Waitress says bare face led to firing
By Michael Stetz Union-Tribune Columnist
2:00 a.m. May 20, 2009

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/20/1m20stetz014224-waitress-says-bare-face-led-firing/

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.

this was actually upheld in the court of appeals in california a few years ago. I'm not entirely sure if I agree with the decision since I can see both sides of the argument.

There are conditions for working.  Some are that you need a special degree or training.  Others are like dress codes.  When I'm working rock shows, I can wear anything.  If I'm working the opera or symphony, then its a suit.  People working cosmetics counters don't go to work without makeup.  A business has a right to define its public image within reason, and this has been found to be within reason.

I could see it at a cosmetics counter, but not a restaurant. It's amazing that that's legal. A dress code, sure, but makeup?? If they're going to require women to wear makeup, they should be required to buy it and to pay them for the time it takes to put it on.

Plus, she's beautiful. Why should she be required to slap goop on her skin and risk skin problems.

Dennis

I think the reason behind it being legal in the US is that no one is forced to take that job.  If you don't like it, work somewhere else.

Quote from: tekla on May 23, 2009, 01:05:30 PM
I think the reason behind it being legal in the US is that no one is forced to take that job.  If you don't like it, work somewhere else.

There lies the labor contract. The need for unions. Contracting to do tasks for an amount does not infringe on personal responsibilities and freedoms.  The contract should be very clear before one begins and can only be amended if both parties agree. It is not at a whim of a boss.

If makeup is part of the contract then the conditions need to be spelled out otherwise it is discrimination. The boss can do the job without any labor.

I don't think she needs makeup either, but if the new owner was going for something very different, it sounds like it was his right to.  I have never had a job where it was not at least implicitly spelled out to us how we would dress.  I think we all know that.

Kristi

That is just simply not fair. If it was a Hooters, maybe they have a different rule, but this place sounds like a hole in the wall. She's cute as hell without makeup and has a beautiful smile. Her boss is just a male chauvinistic dick.

Quote from: Lori on May 25, 2009, 01:56:51 PM
That is just simply not fair. If it was a Hooters, maybe they have a different rule, but this place sounds like a hole in the wall. She's cute as hell without makeup and has a beautiful smile. Her boss is just a male chauvinistic dick.

couldn't we just have called him a chauvinistic loser???

Someone guy bought the place, wanted to change the image.  What's wrong with that.  She didn't like the new rule, found a new job.  What's wrong with that?  The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - by far the most liberal court in the US - have already upheld the right of people who own a biz to set their own standards. 

Look NO ONE OWES YOU A JOB.  Dennis can not go into court wearing flip-flops and board shorts and a t-shirt that says 'Here Comes the Judge' either.  If he wanted to work at a surfboard shop in Hawaii, perhaps.  Sometimes you just have to conform in order to get something you want.

She's most likely going to make more money as a bartender anyway. 

Quote from: tekla on May 25, 2009, 11:34:07 PM
Someone guy bought the place, wanted to change the image.  What's wrong with that.  She didn't like the new rule, found a new job.  What's wrong with that?  The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - by far the most liberal court in the US - have already upheld the right of people who own a biz to set their own standards. 

Look NO ONE OWES YOU A JOB.  Dennis can not go into court wearing flip-flops and board shorts and a t-shirt that says 'Here Comes the Judge' either.  If he wanted to work at a surfboard shop in Hawaii, perhaps.  Sometimes you just have to conform in order to get something you want.

She's most likely going to make more money as a bartender anyway.

Damn. Now I want to. Wonder if I can get some black dress flip-flops.  Hell, I feel edgy when I wear my 'socks of justice' (black socks with white justice-scale print).

Actually, for me, it's more the genderedness of the rule that offends me. Like if they made a rule that women lawyers must wear skirts or dresses in court, rather than simply that business attire is required.

It's like saying women can have pierced ears and men can't. I believe that under our human rights code, you may say that people with piercings are limited to two small non-dangly earrings, one in each ear, but you can't set different standards for women and for men that aren't actually related to anatomy (like you can require that women wear bras and not have to require that men do - although that would be an interesting workplace).

I wonder, then how Hooters here manages to hire (just musing). *makes a note to himself to go to a Canadian Hooters and see if there are any waiters there* Purely for research purposes, doncha know.

Dennis

Look, the number one symbol of gender oppression is not makeup, its The Tie.  Hate those things.  And Canada has a much stricter - or less business friendly - code.  As one of our least famous presidents once said "The business of America is business" and the law and the courts tend to side with the person who is putting up the money.

So, people who work at some logo fashion store are required to dress in those clothes.  People who work the makeup counter at Macy's look like a Tammy Fay Bakker wet dream.  Add to that all sorts of health codes, safety codes and all that stuff which also prohibit/mandate dress.

And I hear the Buffalo Wings are great at Hooters.  So I'm told.

Bah, ties aren't even noticeable if your shirt fits right. Face goo, on the other hand, makes itself apparent anytime you touch your face.

Good buffalo wings eh? I love buffalo wings. I tried to get my friend to take me to Hooters in SF when I had chest surgery, as a rite of passage. She refused. Instead she took me to the Castro where I got flirted with by men. Still affirming, but not as nice as bewbs.

Dennis

I've often thought it a bit odd that SF even has a Hooters, but its down on the wharf, so its for tourists.  Natives go to the Lusty Lady, our own union staffed nudie place. 

Damn, why didn't I know you when I was there for chest surgery. You could've taken me to all the naughty places.

Dennis

And the not so naughty ones too, but my rep precedes me.

Quote from: Dennis on May 26, 2009, 05:41:10 PM
Bah, ties aren't even noticeable if your shirt fits right. Face goo, on the other hand, makes itself apparent anytime you touch your face.
Dennis

Men!

Oh the torture those things have inflicted over the centuries!

Kristi

Only makeup? That is nothing. Try working as a woman in a decent casino. Especially if you happen to be serving drinks out on the floor.

She disagreed with the policy and stuck to her guns. Good for her, hope that she lands on her feet.

Quote from: Dennis on May 26, 2009, 05:41:10 PM
...Face goo, on the other hand, makes itself apparent anytime you touch your face. ...

Huh? Whatcha talkin' 'bout, Boss? If you're using the makeup that doesn't require a stucco trowel to put on and a couple of hours to "set-up" you wouldn't have a problem! LOL!!

I have to agree with tekla about the ties. They totally suck. Of all the truly fascinating things we got from the Renaissance and Enlightenment why was that the one that really lasted!  

This is a bit of a tricky issue. On one hand I can understand a business owner's wish to have the business and its employees fit a particular image. On the other hand, when you hire people to do a job you are generally paying them based on how they perform the tasks assigned to them, not on unrelated characteristics. This creates a slippery slope. So the manager wants an image of beautiful women wearing makeup but that can then be taken to beautiful white women. I've always had a bit of an issue with companies that seem to prioritize personal attributes, characteristics, and lifestyles over what is required for the job.

Most customers want to go to a restaurant for the purpose of receiving good food and quality service. If the girl looked cute to begin with and was a good waitress, then there is no reason for her to be fired because she didn't wear makeup. Additionally, what if the girl had allergies and didn't want makeup due to skin issues? Now the company is meddling over her medical rights. Sure she has a right to find another job but a person is afforded rights whereas a business is afforded privileges. Since business is a huge part of the economy and has such an impact on many lives we have regulations that ensure that people run businesses in a way that is ultimately beneficial to the society instead of parasitic. Sure the goal of an owner is to make a profit but again it is a slippery slope.

I'm rather sick of how institutions always make it their business to govern people's private lives. When practically everybody is doing it, finding another job isn't easy. It has gotten to the point where even getting a simple job requires not only an application, resumé, and cover letter but a criminal background check, drug test, credit check, and full background investigation. Most people simply accept that it is normal to reveal one's entire private life just to flip hamburgers for minimum wage. In many ways 1984 is already a reality. I have already been routinely questioned for growing my hair long at my company even though we don't even deal with customers at our site. Again, prying unnecessarily into private lives and habits. Enough said.