Skip to comments.Amen to Waitress Who Refused Sexed Up Uniform
Posted on 06/27/2012 9:25:47 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
I do not know Courtney Scaramellas 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 couldnt 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 shes 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.
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.
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.
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.
You are 100% correct. She (like most Americans, sadly) has NO understanding of private property.
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.
Concur with you on both points.
She could wear burlap bags and still be sexy.
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.
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.
Agreed. This looks like constructive dismissal.
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.
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.
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.
"Godliness" is suing a company when you don't like the working conditions there anymore?
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.
I pray she loses. Then goes to work somewhere else.
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.
In a real world, this female would be dismissed for trying to make something out of nothing: a private employer has the right to require a uniform for work conditions; by what means is this female going to prove ‘sexed up’ for the uniform requirements when the SCOTUS can’t even agree what is pornographic? Give this female her fifteen minutes then shun her and for gracious sakes, private employers, do not hire this flake!
What a beautiful Italian surname. Just flows off your tongue.
If she works in an at-will employment state she is pretty much SOL.
But employment contracts are typically “at will”, meaning that either party can change the terms at any time, but the other party can separate rather than be bound by the terms.
The haziness in this situation is that the restaurant didn’t come out and say point-blank: “this is a change, we’re enforcing it, agree or walk”. If they had, they’d be legally in the clear, as far as I can tell, even if they risked some ill will.
But after she complained, they allowed her to wear the old uniform but then proceeded to act in an allegedly retaliatory fashion — that puts the legal situation in a much murkier light.
I agree, I would have quit rather than do it myself, but on the same token changing the work requirements mid stream to a point of basically wearing a bikini to work when you weren’t hired with that requirement is a bit dubious.
Not like there were complaints about here not doing the fundamentals of her job.. just management wanted more skin to attract customers. And when that’s your business model, (a model that is followed by hooters, tilted kilt, and others) its a pretty fair assessment that your food quality is crap, and basically you are enjoying being the strip club for guys whos wives would kill them if they ever went to a real strip club. Pretty damned pathetic.
I really don’t think its insubordination to refuse to let yourself be essentially prostituted out just because management wants to run a strip club, but doesn’t have the permits.
Had she been hired knowing those requirments, that’s one thing, she knew what she was getting into and decided to do it. Not sure where this one is going to fall, but given she’s a waitress, which means its doubtful she had the cash to pay the atty out of pocket, she must have found an atty who believes he has a good shot of winning the case.
While I’m all for her saying no to the uniform change her lawsuit it silly. The uniform is the uniform, you wear it or you’re out. It’s not sexual harassment to fire somebody who won’t wear the provided uniform, even if they’re right to not wear it. That’s the voluntary nature of the employer/ employee relationship, either party can sever it.
Maybe, but its only a misplaced letter or two away from Scaramanga
Kudos to the gal for refusing to get tramped up, but the fact of the matter is she doesn’t have a right to that job. If she want’s to dress modestly she can open her own restaurant and call it “Wholesome Pie” or some such.
Given she found an attny to take the case, and she’s a waitress, (meaning I doubt she put up a $3000 retainer and paying 200-500 an hour for them to work on the case) I suspect the attny that took this case feels pretty confident they will win.
Looks like FReepers are divided 50/50. Some argure for the restaurant. Some for Courtney.
We disagree completely; either side has the moral right to unilaterally change or terminate an employment contract, at least so far as future employment is concerned, and any day either party can start a brand new negotiation for a meeting of the minds that will either lead to a new agreement or a severed relationship. Based on the results of the 2006 election, I informed everyone working for me that they would be phased out over a two year period - unilaterally. As it worked out, they were almost all all gone in one year. I was not "negotiating in good faith" on that issue. Previously, I had employees from time to time who would leave based on a better offer, and I never felt that I had the right to compel them to negotiate "in good faith" on whether they would stay. If they asked to renegotiate pay or other issues, I would consider that possibility. If they said they were leaving, I politely wished them good luck. We are free Americans, and either side can unilaterally alter or terminate any employment contract. If the law disagrees, then the law is an ass and morally wrong.
I was reading the other day that these “breasteraunts” have experienced a 33% sales increase over past year, the only restaurant segment to be doing well. So no stopping this as an overall trend it seems.
Does the same apply to, say, an agreement to purchase goods and services?
If not, why not?
I don't mean to be contentious, I'd really like to hear others thoughts on this.
She’s a beautiful girl.
I hope she finds success in life somewhere else.
The uniform in question - for those who are curious. I would not have wanted my wife, daughters, or mother to wear it.
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.
Nor would I, but my advice would have been to find another job that does not require you to compromise your principles/morals. The solution is not to try and force the employer to conform to your principles when you are merely the employee not the employer.
Let's apply this to trying to force Catholic Hospitals to violate their principles. The young lady has taken the position that she can expect to make the emploer conform to her demands.
Let's apply this to trying to force Catholic Hospitals to violate their principles. The young lady has taken the position that she can expect to make the employer conform to her demands.
Yes and no. Just as a customer cannot without penalty cancel my contract after I have scheduled the polling calls (I write the penalty into the contract), I cannot without penalty cancel a contractor's services at my home after the contractor has purchased the materials (contractors write that penalty into the contract). However, my regular customers this election cycle can (and often do) unilaterally cancel for the next polling cycle, with no obligation to negotiate in good faith. If my first cycle shows an insurmountable lead for either side, why should a candidate be compelled to pay me to confirm that result a week later?
Or "employment at will" either.
THE EMPLOYER sets the rules on his private property, when HE feels like it, the way HE feels like it.
Similarly, the employee is ABSOLUTELY FREE to leave the very second he or she feels like it.
IF there is a contract, then that might change a bit. IF!
Yet, when an employer changes the terms of an employee's contract their only option is to quit?
Different types of contracts. An “at will” employment contract allows the employer to change working conditions (to the point of simply letting you go) but also allows the employee to walk at any time.
If both sides agree to some form of penalty for changing/breaking the contract, then it’s no longer truly “at will” and both sides are bound to contract or face the prescribed penalty.
I understand, if this was an at will agreement this girl doesn’t have much of a case.
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.
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.
Incorrect. Absent a union contract, a written contract between employer and employee, in an at-will state, employers are free to fire employees for any reason. California Labor Code section 2922 states: "An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month."