Lamh Foistenach Abu!
Posted on 05/26/2010 10:39:52 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement
A former Hooters worker in Roseville stands a chance of winning her weight discrimination lawsuit based on a law written by a retired Grand Rapids legislator -- a law not found in most states.
Cassandra Smith, 20, alleges a Hooters restaurant -- known for its scantily-clad waitresses -- placed her on 30-day "weight probation" earlier this month. She resigned, filing suit Monday in Macomb County Circuit Court.
The suit cites the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by employers based on a number of factors. Height and weight discrimination were added in a 1976 amendment written by then-state Rep. Thomas Mathieu, D-Grand Rapids.
(Excerpt) Read more at mlive.com ...
Lamh Foistenach Abu!
Impossible to judge the merits of her case without photos.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10003511-4.html?tag=page
CBS News has a few photos.
This chick deserves to win. She lacks a whoo-who factor, but is CLEARLY not “fat”
A victim of an idiot boss maybe?
Not guilty!
I’m still trying to figure out who at Hooters thinks she’s fat. She looks good to me..
Hooters is circling the drain. WingHouse has infinitely better service, meatier wings, and the food isn’t bad either!
I think the girl is going to win this one....
I saw this story last week on Fox. This lady is not fat. She may not win Miss America, but not fat
Something tells me that maybe she refused some boss’ advances. Either that, or, Hooters needs to fire some management, and real soon....
Ping.
If maintaining a certain weight or height/weight ratio was specified as a condition of employment at her hiring, I wouldn’t think she does have a case.
She’s only as good looking when compared to the company she keeps.
If the other girls at that Hooters were hotter and she was at the back end, he may have had a point.
Why a double standard?
Was he in tasked with wearing a skimpy outfit and interacting with customers?
I’m betting she’s gonna lose.
It shouldn’t be too hard for this business to defend on the basis of appearance as a bona fide occupational requirement. It’s a restaurant/entertainment business.
ummm yeah! I go there for the service and food to!
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
If this law were applicable, then she’d have every right to be a supermodel or Miss America, by judicial fiat.
She was hired on the basis of her looks.
Thus, she was put on probation on the basis of her looks.
I doubt this law well be deemed applicable.
From what she has said on local news/talk radio, she has lost 13 lbs since she was hired.
Yeah... Hooters is somewhere toward the bottom of that.
I live not too far from the original Hooters in Clearwater, FL. There’s a WingHouse opening up right down the street from them on SR60. It’s almost done, and when complete, I’m going on record now to say that the original Hooters will likely fold within 12 months.
The service is awful, the atmosphere is lackluster, and the girls couldn’t care less about their jobs. At least with WingHouse the girls actually enjoy their workdays (or fake it really well).
Well hooters is sure going about it the wrong way. They are classifying the girls not as waitresses but entertainers.
Doubt it.
Works for me though.
~jaw drop~
Maybe she’s not “overweight” enough.
I’ve gone Galt and subscribe to supporting none of that, though I’m sympathetic to the thoughts.
Fried Pickles
Thats what I go for.
Yeah, right. Keep telling myself that.
The law seems pretty clear to me..................
http://www.callsam.com/images/stories/news_docs_pics/Elliott-Larsen-Civil-Rights-Act.pdf
I realize that many folks find them unique or novel, but in our neck of the woods, they are closing down quicker than Congressional Democrats have been retiring.
http://www.callsam.com/images/stories/news_docs_pics/Complaint_Smith-vs-Hooters.pdf
So SHE claims.
14 pages of legalese.
Did you read ALL of it, that it would seem so “clear”?
Actually I did read it ALL. Did you?
No.
I referred to precedent.
Please summarize, QUICKLY.
Rare Michigan law may help waitress win weight discrimination lawsuit against Hooters
This is good news for Megan McCain and her future as a hooter waitress.
What about sex discrimination? Do tehy have any MALE wiaters/servers?
This is exactly the kind of private discrimination that Rand Paul was talking about.
Section 37.2102 states that there shall be no discrimination based on the opportunity to obtain employment based on several factors including and clearly stating WEIGHT. This is deemed a civil right.
Section 37.2202 states that employers shall not do the following -
Sec. 202. (1) An employer shall not do any of the following: (a) Fail or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment, because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status.
(b) Limit, segregate, or classify an employee or applicant for employment in a way that deprives or tends to deprive the employee or applicant of an employment opportunity, or otherwise adversely affects the status of an employee or applicant because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status.
Section 37.2211 - Different standards of compensation; different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
Sec. 211. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system.
Hope this helps ;)
I can cut an past myself ;)
Again, the proof will be in the court’s decision.
Anybody wonder why the word “rare” is used in this case?
Rare.
As in, “rarely applied”.
There's a lot of out of work peeps in MI...so the court could look at the girl in a couple different ways:
1 - Hooters is evil for weight requirement and it looks to go against the Elliott-LArsen Civil Rights Law
2 - The girl was stupid for quitting the job since so many are out of work and she should have just lost a couple pounds.
((I thought the whole idea of HOOTERS was chesty girls....and when women lose more and more weight....they lose their HOOTERS...HAHA!))
I’ve always like women who are “normal” with some meat on their bones, not the skinny anorexic models being pushed as healthy these days.
That young woman would be welcome to serve our table any day of the week.
It’s true. I worked for a large national retail chain at a Michigan location. We had a particular customer who would come in and complain all the time because the 1x -2x sizes were a dollar or two more than S-M-L-XL (uhh...because they use MORE MATERIAL to make them....duh!) She started filing complaints with our home office, and lo and behold, we got a call back from our corporate legal counsel telling us that whenever she was in the store, we should sell her anything she wanted in 1x -2x for the S-M-L-XL price.
It seems, we were told, that FAT people are a PROTECTED CLASS under Michigan Civil Rights law! (not that this young lady from Hooters looked ANYTHING like that customer...)
There’s a wing place on 19, somewhere around Ulmerton IIRC, called “Mugs ‘N Jugs”. I don’t know how it compares to the others, but I’ve always got a kick out of the name.
Mugs ‘n Jugs is a great standby when the WingHouse on 19 in St. Pete is slammed. Their boneless wings are AMAZING, but the servers couldn’t hold a match to the girls at WH and Hooters.
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.