Tux of Borg Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs...=#pluckcomments Hooters Waitress Too Bruised to Work Gets Unemployment Benefits Benefits awarded to beaten Hooters waitress BY CLARK KAUFFMAN • CKAUFFMAN@DMREG.COM • JANUARY 5, 2009 A waitress was barred from working at the Hooters restaurant in Davenport after a violent physical attack left her bruised and unable to meet company standards for maintaining a "glamorous appearance." The waitress alleges she was fired after taking time off to recover from the assault. Hooters officials say the waitress abandoned her job, but also say that the woman's bruised body made her temporarily ineligible to work as a "Hooters Girl." An administrative law judge who presided over a recent public hearing dealing with 27-year-old Sara Dye's request for unemployment benefits ruled against the company and awarded benefits to Dye. Judge Teresa Hillary found that Dye's "inability to work due to bruises" did not amount to workplace misconduct. According to testimony at the hearing, Dye was the victim of several incidents of domestic violence in 2008, the last of which occurred Sept. 3 after she left work for the day. Dye, who lives in Rock Island, Ill., was badly beaten and her assailant - unidentified at the hearing - cut off some of her hair. The next day, Dye and her managers agreed that at least for the next few weeks she should not be working in the restaurant. General Manager Gina Sheedy testified that Dye's bruises would have been visible outside the Hooters uniform, which is known for being revealing. "We told her it was probably not in her best interest to work for a while because of the state of her body," Sheedy testified. Hillary asked Sheedy whether the restaurant would have agreed to a request from Dye to return to work immediately. "No, probably not," Sheedy replied. "She probably would not be able to work because of her black eye and the bruises on her face. ... Our handbook states you have to have a glamorous appearance. It doesn't actually say, 'Bruises on your face are not allowed.' It does talk about the all-American cheerleader look." Sheedy said Dye could now resume working at Hooters, assuming she maintained a glamorous appearance. "And a glamorous appearance to you means you can't have bruises on your face or your body that show outside the uniform?" Hillary asked. "Correct," Sheedy replied. The restaurant's assistant manager, Michelle Duvall, testified that shortly after the attack, Dye talked to her about returning to work after a week of recovery time. "She told me that she was very badly beaten, she (had been) unconscious, she was in the hospital," Duvall said. "She was like, 'I really want to work next week. ...' I said, 'You need to come in and speak to Gina and let her see your appearance.'" Hillary asked Duvall what would happen if a waitress's hair had to be cut as a result of an injury from an accident. Duvall said that according to the company handbook, a waitress's hair "needs to be styled as if you're going out on a big date on a Saturday night, as if you're preparing for a photo shoot." Dye declined to comment on the case when contacted by a Des Moines Register reporter. She testified that Hooters was supportive of her in the wake of previous "personal problems." She said that when she called the restaurant in late September about returning to work, a co-worker informed her she had been fired. The owner of the Davenport restaurant, Darren Taylor, said his company valued Dye as an employee and didn't fire her. He declined to comment on the company's standards for physical appearance. "I won't go into all of the Hooters Girl requirements, because they're contained in about a 50-page book," he said. "But I don't know any restaurateur who would want somebody totally bruised up waiting on his customers." Dye testified that she understood why she couldn't come to work in the immediate aftermath of the attack. "My body appearance wasn't up to par," she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 This is a tough one. If she was a stripper and she was all bruised up she wouldn't be working. If she was in a car accident then they shouldn't fire her but give her time off. Since this is domestic abuse that's another question. I'm sure she was frequently bruised and it posed a problem a lot of the time. So it seems callous to say they should fire her but it's not a disability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Q: What do you tell a lady with two black eyes? A: Nothing. You already told her twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyal2dagame Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 i would have forgone the unenjoyment and went straight to a discrimination lawsuit. not allowing someone to work based on physical appearance? that's gold jerry! gold!! i could see if the bruises were dirt, but come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 My guess is that this broad was high drama before the last incident. Hopefully she has moved on from Mr Wonderful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Sounds perfectly reasonable to me for her to get unemployement benefits in that situation. She was in effect denied the ability to work. Nobody is at fault here (well, other than the guy who beat her up), but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be covered if she was willing to work and can not. Then of course we have this kind of idiocy: i would have forgone the unenjoyment and went straight to a discrimination lawsuit.not allowing someone to work based on physical appearance? Must have escaped your notice that their entire business model is based on the physical appearance of their staff. I guess 97 lb. weaklings should be able to sue the WWE for discrimination too, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 i would have forgone the unenjoyment and went straight to a discrimination lawsuit.not allowing someone to work based on physical appearance? that's gold jerry! gold!! i could see if the bruises were dirt, but come on. Hooters has already won that battle. They beat a lawsuit about having to hire guys arguing they were an entertainment restaraunt. So they have every right to fire those who don't meet the physical standards of the job and to not hire them either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Sounds perfectly reasonable to me for her to get unemployement benefits in that situation. She was in effect denied the ability to work. Nobody is at fault here (well, other than the guy who beat her up), but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be covered if she was willing to work and can not. Then of course we have this kind of idiocy: Must have escaped your notice that their entire business model is based on the physical appearance of their staff. I guess 97 lb. weaklings should be able to sue the WWE for discrimination too, huh? There's an argument to be made for disability or medical leave...if Hooters offered either to waitresses, which I highly doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Sounds perfectly reasonable to me for her to get unemployement benefits in that situation. She was in effect denied the ability to work. Nobody is at fault here (well, other than the guy who beat her up), but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be covered if she was willing to work and can not. Then of course we have this kind of idiocy: Must have escaped your notice that their entire business model is based on the physical appearance of their staff. I guess 97 lb. weaklings should be able to sue the WWE for discrimination too, huh? Don't those two things contradict each other? She was denied the opportunity to work because she iddn't meet the appearance requirements. Personally, I think she should just be SOL. She makes more money at Hooters than most other similar places because she looks good and wears revealing clothes. If she's not able to keep up that appearance, she can go somewhere else to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Hooters is her career. I rest my case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 She should get the benefits, but just remember: she's 27. She won't be a Hooters waitress at 37. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Don't those two things contradict each other? She was denied the opportunity to work because she iddn't meet the appearance requirements. Personally, I think she should just be SOL. She makes more money at Hooters than most other similar places because she looks good and wears revealing clothes. If she's not able to keep up that appearance, she can go somewhere else to work. But she had the job in the first place. If you get a job and your employer decides later you aren't qualified and fires you, you get unemployment benefits. The fact that you think she makes too much money for shaking her boobs while serving beers isn't really a valid reason to deny her benefits. Hey, I'm the last person to advocate giving out taxpayer money to people who don't deserve it. I've actually shown up at unemployment hearings to contest ex-employees petitions for benefits. But this case doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me. Maybe I'm just getting soft in my old age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Q: What do you tell a lady with two black eyes? A: Nothing. You already told her twice. That joke is so old it can vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stussy109 Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Q: What do you tell a lady with two black eyes? A: Nothing. You already told her twice. Ouch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 This thread really really needs some pics. I can't provide them...damn work firewall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGimp Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 pics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spun Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Pics... Have you checked out The Tilted Kilt yet? The one in downtown San Diego (next to the baseball park) is very nice! It rivals Hooters. Here is the website: http://www.tiltedkilt.com/ Pricey but very Scottish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Can't they put her on "light duty?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 That joke is so old it can vote. For Thomas Jefferson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 But she had the job in the first place. If you get a job and your employer decides later you aren't qualified and fires you, you get unemployment benefits. The fact that you think she makes too much money for shaking her boobs while serving beers isn't really a valid reason to deny her benefits. Hey, I'm the last person to advocate giving out taxpayer money to people who don't deserve it. I've actually shown up at unemployment hearings to contest ex-employees petitions for benefits. But this case doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me. Maybe I'm just getting soft in my old age. Pretty much my thoughts. And Unemployment insurance benefits are only temporary, and are there for people who cannot work through no fault of their own. There are some other places for her to seek assistance if she is the victim of a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts