Fired for not wearing make-up

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Michael Stetz

Waitress says bare face led to firing

By Michael Stetz Union-Tribune Columnist
2:00 a.m. May 20, 2009

"I always thought I looked silly wearing makeup," said Shenoa Vild, 27, of North Park. - BRUCE K. HUFF / Union-Tribune

Call Michael at
619-293-1720 E-mail Michael
Bio Page

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.
Vild had worked at Trophy's in Mission Valley for five years without wearing makeup. Apparently, for all that time, it didn't matter.
But the restaurant was sold earlier this year, and she says the new management wanted the women to doll up. Vild says she got the ax in late April when she wouldn't.
Employers have the right to do this. A few years ago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is not discrimination for employers to make women wear makeup. (Who are these judges? Maybelline stockholders?)
But just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
Mark Oliver, the new owner, said he couldn't go into details as to what happened with Vild. Oliver did say she was the only employee who was unable to deal with the transition.
Trophy's, like the other restaurants in the small chain, was a sports bar. Oliver is making it more upscale.
“Shenoa could still be here if she wanted,” said Oliver, who used to be a part owner of George's at the Cove in La Jolla. “I had no problem with anybody else. If she would have made the same accommodations that the new ownership was asking, she'd still be here.”
If Vild were a terrible waitress who gave customers a hard time or got orders wrong or kept dropping plates, I'd say fire away. But a former co-worker and a former boss told me she was a good, popular waitress.
(Full disclosure: Vild provided the names and numbers.)
Vild's former boss, Nicole Alex, said Vild was aces. She even trained new workers.
Alex left the restaurant, too, but she holds no grudge. Oliver was fair about her leaving, she said.
I asked Alex if customers ever complained about Vild's appearance.
“No.”
Still, “she's facing a real uphill battle,” said Peter Zschiesche, executive director of the Employee Rights Center in San Diego. Employers have wide latitude on hiring and firing, particularly when it comes to at-will, or nonunion, employees.
One might fault Vild for refusing to budge on the issue, but I give her credit for not caving. It's not the same as, say, putting on a uniform. You're applying something to your skin. And if you overdo it – Tammy Faye, anyone? – you could face ridicule, not praise.
“I always thought I looked silly wearing makeup,” Vild, a 27-year-old North Park resident, told me. “And I don't think I need it.”
It's not as if Vild isn't interested in her appearance or is a complete rebel. When the new management instituted a dress code of nice jeans and pressed white shirts, Vild said she had no problems conforming.
The Trophy's waitresses used to wear gym shorts and blouses.
Word is the management didn't like Vild's beach-girl look. She bleaches her hair blond. Funny, since we, um, live in a beach town. And funny, since when I went in the restaurant recently to check out the place, I saw a surfboard bolted on the wall.
My bet: That surfboard is going to be following Vild out the door.
While I was at the restaurant, I decided to have lunch. Maybe my powers of observations are lame, but I couldn't tell if my waitress was wearing any makeup.
She was very pleasant and she didn't drop my club sandwich into my lap. That's about all I care about. She told me the place is undergoing remodeling. She's only been there a couple of weeks.
Look, I have no problem with the establishment going for a makeover and Oliver putting his own stamp on the joint. You buy a place of business, you run it as you see fit. It's your Benjamins.
But Vild makes good points about how makeup can be a pain and how it's not necessarily for her. It costs money and it takes time to put on. For the waiters, it's a different story. All they have to do is be clean-shaven.
Too bad the law doesn't support people like Vild.
Times are tough enough. If Vild did get the heave-ho for this, well, I'm not handing out any trophies.
P.S. Just days ago, Vild landed a job tending bar. No makeup required.
Michael Stetz: (619) 293-1720;

Click here to hide comments





 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
It is not generally recognized, but employers have wide latitude in imposing work conditions. They may not do anything in the nature of discrimination, of course. But provided they are not discriminating, they have pretty much a free hand as to what the employment conditions should be.

So employer saying that waitresses should wear make up is not really all that surprising. He could make an excellent business argument for that. If a waitress wears make up, she looks pretty, and that may attract more customers, more business. Incidentally, similar argument will work for a receptionist (but would be nonsense for a nurse). Provided an employer can show that it is beneficial to the business, he/she is free to impose any working condition (provided it is not unsafe, of course).

One side effect of this could be that she may be able to deduct the cost of the make up as a business expense.

Or look at Hooters. They require waitresses to be topless. Again, it is an employment condition and perfectly legal. A waitress who wants to work for Hooters but does not wish to bare here breasts will be fired.

Even in this age of political correctness and non discrimination, employers are given a great deal of latitude in deciding employment conditions, and that is how it should be in a free enterprise.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Or look at Hooters. They require waitresses to be topless. Again, it is an employment condition and perfectly legal. A waitress who wants to work for Hooters but does not wish to bare here breasts will be fired.
.

What Hooters do you eat at? They're a 'family' restaurant. Their waitresses do not go topless.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Maybe you better Google that.... Hooters are what they sound like (covered by a scanty white tank top emblazoned by the famous owl) Maybe yours is up for a legal name change - or an exception.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
What Hooters do you eat at? They're a 'family' restaurant. Their waitresses do not go topless.


What? I thought Hooters was famous for its scantily clad waitresses. Now, maybe they don’t go topless (I thought they did, but I ma not sure). However, they do display their breasts prominently (hence the name Hooters).

Is there another Hooter chain that I am unaware of, a ‘G’ rated, family oriented chain?
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
What? I thought Hooters was famous for its scantily clad waitresses. Now, maybe they don’t go topless (I thought they did, but I ma not sure). However, they do display their breasts prominently (hence the name Hooters).

Is there another Hooter chain that I am unaware of, a ‘G’ rated, family oriented chain?

They wear tank tops and short shorts. They show cleavage and leg, but no moreso than your average dancer, cheerleader, figure skater, swimmer.... the list goes on and on.

edited to add... while I suppose some people may think that cleavage is enough to lose a 'G' rating, there is diddly squat about a woman in shorts and a tank top bringing food to the table that I would find objectionable for my kids. They don't make out, don't dance, don't spread their legs, don't bend over your table, don't let you stuff their tips in their shorts, etc.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I looked up on the internet about ‘Hooters’. While waitresses do not go topless (I was wrong there), they do wear revealing dresses, it is requirement for the job.

However, that does not change my argument. If a waitress refuses to dress in the revealing manner as required by Hooters, she will be fired. Employer has a great deal of latitude.




 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
plenty of businesses institute dress codes, uniforms, etc. It's not the same thing as instituting rules forcing only one gender of employee to put chemicals on their skin.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
plenty of businesses institute dress codes, uniforms, etc. It's not the same thing as instituting rules forcing only one gender of employee to put chemicals on their skin.

I think it will be against the Charter if they did that. That will be discrimination. While employers (rightly) have a great degree of latitude, I don’t think they are allowed to discriminate. It wouldn’t surprise me if they also had some regulations for male waiters to make them presentable (they would not be required to wear make up, of course). But presumably they were able to convince the courts that what they are doing is not discriminatory.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
I am trying to remember how the law works in Canada.

It seems to me that if they have two dress codes (ostensibly one for men, the other for women) then the individual should always be allowed to choose which one to adhere to. I am free to declare my gender in Canada. There are very few jobs where the employer can get away with putting "Only females (or males) need apply," on the advertisement, and such employees should be free of their gender being wrongly inflicted on them.

Dress codes are allowed to maintain a level of professionalism not beauty. One can easily look professional without makeup.
 

shadowshiv

Dark Overlord
May 29, 2007
17,545
120
63
50
plenty of businesses institute dress codes, uniforms, etc. It's not the same thing as instituting rules forcing only one gender of employee to put chemicals on their skin.

And some women(and men I would gather as well) cannot wear makeup as their skin reacts badly to it. Some will get rashes, some will get acne, and some will start having their skin flake.

I think it is ridiculous to require a woman to wear makeup. Makeup is not something that would be considered part of a dress-code(at least not anywhere execpt bizarro-land, it seems). Hooters has a specific dress code, but what difference would makup actually make? None. It boggles the mind.