If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WXYZ Detroit)   Hooters girl sues over being fired for unapproved highlights. Presumably the headlights were just fine   (wxyz.com) divider line 55
    More: Asinine, Hooters, African-Americans, Baltimore, other races, Baltimore's Inner Harbor, hair salon  
•       •       •

4877 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Oct 2013 at 1:02 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-22 01:19:54 PM
Unapproved?

booksandunusuals.com

/not in a doctor's office
 
2013-10-22 01:24:46 PM
how can people that work at Hooters afford a lawyer for frivolous lawsuits?
 
2013-10-22 01:25:53 PM
So school administrators are moonlighting at Hooters?
 
2013-10-22 01:26:17 PM
Im willing to bet that wsan't the real reason she was let go, It could have been some real or percieved slight against management, or she had a bad attititude. Either way they went to the book to find an easily documentable offense to their rules to boot her.   They just picked the wrong one.
 
2013-10-22 01:27:51 PM

dragyne: Im willing to bet that wsan't the real reason she was let go, It could have been some real or percieved slight against management, or she had a bad attititude. Either way they went to the book to find an easily documentable offense to their rules to boot her.   They just picked the wrong one.


Probably. But they do look ridiculous.
 
2013-10-22 01:28:20 PM

dragyne: Im willing to bet that wsan't the real reason she was let go, It could have been some real or percieved slight against management, or she had a bad attititude. Either way they went to the book to find an easily documentable offense to their rules to boot her.   They just picked the wrong one.


Probably cellulite but they were being kind
 
2013-10-22 01:40:25 PM
I am thinking that this woman was fired for being a hard-to-work-with biatch.  Far more likely than being prejudicial.
 
2013-10-22 01:43:08 PM

frepnog: how can people that work at Hooters afford a lawyer for frivolous lawsuits?


You think lawyers never go to Hooters?
 
2013-10-22 01:48:21 PM

plewis: I am thinking that this woman was fired for being a hard-to-work-with biatch.  Far more likely than being prejudicial.


furthermore the right of men to work as a hooters waitress is still not protected by the femynazi courts
 
2013-10-22 02:06:30 PM
Welcome to at-will employment!
 
2013-10-22 02:20:46 PM
Stupid as this is, it sounds like Hooters did in fact do something wrong and will have to pay up in a settlement
 
2013-10-22 02:29:56 PM

qorkfiend: Welcome to at-will employment!


Welcome to 1970, qork. Even in an at-will employment state, you can't fire all of your black employees, or refuse to promote your female employees, or require only your Jewish employees to show up on Saturday.
 
2013-10-22 02:54:42 PM

Lost Thought 00: Stupid as this is, it sounds like Hooters did in fact do something wrong and will have to pay up in a settlement


That depends on how the employment contract is worded.  If it bans unnatural hair colors then she's going to have to prove that blond highlights are natural for her.
 
2013-10-22 02:55:17 PM

Theaetetus: qorkfiend: Welcome to at-will employment!

Welcome to 1970, qork. Even in an at-will employment state, you can't fire all of your black employees, or refuse to promote your female employees, or require only your Jewish employees to show up on Saturday.


I don't require my Jewish employees to show up on Saturday, but I do require them to keep the ovens stoked.

/JK, don't have Jewish employees
//because they went above and beyond in stoking the ovens
JC
 
2013-10-22 02:58:20 PM
CSB:  I went to Hooters once and all the waitresses had pretty nice titties.  ECSB
 
2013-10-22 03:00:38 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Lost Thought 00: Stupid as this is, it sounds like Hooters did in fact do something wrong and will have to pay up in a settlement

That depends on how the employment contract is worded.  If it bans unnatural hair colors then she's going to have to prove that blond highlights are natural for her.


Bzzt.   Since you cannot legally ask a persons race even if it is plainly obvious you can't make a rule like that states that natural to her hair color,  otherwise you are requesting more information than you can legally know about an employee.
 
2013-10-22 03:00:45 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Lost Thought 00: Stupid as this is, it sounds like Hooters did in fact do something wrong and will have to pay up in a settlement

That depends on how the employment contract is worded.  If it bans unnatural hair colors then she's going to have to prove that blond highlights are natural for her.


Contract? What world do you live on?
Here in New Rome, we don't bandy such foolishness.
 
2013-10-22 03:00:58 PM

Mr. Eugenides: Lost Thought 00: Stupid as this is, it sounds like Hooters did in fact do something wrong and will have to pay up in a settlement

That depends on how the employment contract is worded.  If it bans unnatural hair colors then she's going to have to prove that blond highlights are natural for her.


Did you miss the part about Asian girls with red hair?
 
2013-10-22 03:07:53 PM
A place that expects it's employees to look a certain way fire you when you don't look a certain way? huh, imagine that
 
2013-10-22 03:36:20 PM
Not saying the woman is right or in the wrong but i can't judge based on the article.
 
2013-10-22 03:45:25 PM

dragyne: Mr. Eugenides: Lost Thought 00: Stupid as this is, it sounds like Hooters did in fact do something wrong and will have to pay up in a settlement

That depends on how the employment contract is worded.  If it bans unnatural hair colors then she's going to have to prove that blond highlights are natural for her.

Bzzt.   Since you cannot legally ask a persons race even if it is plainly obvious you can't make a rule like that states that natural to her hair color,  otherwise you are requesting more information than you can legally know about an employee.


That depends. They've previously established that the waitresses are entertainers, so they are allowed to cast based on other factors including gender. Race is presumably acceptable as well. I mean, if you were casting Heidi you wouldn't choose a black actress. I'm sure they won't take that tack because it would be a PR nightmare, but the precedent is easily established.
 
2013-10-22 03:51:44 PM
This could have been an epic and educating thread on the Main page, but it's stuck here in Business, wasting away to nothing.
 
2013-10-22 04:09:20 PM

Yes please: dragyne: Mr. Eugenides: Lost Thought 00: Stupid as this is, it sounds like Hooters did in fact do something wrong and will have to pay up in a settlement

That depends on how the employment contract is worded.  If it bans unnatural hair colors then she's going to have to prove that blond highlights are natural for her.

Bzzt.   Since you cannot legally ask a persons race even if it is plainly obvious you can't make a rule like that states that natural to her hair color,  otherwise you are requesting more information than you can legally know about an employee.

That depends. They've previously established that the waitresses are entertainers, so they are allowed to cast based on other factors including gender. Race is presumably acceptable as well. I mean, if you were casting Heidi you wouldn't choose a black actress. I'm sure they won't take that tack because it would be a PR nightmare, but the precedent is easily established.


Huge difference between not hiring and firing though.    If they didn't hire her because she had blonde streaks in her hair it would be a different story.   And I doubt they want to test that entertainer designation too much because it could go the other way completely especially if they have to produce documentation.

She has a bit of a case here, that will likely end up swept away by corporate. Unless her lawyer feels liek making a name for himself.
 
2013-10-22 04:11:32 PM

frepnog: how can people that work at Hooters afford a lawyer for frivolous lawsuits?


Comon, you can't judge people based on how they look, man! That's discrimination!
 
2013-10-22 04:12:49 PM

plewis: I am thinking that this woman was fired for being a hard-to-work-with biatch.  Far more likely than being prejudicial.


Yeah, I'm sure she deserved it.

I don't know anything about the situation, but she deserved it.
 
2013-10-22 04:12:53 PM
Another article says that she was fired "months" after being told to change her hair color, which she claims that she could not afford. As is all too often the case, sounds like there is much more here than just a disagreement over hair color.
 
2013-10-22 04:19:36 PM

dragyne: Yes please: dragyne: Mr. Eugenides: Lost Thought 00: Stupid as this is, it sounds like Hooters did in fact do something wrong and will have to pay up in a settlement

That depends on how the employment contract is worded.  If it bans unnatural hair colors then she's going to have to prove that blond highlights are natural for her.

Bzzt.   Since you cannot legally ask a persons race even if it is plainly obvious you can't make a rule like that states that natural to her hair color,  otherwise you are requesting more information than you can legally know about an employee.

That depends. They've previously established that the waitresses are entertainers, so they are allowed to cast based on other factors including gender. Race is presumably acceptable as well. I mean, if you were casting Heidi you wouldn't choose a black actress. I'm sure they won't take that tack because it would be a PR nightmare, but the precedent is easily established.

Huge difference between not hiring and firing though.    If they didn't hire her because she had blonde streaks in her hair it would be a different story.   And I doubt they want to test that entertainer designation too much because it could go the other way completely especially if they have to produce documentation.

She has a bit of a case here, that will likely end up swept away by corporate. Unless her lawyer feels liek making a name for himself.


You may have a point about the not hiring vs. firing angle. Then again, if you were producing a play and a cast member significantly changed her appearance (say Tiny Tim gained forty pounds, or Cosette got a big neck tattoo) I would think that would be grounds to fire them.
 
2013-10-22 04:23:03 PM
almost 30 posts in, and not one picture of a Hooters girl?  Fark, I'm disappointed.
 
2013-10-22 04:33:50 PM
there was an issue when other African-American employees ... tried to come in to work wearing their hair curly, and they would get in trouble by management and they would tell them, 'You can't come back to work unless you straighten out your hair,'

If that's true, management's in deep shiat. Curly hair frequently is just part of being black. "Straighten your hair" could be code for "Don't be so black."

/If. She could also have an axe to grind.
 
2013-10-22 04:35:09 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Another article says that she was fired "months" after being told to change her hair color, which she claims that she could not afford. As is all too often the case, sounds like there is much more here than just a disagreement over hair color.


If would grow out by then.
If you can afford the highlights, you can afford a clip n dip.

Say, Next time, just fire her for complaining too much.
When she sues you, look at the judge and say, "SEE!?!?!?"
Si'
*sigh*
 
2013-10-22 04:44:25 PM

ManateeGag: almost 30 posts in, and not one picture of a Hooters girl?  Fark, I'm disappointed.


img.fark.net
 
2013-10-22 04:58:00 PM
tn.loljam.com
 
2013-10-22 05:01:08 PM

Yes please: dragyne: Yes please: dragyne: Mr. Eugenides: Lost Thought 00: Stupid as this is, it sounds like Hooters did in fact do something wrong and will have to pay up in a settlement

That depends on how the employment contract is worded.  If it bans unnatural hair colors then she's going to have to prove that blond highlights are natural for her.

Bzzt.   Since you cannot legally ask a persons race even if it is plainly obvious you can't make a rule like that states that natural to her hair color,  otherwise you are requesting more information than you can legally know about an employee.

That depends. They've previously established that the waitresses are entertainers, so they are allowed to cast based on other factors including gender. Race is presumably acceptable as well. I mean, if you were casting Heidi you wouldn't choose a black actress. I'm sure they won't take that tack because it would be a PR nightmare, but the precedent is easily established.

Huge difference between not hiring and firing though.    If they didn't hire her because she had blonde streaks in her hair it would be a different story.   And I doubt they want to test that entertainer designation too much because it could go the other way completely especially if they have to produce documentation.

She has a bit of a case here, that will likely end up swept away by corporate. Unless her lawyer feels liek making a name for himself.

You may have a point about the not hiring vs. firing angle. Then again, if you were producing a play and a cast member significantly changed her appearance (say Tiny Tim gained forty pounds, or Cosette got a big neck tattoo) I would think that would be grounds to fire them.


it get's murky when the requirements aren't clear or are clearly skewed one way or another. If the hand book says natural hair color and she is obviously highlighting as do many girls with "natural" hair colors they could be in for a world of pain.    If she was dying her hair in some flavor of not naturally occuring (like blue or pink) then she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 
2013-10-22 05:32:12 PM
I love armchair lawyering a case where you've only heard one side of the story!

/Gets popcorn.
 
2013-10-22 06:06:22 PM

dragyne: Yes please: dragyne: Yes please: dragyne: Mr. Eugenides: Lost Thought 00: Stupid as this is, it sounds like Hooters did in fact do something wrong and will have to pay up in a settlement

That depends on how the employment contract is worded.  If it bans unnatural hair colors then she's going to have to prove that blond highlights are natural for her.

Bzzt.   Since you cannot legally ask a persons race even if it is plainly obvious you can't make a rule like that states that natural to her hair color,  otherwise you are requesting more information than you can legally know about an employee.

That depends. They've previously established that the waitresses are entertainers, so they are allowed to cast based on other factors including gender. Race is presumably acceptable as well. I mean, if you were casting Heidi you wouldn't choose a black actress. I'm sure they won't take that tack because it would be a PR nightmare, but the precedent is easily established.

Huge difference between not hiring and firing though.    If they didn't hire her because she had blonde streaks in her hair it would be a different story.   And I doubt they want to test that entertainer designation too much because it could go the other way completely especially if they have to produce documentation.

She has a bit of a case here, that will likely end up swept away by corporate. Unless her lawyer feels liek making a name for himself.

You may have a point about the not hiring vs. firing angle. Then again, if you were producing a play and a cast member significantly changed her appearance (say Tiny Tim gained forty pounds, or Cosette got a big neck tattoo) I would think that would be grounds to fire them.

it get's murky when the requirements aren't clear or are clearly skewed one way or another. If the hand book says natural hair color and she is obviously highlighting as do many girls with "natural" hair colors they could be in for a world of pain.    If she was dying her hair in some flavo ...


Her side of the story is the hair but there is more to it than that, for sure. It makes absolutely zero sense for any company to hire someone and then later single that person out for dismissal based solely on race. Not buying it.

The only other info in the article was she was going to school and had a limited budget.

There is not enough to go by to make a judgement either way. There were probably other issues, as well as her hair, that resulted in her dismissal. If Hooters documented those issues and attempted corrective actions with the employee, there is no case against them.
 
2013-10-22 07:22:17 PM
this thread is sadly lacking in headlights...
 
2013-10-22 07:24:07 PM

frepnog: how can people that work at Hooters afford a lawyer for frivolous lawsuits?


I'm guessing they used the barter system.

Maybe you figure in the average price of a bj in the area and negotiate from there?
 
2013-10-22 07:47:47 PM
The "unapproved alteration of appearance" was probably actually strike 3, as in the last in a long line of nuisance-making that just made her not worth the hassle of employing.  That'd be my guess, anyhow.
 
2013-10-22 08:27:41 PM

RoyHobbs22: CSB:  I went to Hooters once and all the waitresses had pretty nice titties.  ECSB


And this is after all, all that matters.

I can say this of course since my wife won't read it.

/another cowardly male.
 
2013-10-22 08:29:03 PM

frepnog: how can people that work at Hooters afford a lawyer for frivolous lawsuits?


Take a look at her lawyer; she fits the look of a raging feminist perfectly. Why is it that they always have that long, messy/curly black hair?
 
2013-10-22 08:59:08 PM

limeyfellow: RoyHobbs22: CSB:  I went to Hooters once and all the waitresses had pretty nice titties.  ECSB

And this is after all, all that matters.

I can say this of course since my wife won't read it.

/another cowardly male.


Heh.

/thumbs up
 
2013-10-22 10:46:46 PM
I'm guessing the real reason she was fired had nothing to do with her hair and more to do with her confrontational personality.  What reasonable person thinks of running to a news outlet when they are fired from some crap waitress job?  One always looking to pick a fight, that's who.
 
2013-10-23 01:17:47 AM
Who the fark pays attention to the Hooters girls hair?
 
2013-10-23 03:39:06 AM

frepnog: how can people that work at Hooters afford a lawyer for frivolous lawsuits?


well, this one isnt exactly frivolous, if she is reporting facts correctly.  There exists no bonafide occupational qualification that would allow highlights in one race but not another.

So, a lawyer would take this case for free, if these are the facts.  The settlement is forthcoming without court.
 
2013-10-23 03:39:45 AM
well, not free, but without upfront compensation.
 
2013-10-23 03:40:44 AM

Pumpernickel bread: I'm guessing the real reason she was fired had nothing to do with her hair and more to do with her confrontational personality.  What reasonable person thinks of running to a news outlet when they are fired from some crap waitress job?  One always looking to pick a fight, that's who.


or one who just got fired because of a rule that applies only to her race.  how do you not see this?
 
2013-10-23 04:17:51 AM
Subby: "Presumably the headlights were just fine"

The last time I went to Hooters there was more foam rubber padding than a junior high girls' locker room. And not just on the "headlights".
 
2013-10-23 07:30:57 AM

plewis: I am thinking that this woman was fired for being a hard-to-work-with biatch.  Far more likely than being prejudicial.


That sounds racist.
 
2013-10-23 08:55:59 AM

I sound fat: well, not free, but without upfront compensation.


Probably end up costing here up to 30% more than if she had the money to hire an attorney on her own.
 
2013-10-23 09:05:43 AM
i bet a Dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts that she isn't even African.

She's probably just a black American.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report