Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Amen to Waitress Who Refused Sexed Up Uniform
The Christian Diarist ^ | June 27, 2012 | JP

Posted on 06/27/2012 9:25:47 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Religion; Society; Sports
KEYWORDS: breastaurants; courtneyscaramella; uniform; waitress
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 next last
To: skeeter
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.

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?

41 posted on 06/27/2012 10:38:46 AM PDT by Pollster1 (A boy becomes a man when a man is needed - John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Doctor 2Brains
You are 100% correct. She (like most Americans, sadly) has NO understanding of private property.

Or "employment at will" either.

42 posted on 06/27/2012 10:48:34 AM PDT by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Edward Teach

Pure nonsense.

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!


43 posted on 06/27/2012 10:48:51 AM PDT by Doctor 2Brains (If the government were Paris Hilton, it could not score a free drink in a bar full of lonely sailors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Sounds like your clients are bound to honor the contract for the term, or cycle, specified, otherwise you penalize them.

Yet, when an employer changes the terms of an employee's contract their only option is to quit?

44 posted on 06/27/2012 10:51:08 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

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.


45 posted on 06/27/2012 10:56:00 AM PDT by kevkrom (Those in a rush to trample the Constitution seem to forget that it is the source of their authority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

I understand, if this was an at will agreement this girl doesn’t have much of a case.


46 posted on 06/27/2012 11:02:20 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PittsburghAfterDark

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.


47 posted on 06/27/2012 11:04:28 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PittsburghAfterDark
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.

48 posted on 06/27/2012 11:04:36 AM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: miele man
We do not know if this young woman is a “Christian” and that she is taking the employer to court because of “Christian” values.

The belief system of the girl is not the question here - it is the belief system of the author of the article, who writes for "The Christian Diarist". The author states this:

"Again, I do not know her faith life. But I do know an act of Godliness when I see it."

So, the author is equating this girl suing the restaurant with godliness.
49 posted on 06/27/2012 11:05:22 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Edward Teach
"......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.

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."

50 posted on 06/27/2012 11:06:05 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Edward Teach
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.

Sorry, but in a case of "at-will" employment (which this job most certainly was), the employer is free to change the condition of employment, and is under no obligation to negotiate such changes with the employees. Of course, that changes in a union shop, or in the case of an explicit employment contract.

51 posted on 06/27/2012 11:08:25 AM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

52 posted on 06/27/2012 11:08:35 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live thnrough it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

Bet they get bigger tips. God Bless America!

53 posted on 06/27/2012 11:14:20 AM PDT by McGruff (Support your local Republican candidates. They are our last line of defense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Yet, when an employer changes the terms of an employee's contract their only option is to quit?

IF she has a contract - if she is in a union, for example - then the answer is no. However, most employment is "at will". There is no employment contract to speak of.

54 posted on 06/27/2012 11:14:31 AM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

I’ve been taking a break from pinging, may resume in a bit...

This is a tough call.

Employers certainly have rights to determine uniform; otoh when she was hired the uniform was a normal uniform. An example of how our “culture” is going to slime and filth. I don’t know the answer other than total collapse and start over, wish I did.


55 posted on 06/27/2012 11:14:56 AM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
Sadly, the bottom line is a jury will likely decide whether this person was wronged.

Its too bad this becomes the option of choice for the employee, on the other hand, its too bad the employer couldn't manage to voluntarily treat its employee with some measure of respect and consideration.

I know they aren't legally bound to, but IMO its always a better policy.

56 posted on 06/27/2012 11:25:38 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: PittsburghAfterDark
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.

57 posted on 06/27/2012 11:32:33 AM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

NOT GUILTY, GUILTY,GUILTY,NOT GUILTY,NOT GUILTY,GUILTY,NOT GUILTY


58 posted on 06/27/2012 11:36:43 AM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Doctor 2Brains
Really? So legal protections don't apply on private property? Interesting...

I get the "at will" argument, but that's not really what happened here, is it? In fact it would have been better if it had, and they'd simply terminated her, but they didn't. They appeared to try to make some sort of accommodation, which was wishy-washy of them.

I also get what's really happening here: The owners have a flaccid business in a depressed economy, and so in an effort to prop it up, they hit on the brilliant idea of having their waitresses dress up like sluts. Beautiful. Maybe they should try offering, oh I don't know, good food and good service and stop resorting to gimmicks?
Missy should get out while she can and thank the owners for the lesson they've inadvertently given her.

BTW not that anybody cares, but I despise unions and the whole notion of collective bargaining. I prefer to negotiate on my own behalf and would much rather work as a contractor than an employee. It's a lot less messy.

59 posted on 06/27/2012 11:37:34 AM PDT by Edward Teach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
What is wrong with this?


60 posted on 06/27/2012 11:41:21 AM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson