http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z15126C19

I was amazed that the waitress actually received a favourable ruling from the Human Rights Tribunal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VoiceofTreason:
"injury to feelings" though seems a bit much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by grrril:

I was amazed that the waitress actually received a favourable ruling from the Human Rights Tribunal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

I disagree. Did you read about the way she was harassed at work after she refused to wear the bikini top?

---

- Yes i did. I'm not suprised about the compensation just the terms under which it was awarded.

Surely harassment would be more appropriate.

"injury to feelings" is insulting as hell to the claimant and would only injure my feelings more by being made to feel like a whiny baby.

It adds a bit more detail.

I've read the thread, and the full text of the decision. My impression is that the boss(es) is not only a real dickhead but also an incompetent manager to have allowed this to escalate to where it did. A smart manager in the situation, where all the other employees had selected the evening's dress-code; in their own interest in order to maximize their income, would have dealt with this employee's expression of discomfort by just giving her the night off with full pay and tip compensation. I can't leave the scenario without thinking that the employee is something of a provocateur as well. But, in the main, a typical human rights case. Rights and obligations are better defined, and both of the stupid parties to the matter come out the poorer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:

FWIW, I don't think the compensation for "injury to dignity, feelings and self respect" was meant to downplay the significance of the events. The panel found discrimination had taken place and was awarding compensation for "injury," as well as for "lost wages," etc. as the effects of the discrimination suffered. (And of course, to stop the jerk from doing it again.)

---

No disagreement here... but from a strategic point it might have been better for the ruling to say "injury to dignity and self-respect", simply because of the reaction that the word "feelings" might provoke. I think we all know how the National Post and the various Suns will spin this story.

Good propaganda techniques are important, even if you're telling the truth.

[ 11 May 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

An employer has no right to ask you to do something that goes beyond your comfort level especially if it has not previously been a requirement of employment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:

No doubt this is just another example of feminism taking over.

---

Well, I suppose only a feminist would say that she's entitled to be treated as her employment contract says she should...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:

Also, I *do* think she has the right to be non compliant with the request and that it's unreasonable but, really, it's like working at hooters and then wanting to dress modestly.
There may be some merit in finding a moral and sensitive employer.

---

Sometimes that's often easier said than done.

quote:

---

Debra, what does FFS mean? Sorry - I guess I'm dense. I don't know abbreviations for online terms well yet.

---

I dunno... should we tell her?

[ 11 May 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
Also, I *do* think she has the right to be non compliant with the request and that it's unreasonable but, really, it's like working at hooters and then wanting to dress modestly.

---

It's NOTHING like working at Hooters then wanting to dress modestly.

Hooters has a specific dress code which servers are asked to comply with as a condition of employment. Interestingly enough, this young woman's bar also had a dress code which she was asked to comply with as a condition of employment - a black dress shirt and black trousers.

I'd have gone the rest of my life not knowing that!!

Anchoress,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
I think someone who is modest is ill-suited for working at a bar.

---

I would assume her reason for not wanting to wear the garment selected was modesty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
Bars don't encourage modesty. They tend to embrace a lifestyle that doesn't value that.

---

With all due respect, the forgoing statement is a gross generalisation and too vague to relate to the topic at hand.

When they have beach days here, the staff is NOT commanded to wear bikinis but some form of beach wear. Shorts and tank tops are usual for the women on these days. They still feel comfortable as these are often street wear during the summer. This boss demanded a bikini, not just beach wear. A bikini is very close to nudity and inappropriate for normal bars. I think she probably would have complied with another choice.

quote:

---

but from a strategic point it might have been better for the ruling to say "injury to dignity and self-respect", simply because of the reaction that the word "feelings" might provoke. I think we all know how the National Post and the various Suns will spin this story.

---

I agree that some might take "feelings" to have less weight than "dignity," but the panel was citing the wording of the relevant section of the code (37.d.2.iii or something like that): perhaps the panel isn't free to change the wording in its rulings.

One the "sex" vs. "gender" question, "sex" is also the language of the code, so that may be how it found its way into the newspaper article and our discussion.

[ 25 August 2004: Message edited by: sgm ]

But when we began discussing the degree to which sexual identity is constructed, many people, including pedants comme moi, were won over to the view that in many contexts, gender is the more correct expression, where in the past grammarians would have referred to one's sex.

I'm a bit sceptical about the rush to use gender when sex would have done quite nicely. Sure, sexual identity is constructed, but here it is really an example of sex-based discrimination.

There is nothing immodest about working in a bar, and nothing immoral about it unless one thinks all consumption of alcoholic beverages (as opposed to merely condemning drunkenness and excess) is immoral. Jesus certainly didn't take that line, en passant - he didn't transform the wine into water!

I know many people who worked as waiters and waitresses in bars to put themselves through university since the tips gave them enough to live on without working full-time, and because (being young) they managed to work their schedules around their classes. The same holds for a lot of people in the theatre, music and related fields who were able to pick up such work between contracts. Not all of them necessarily even drank anything. They would be mightily peeved if one suggested their work was degrading, immoral or immodest.

It is true, though, that some bars promote a "party" culture with its staff. I dated a fellow who worked for a large bar/restaurant chain, and this was very much the case across the country. However, people who weren't into partying late in the night after their shift weren't discriminated against or harrassed -- and that is the issue in Mottu's case.

It's also hard to define "modest" or "moral". They're such subjective terms. For example, I don't consider myself especially modest, but I think wearing a bikini to work in a restaurant or bar would give me pause, especially if that were not part of the deal when I took the job and other staff (the coat check people were allowed to wear tank tops, for example) were not required to. Bikinis or less in other venues would be just fine with me.

quote:

---

Bars don't encourage modesty. They tend to embrace a lifestyle that doesn't value that.
I would assume her reason for not wanting to wear the garment selected was modesty.

---

I assumed her reason for not wanting to wear the bikini was because she'd feel uncomfortable and unsafe. I mean, a bikini is pretty close to nothing, and they were having a promo night, which is the sort of night when people might be likely to get even more drunk than normal. And we all know that people do stupid things when they're really drunk. Perhaps she wasn't prepared to make herself vulnerable to the whims of a bunch of drunken tech-dudes, and nor should she have been required to. There are rules about employees being allowed to refuse to do unsafe work.

Hailey your assupmtion that servers are "immodest" harkens back to the bar wench days when men thought they had the right to cop a feel (or take other liberties) because the women there must be immodest.

Reality being much the same as today, they needed a job to food on the table.

[ 25 August 2004: Message edited by: Debra ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loony Bin:

I don't understand why the manager wouldn't let her wear something that still fit with the theme of the night but wasn't so naked.

---

Like maybe a lei and a flower in her hair, worn with her standard black pants and black top?

I don't think the degree of nakedness is the problem- asking them to wear anything outside of their expectations, especially something more overtly sexual that regularly required, was the problem, which was exacerbated by his decision to not accept her right to refuse his demands.

I hope this makes more people in the industry question the standards and expectations of their employers. I hope more men and women will stand up for their rights to those employers who wish to use their employees as "promotional items" in the pursuit of profit.