! :wah:

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun May 24, 2009 11:08 pm

oscar;1193141 wrote: We have had all kinds of nonsense here even a flight attendent who was threatened with the sack for wearing a small cross around her neck. I don't agree with the owner myself. To me, it would be different if she was refusing to wear safety gear or uniform but make-up is a personal choice that woman only should be the decision maker. What's next? Is he going to sack some-one because they are in his opinion, too ugly, for the job? Or too short for the job?

Hooters hires over sexed pretty young women and pours them into short shorts and lots of cleavage to serve a very specific clientele. This is their market, its their niche. Is this wrong ?

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon May 25, 2009 12:23 am

I'm glad this particular case seems to have been happily resolved for those concerned.

On general issues: The business was sold. Unless there was a specific agreement between the former and the new owner concerning current employees, I'd have thought it was a new ballgame. The new owner wanted to change things a bit. I'm all for workers' rights, but isn't it a business owner's right too, to run a new business how he wants? He doesn't just want a worker who can do the job. He wants a worker who will do the job in the particular way he now specifies.

Perhaps what he should have done is sack everyone, then publish new job descriptions, interview and re-appoint old employees who meet the criteria.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon May 25, 2009 4:25 am

Nomad;1193835 wrote: Hooters hires over sexed pretty young women and pours them into short shorts and lots of cleavage to serve a very specific clientele. This is their market, its their niche. Is this wrong ?

nope, nothing wrong with it at all, its their market!

Think I will open my own and call it 'Cockfights', and choose the topless men I want.:guitarist

Women would be lined up around the block.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Mon May 25, 2009 4:32 am

Odie;1193896 wrote: nope, nothing wrong with it at all, its their market!

Think I will open my own and call it 'Cockfights', and choose the topless men I want.:guitarist

Women would be lined up around the block.

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon May 25, 2009 4:37 am

Kathy Ellen;1193898 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

bet you'd come!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 25, 2009 5:50 am

Nomad;1193835 wrote: Hooters hires over sexed pretty young women and pours them into short shorts and lots of cleavage to serve a very specific clientele. This is their market, its their niche. Is this wrong ? First of all, being a fine upstanding British person, i have no idea of what ' a Hooter ' is. In our country, the 'Hooter' is an affectionate term for your nose or 'conk' to use another word for it. Another variation of a 'Hooter' is some-one who hoots the siren at races.

Yes, it is wrong Nomie Pomie.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Mon May 25, 2009 5:57 am

Hooters Restaurant and Sports Bar.....

Hooters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post by **Betty Boop** » Mon May 25, 2009 6:29 am

Kathy Ellen;1193937 wrote: Hooters Restaurant and Sports Bar.....

Hooters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmmm thanks for the link Kathy.

Was this case to do with Hooters?? Only that link says this;

The Smoking Gun website obtained a copy of the Hooters Employee Handbook[10] which notes that:

Customers can go to many places for wings and beer, but it is our Hooters Girls who make our concept unique. Hooters offers its customers the look of the "All American Cheerleader, Surfer, Girl Next Door."

I thought he girl we were discussing earlier was claimed to be a surfie type. 'Girl next door' strikes me as a natural looking woman, not one coated in makeup. I need to go and read back, but not before I finish my presentation prep.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Mon May 25, 2009 6:45 am

:yh_rotflDon't think Hooter's advertisments are correct there Betty.

It's a sports bar where women are expected to look sexy to bring the customers in. Some of the Hooter's bars have lap dancers. It's kind of a "boy's night out" for some guys.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Mon May 25, 2009 7:01 am

Kathy Ellen;1193949 wrote: :yh_rotflDon't think Hooter's advertisments are correct there Betty.

It's a sports bar where women are expected to look sexy to bring the customers in. Some of the Hooter's bars have lap dancers. It's kind of a "boy's night out" for some guys.

But was the woman discussed earlier working for a Hooters bar after the takeover?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon May 25, 2009 7:10 am

Betty Boop;1193950 wrote: But was the woman discussed earlier working for a Hooters bar after the takeover?

you don't wear gym shorts and blouses in a Hooter's Bar as she did!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

She worked in a sports bar..........but nothing even close to a Hooters Sports Bar.

this is their uniforms........click on it 2X

Post by **Betty Boop** » Mon May 25, 2009 8:16 am

Odie;1193952 wrote: you don't wear gym shorts and blouses in a Hooter's Bar as she did!:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

She worked in a sports bar..........but nothing even close to a Hooters Sports Bar.

this is their uniforms........click on it 2X

I'd worked out their uniform policy at a Hooters bar thanks. I guess Hooters are akin to some clubs we have here, to go and work there you would know what you are letting yourself in for well before your interview and you would obviously be more than willing to live up to those requirements.

I'm still flabbergasted that you guys think it's ok for the first woman in question to be sacked because she refused to wear make up. The mind boggles and thank christ that would never be allowed to happen here.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 25, 2009 8:18 am

Betty Boop;1193996 wrote: I'd worked out their uniform policy at a Hooters bar thanks. I guess Hooters are akin to some clubs we have here, to go and work there you would know what you are letting yourself in for well before your interview and you would obviously be more than willing to live up to those requirements.

I'm still flabbergasted that you guys think it's ok for the first woman in question to be sacked because she refused to wear make up. The mind boggles and thank christ that would never be allowed to happen here.

Ditto

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Mon May 25, 2009 9:01 am

Betty Boop;1193996 wrote: I'd worked out their uniform policy at a Hooters bar thanks. I guess Hooters are akin to some clubs we have here, to go and work there you would know what you are letting yourself in for well before your interview and you would obviously be more than willing to live up to those requirements.

I'm still flabbergasted that you guys think it's ok for the first woman in question to be sacked because she refused to wear make up. The mind boggles and thank christ that would never be allowed to happen here.

Betty, I think we're misunderstanding each other here. I think it's awful that someone is fired because they don't want to wear makeup. I don't think that it's ok.......

But, it is the owner's bar and under the law he makes the rules. That's why I would never work in a place like that.

minks · Post by **minks** » Mon May 25, 2009 9:09 am

Betty Boop;1193172 wrote: Have I been transported backwards here, how utterly sexist!!

No, he should not be allowed to fire her purely because she does not conform to his pathetic ideals.

Maybe she should follow his pathetic example and insist on only working for a guy with a seven inch **** in return huh! :rolleyes:

Im with Boops on this one. Would he offer a wage increase so I could afford the freaking make up?? I bet not. I call BS to this... also what if this woman has allergies to make up eh? I think it is indeed sexist.

Here In Canadaland you can not hire or fire anyone for how they look. What crap. You know we have a bar here called cowboys and you know the bar pays the women servers to have breast implants.... what bullish *****. Pay our young women to be exploited, put them at possible health risks etc... all for the sake of a job... sick if you ask me.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 25, 2009 9:12 am

minks;1194018 wrote: Im with Boops on this one. Would he offer a wage increase so I could afford the freaking make up?? I bet not. I call BS to this... also what if this woman has allergies to make up eh? I think it is indeed sexist.

Here In Canadaland you can not hire or fire anyone for how they look. What crap. You know we have a bar here called cowboys and you know the bar pays the women servers to have breast implants.... what bullish *****. Pay our young women to be exploited, put them at possible health risks etc... all for the sake of a job... sick if you ask me. Well said Minxey Poo's.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon May 25, 2009 9:15 am

minks;1194018 wrote: Im with Boops on this one. Would he offer a wage increase so I could afford the freaking make up?? I bet not. I call BS to this... also what if this woman has allergies to make up eh? I think it is indeed sexist.

Here In Canadaland you can not hire or fire anyone for how they look. What crap. You know we have a bar here called cowboys and you know the bar pays the women servers to have breast implants.... what bullish *****. Pay our young women to be exploited, put them at possible health risks etc... all for the sake of a job... sick if you ask me.

Perhaps.

And Im glad you dont subscribe to such nonsense but.........

Those are your sentiments. All the participants came to an agreement and do you have the right to say because you disagree with the principal they should not exist or have the right to pursue their interests ?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Mon May 25, 2009 9:30 am

Nomad;1194022 wrote: Perhaps.

And Im glad you dont subscribe to such nonsense but.........

Those are your sentiments. All the participants came to an agreement and do you have the right to say because you disagree with the principal they should not exist or have the right to pursue their interests ?

No, the boss decided that in his sexist opinion his waitresses would obviously be much more efficient with a faceful of slap.

I'd be out protesting in the streets supporting this woman and demanding that that particular employment law was changed.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon May 25, 2009 9:37 am

Betty Boop;1194026 wrote: No, the boss decided that in his sexist opinion his waitresses would obviously be much more efficient with a faceful of slap.

I'd be out protesting in the streets supporting this woman and demanding that that particular employment law was changed.

Fair enough but I always question why people feel the need to dictate to others what they think is right. Your "right" clearly isnt everyones "right"

Do they not have the freedom to choose for themselves ? If not why do your values trump their values ?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Mon May 25, 2009 9:44 am

Nomad;1194028 wrote: Fair enough but I always question why people feel the need to dictate to others what they think is right. Your "right" clearly isnt everyones "right"

Do they not have the freedom to choose for themselves ? If not why do your values trump their values ?

Come again Nomad?? Where is her 'right' to wear makeup or not, what gives him the 'right' to dictate!

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon May 25, 2009 9:58 am

Betty Boop;1194033 wrote: Come again Nomad?? Where is her 'right' to wear makeup or not, what gives him the 'right' to dictate!

She is entering HIS establishment. He gets to decide the face he wishes to present to the public in order to fulfill his interests. She is employed by him meaning conditions and regulations will be applied to the agreement. In turn she will earn her wage. If the job required her to wear a clown suit then that is the job. the If the conditions are disagreeable to her she has every right to seek employment elsewhere. She had a choice. She chose not to comply. The consequences are dismissal. You seem to be dismissing his right to pursue his rights as owner of the establishment.