Yeah, I had to write the whole thing out, since the news report calls her "beaten" which just doesn't site well with me as a headline or a way to describe someone who has suffered both from domestic violence and then job discrimination.
Let's face it, Hooters is one of my least favorite companies in America. They cater to the lowest common denominator of male arousal via normative white beauty standards and create spaces where women are objectified. They also serve crappy food. And while this story isn't surprising (unfortunately), it is disgusting.
A young women suffered a severe life threatening attack and since the physical signs of the attack were apparent, Hooters said she was not fit to work. The world according to Hooters, this is totally logical right? The world according to common sense, I think this is actually-inhumane.
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."
You can read the rest of the story here. (Trigger warning)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Hooters employee wins benefits after being denied work for showing physical signs of suffering DV. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11245
Yes! Hooters finally gets smashed for their unbelievably sexist employment policies! It is far too frequent that businesses get away with this kind of bullshit, and for once, one of them didn't.
They say she abandoned her job? That is such infuriating victim-blaming taking us back fifty years, I am so, so happy they were forced to recognize how wrong it was. And not to mention this quote:
"We told her it was probably not in her best interest to work for a while because of the state of her body."
Not in her best interest? Or not in the restaurant's best interest?
Hooters actually serves some delicious food.
You're officially annoying. If you want to discuss feminism from a different perspective, fine. If you want to have a dissenting, well stated opinion, fine. But I feel like you put a irrelevant or purposefully inflammatory comment on every single post on this site, and I don't really understand what you're getting from it.
On topicL Hooter's classification as an entertainment venue gives it a loophole for it's requirements for workers. Considering that, it was lawful and fair for them to have the waitress take time off due to her appearance. It's sad and unappealing, but that's not why she sued. I feel like the news story is purposefully sensationalists in some ways, and is misleading most of the readers about the nature of the suit.
The suit isn't challenging Hooters employment policies in any way. Neither is the plaintiff herself, who stated in court she agreed it was appropriate for her not to work due to her physical appearance (I feel really sad for this woman in a lot of ways). The reason she sued, and the reason she won, is because management violated an agreement that she could return to work in a few weeks, and failed to properly inform her that she was fired. She didn't know she had lost her job until she called in, and was told by a co worker, not her manager, that she had already been fired.
It's clear a lot of commentators on the original story do not understand that, and believe the woman she is not entitled to her benefits because she works at Hooters, even though something similar could happen in almost any line of work and still be unlawful.
Thanks for your clarification. I agree that if her job is to look glamorous, she can't really do that if she's showing lots of bruises. Besides, she probably needs time off to rest and recover physically and mentally. The right thing for them to do is give her time off to recover, and then let her return to her job. The classy thing to do is give her paid time off (Hooters is doing well enough, right?). The issue here is that they told her she had time off and then fired her anyway. That's really lame, and sounds like it is probably the fault of one particular manager.
I know Hooters is different because their waitresses are classified as entertainers. I'm curious what would happen in a normal waitressing job if someone was all bruised, either from being beaten up or a car accident or something. I can see how that could have a chilling effect on patrons going out to dinner to have a good time, and how the manager might worry about business being lost. But its also not fair to the worker to make them lose pay over this. What is the fair solution? I'd say paid leave, but maybe not all businesses can afford that. Does anyone know what would typically happen?
I think paid time off would be the ideal solution. It might be harder with hourly employees who don't have a typical schedule, but I'm sure that they would have a rough idea. The minimum acceptable solution would be unpaid time off until she was ready to work again.
I agree. I'm really sick of the way DoubleB comments here all the time, and is obviously trolling but is (apparently) just on the inside of being bannable. S/he brings nothing to the discussion but irritation.
Hooters wasn't doing anything terrible not letting her work, and it's really unfortunate that in these situations there's so little that can be done to help it--she can't work until she heals.
Agreed! Doubleb has posted some irreverent posts in the past and this is yet another. Anyone else tired of these 'I'm not a feminist, but I like to comment on their blogs' posters? This isn't an opinion site, it's about FEMINISM. If you're not one, then get off. Sure, it's a great site that has a way of organizing topics that aren't seen in most blogs along with intelligent posters, but if you want an opinion blog then go create one yourself and quit hijacking this one.
There are always irreverent posts. You just don't like me, so I get a reaction. Just because I don't always agree with you doesn't mean I'm not a feminist.
"Mmm, these innocent oppressed beings taste delicious!"
-Tek Jansen
Not if you have any experience with decent or authentic wings.
I was thinking more of the buffalo chicken sandwich. I'm pretty sure that each one takes approximately two weeks off of my life.
DoubleB = Not a Troll
UseCommonSense = A Troll
For the record, I appreciate that DoubleB often offers a dissenting opinion. Without being a troll.
*mocking* ((kissing sounds))
Well, aren't you the sexy truth-teller!
That you like the food or not (I, among plenty of others, women and feminists included, love it.) aside, Kat is correct in that Hooters Girls are hired under the same conditions as a promo model or an actress would be. This means that substantial weight gain, hot pink mohawks, and visible tattoos are disallowed, and the addition of such after being hired is grounds for termination. In many ways, Hooters Girls are hired for their appearance (duh). Please note that these types of policies are extremely common in the service industry, however. Nearly all chain restaurants have similar policies, while mom & pop places often utilize an unofficial, unspoken version of this. Hooters simply receives more attention for theirs due to the (perceived) nature of the place.
Obviously, it is tragic that the woman's circumstances were apparently handled with such a lack of compassion from her managers, however, without many details, it is hard to know for certain who is truly at fault.
I am a Hooters waitress, and I am peeved at the way incidents like this are often assumed to be common to all Hooters locations. I have read stories about other chain restaurants discriminating due to weight and age, or what have you, but rarely does anyone assume that all Chilis restaurants operates the same way. Hooters is not typically given this benefit of the doubt, though every single Hooters is run by a different set of owners and managers, with different interpretations and levels of enforcement of the rules. Like any chain, some Hooters management teams are severely flawed. Sexual harassment, discrimination, and the like may be prevalent at some Hooters, but this is representative of only that one Hooters. It is unfair to group them all together.
If you would like to read more about what Hooters is like, at least for me, you can check out my blog: http://thehootersgirl.blogspot.com/
I'm sure that your experience working at Hooters has been positive. But I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that this makes Hooters a great establishment.
Many feminists take issue with the cultural attitudes that Hooters both depends on and feeds into. The idea that a woman is only valuable as long as her appearance meets the hetero male standard is one of those cultural attitudes, and that's what makes this incident unsurprising, but still depressing. As long as women are viewed as disposable bodies meant only for hetero male consumption, we can expect this kind of conduct to continue.
Do you think one can distinguish between appearance being valuable, and appearance being the only valuable?
Oh please. Tell me, what other things are the waitresses at Hooters valued for? Their intelligence? Their education? Their view on the political situation in the Middle East? Oh wait, I know. Their bubbly, man-worshipping attitude and ability to gasp and giggle at everything a man says as if it's the smartest, funniest thing they've ever heard. Aka their "personality." Right.
I loved the South Park episode that took on this issue. It hit the nail on the head.
Name me a waitress anywhere that is valued for that stuff. Studies show that people, especially in service jobs, get hired based on looks all the time. Hooters is just painfully honest about it. This particular situation is really messed up. But lets not pretend that waiters are ever hired for anything more than being able to carry food and smile at the same time.
In a lot of restaurants it's also the previous serving experience you have. And I don't argue that wait staff isn't hired based on their ability to serve food and (sometimes) their looks. I was responding to Doubleb's suggestion that Hooter's doesn't view a womn's appearance as her only valuable feature. If they fire you the minute your appearance changes, then I'm betting they only value your appearance.
And in many coffee shops (where all my restaurant experience is) the personality of the servers and their ability to chat up the customers and fit in with that coffee shop's particular demographic is very important, regardless of what they look like.
Ok a few things to note here, do you think this employee would have been allowed to work at Disney if her role was to be Snow White or even operate a ride? Do you think she would have been allowed to host a news broadcast as an anchor? Do you think she would have been allowed to model for a photo shoot? Do you think she would have been able to be the face person for ANY business? You speak of common sense yet you choose not to use it. You state Hooters food sucks. Have you ever even tried it? Did you know that Hooters To Go sales is one of the leading in it's class of casual dining restaurants? Obviously there is more to the restaurant than you are aware and you are making uneducated statements. Hooters Girls play a role. You may not like it, but it is no different than the role of a character at Disney or a play on broadway, or a movie. If you do not look the part you were hired to play, you obviously cannot play that part until you do again. Do you think they would continue having a broadway show with a person that looks beat up? Do you think they would continue movie production if the star atress were beat up? What Hooters is now was risque in 1983 when it first opened. What it is now, by today's standards, is far different. There are many places you may go and see women playing a "role" and dressed much more scantaly. Check out any Casino on the Vegas Strip. Do you boycott those as well? Give me a break and open your mind.
Shorter "usecommonsense" (but apparently no reading comprehension or critical thinking skills):
Think and do as I command you too!
Shove that privilege, little doucheling.
"You state Hooters food sucks. Have you ever even tried it? Did you know that Hooters To Go sales is one of the leading in it's class of casual dining restaurants?"
Use common sense. Have you any idea how popular McDonalds is? Popularity is no indication of quality.
Popularity certainly doesn't equal quality, but the post includes a completely irrelevant sentence about the quality of the food. The quality (or lack thereof) of the product should have no bearing on how we view this incident. I also find it highly unlikely that someone who calls Hooters one of her "least favorite companies in America" has eaten there enough times to comment much on the quality of the food.
That was a ridiclous comment.
A. Samhita's a vegan. I highly doubt she needs to try the buffalo wings and cheesy baked potatoes to realize that, oh, hey, she doesn't want to eat all that over processed animal product.
B. The fact that they are "scantily clad" is irrelevant. The problem is that women hired to be waitresses are also hired to be objectified. Clothing isn't mentioned in her post at all, so great job about bringing up something that has nothing to do with anything.
C. The entire point of this article is that a woman was fired BECAUSE SHE WAS ABUSED. I don't care about anything else but the fact she showed signs of abuse...and was then fired because of it. That's a problem, I would care just as much if it were "Disney" or "Broadway" that did it.
You seem to have no grasp over the actual issue of this post, as you are angry at her mentioning trivial things like the fact you doubt she has ever tried the food she says is crappy. That is so irrelevant. Also, the fact that you asked "Do you think they would continue having a Broadway show with a person that looks beat up?" really shows how desensitized you are to the matter at hand. This woman did not "look like" she was beat up, SHE HAD BEEN BEAT UP. Since when is DV an acceptable excuse for being fired? That was the purpose of this article. My gosh.
Actually, if an actor or Disney person had wounds they probably would still be allowed to work. They may cover their bruises with Dermablend if they were self-conscious, but I doubt they'd be fired for it.
I dunno about that. I've read about people being fired from Disney for having a little bit of facial hair. But maybe someone who knows this stuff can weigh in?
I've never heard the facial hair thing, but again, Disney is an entertainment venue and allowed to have physical requirements for workers classified as performers or entertainers. I have heard that Disney requirements are very restrictive and include things like specific height and weight categories for specific roles in order to maintain consistency in characters' appearance. Otherwise there might be a visible or distracting difference, like a 6 inch height gain, between a character park visitors see in the morning and the same character later that day.
However, in cases like accidents or abuse like this story, I'd hope employers would be flexible and compassionate or at least not violate agreements and labor laws.
I worked for Disney for a year. :-)
- No facial hair
- No piercings
- No tattoos
- No extreme highlights
- Hair has to be cut very conservatively
- No jewelry that could be distracting (so no necklaces or long earrings or bracelets)
- No sunglasses that guests couldn't see through (they had to be able to see my eyes -- I guess so they could tell how miserable and bored I was?)
The "Character" actors couldn't put on a lot of weight because the costumes were made to fit a certain size. All the actors (especially the Princesses) were thin.
The "Disney Look" used to include a stipulation that cast members had to be a 'reasonable' weight for their height, but that was ditched due to complaints of discrimination.
I never heard anything about bruises while I was there, but they are extremely hot on appearance so I wouldn't put it past them. Although, another cast member that I knew broke his wrist whilst working there, and they still expected him to work. "Don't complain and keep a smile on" was a common refrain.
Or they would just delay production, or shoot scenes without that actor first, pick it back up when s/he was ready.
Yes, her role is partially to look beautiful and sexy. And since she was physically unable to do so, she took time off at her boss's recommendation. Once she took time off, they fired her for taking time off.
It's not about Hooter's being a sexist, ridiculous establishment- it's about following the law. She too time off until she would be able to perform her job and she got fired for doing so.
Essentially she got fired for being in an abusive relationship. But I guess you would call that "open-minded".
It's fine (I guess) if you want to eat there "for the food", but don't try to justify their illegal activities because of it.
Does Hooters know you are using their copy writed trademark in your blog? Someone should make them aware!
When in doubt-threaten!
FYI, if "someone" did notify them, the worst that would happen is that they would be asked to remove the image. The article would remain, and so would all of your comments and replies to them.
Shut the fuck up douchbag! Full of fucking shit. What are you fucking stupid? Like Hooters is really going to come onto this site and sue the bloggers because they used their trademark. It's official: youre a douch bag. The only thing that's going to be deleted is you.
Copywrite and Trademark are two different types of intellectual property. The Hooters logo is a TRADEMARK, which means anyone can reproduce it as if it was part of the language. Trademark infringement only occurs when someone tries to run a rival business using a similar logo.
This is horrible.
I have a somewhat related question: what, if anything, should be the response of a customer to a waitress or other employee who has bruises like that? I remember one, when I was a young teenager (maybe eighth grade or so?), I was at CompUSA with my dad, and the cashier was wearing a short-sleeved uniform polo shirt, and I saw bruises on her arms and neck that were clearly made by someone grabbing her -- definite finger marks. She noticed me staring, and she looked at me, and I looked away. At 13, I had no idea if I was supposed to say something, or pretend not to notice, or what. And now, at 28, I still don't know. I know what I'd do if it were a friend, but I don't know what the line is between helpful and overstepping bounds when a stranger is showing obvious signs of abuse.
This is just wrong on so many levels. I can't even come up with the words to describe how sick this makes me, especially after the day I'd had being tossed around. Hooters always has and always will represent the male chauvanistic world to me. I am so sick of Hooters, with its blatantly offensive, insulting, and disrespectful double entendre name, their cliched, unnaturally bleached blonde and tan cheerleader look, cheeky smiles, and sexually discriminative work environment. I can say the same thing about Wal Mart too, and all of these friggin "sports" bars. I hate the world, it will never change. People are pathetic. This corporate world we live in, where compassion is the new curse word is pathetic. I'm with George Carlin. I cheer whenever there's a tsunami or hurricane.
I'm with you (& George).
Also, funny that I was just on a rant about Hooters earlier this evening when we passed it - no particular reason (at the time), just seeing it made me angry....coincidence?
Yuck.. this comment.. ugh.. top of the page when I signed on:
JECOOPE wrote:
Replying to mathman72:
Replying to jagqueen:
Abuser should be punished, no doubt, but let's look at the lack of responsibility for one's self this "victim" is showing. Similar example, if I walk with a handful of $100 bills down a dark alley in any major city, I am likely to be robbed. I am still a victim, but I did not minimize my chance of victimhood by walking down this alley, or by carrying a handfull of money in plain sight. This "victim" could have chosen to take better care of herself in her personal life and this whole line of arguments would be rendered irrelovent. 1x shame on him 2x....
1/6/2009 4:35:48
SHAME ON HER FOR BEING BEATEN!! Because we all know that carrying wads of $100 bills down a dark alley is the same as being in an abusive relationship. (/sarcasm)
God that is horrible. My friends wanted me to go to Hooters next week but I don't think I can walk in there without getting pissed off.
Looks like we're going to have to choose a different place.
I work in the mall right next to that Hooters. Makes me vomit in my mouth a little more everytime I 1. drive past it on my way to work, and 2. look at my former classmate's Facebook where she posts pictures from all of their Hooters bikini shoots and whatnot. I would never be proud to work in an establishment that so objectifies and obviously mistreats their workers.
That's great. Don't get hit by a car or slip in some ice and break your arm. Your boss will kindly fire your ass.
Seriously. They couldn't wait a couple of weeks until she mended and then brought her back to work? It's perfectly understandable that after being attacked she would need time to get better but what a callous bunch of asses for firing her. Understanding bosses would have sent her a nice note telling her to take the time she needed!
Absolutely disgusting on so many levels. Some of the other outrageous statements in the original article:
BRUISED UP???
So what about that 50-page handbook, I wonder? Well, Smoking Gun has a copy of it. Part of their description:
I haven't had the karmic strength to wade through the handbook yet.
Regardless of what you think of Hooter's (or any other restaurant really) as an establishment, seriously, who is the personnel who MADE the firing decision? How heartless of an asshole do you have to be to fire someone over this particular situation , and how do you sleep at night? (Or do creatures without souls not require sleep?) I mean really, if you were the boss, could you do this without a twinge of conscience?
I'm glad the judge ruled against the company.
lowest common denominator of male arousal
Way to throw in an insult against males while you're at it.
I don't think it's up to you to determine the "lowest common denominator of male arousal".
Why not just say "If you like attractive, large breasted women, you're bad!", hmm?
It really is the lowest common denominator of male arousal though, hypersexualized bodies and food. I would say, "If you find large breasted women attractive and then chose to eat at a place named for large breasts, you can't insist on thinking about the establishment as just another restaurant." It would be akin to calling Playboy just another magazine and I bet a joke like "I only go to Hooters for the wings" is received like the really old, tired joke "I only read Playboy for the articles."
It is not possible to do this while breasts are hypersexualized because the sex card will always trump everything else, except in this case bruises of DV. Because old tattered goods are no good for my fantasies...
I'm not sure if it's liking attractive, large-breasted women that is the problem. The problem is the male propensity in our culture to view female bodies as objects for their viewing pleasure and consumption.
And I'm sure all the men who eat at Hooter's really do just go there for the food. 'Cause the wings they have at every other bar and restaurant in town suck?
I wonder if there's some victim-blaming here, if the the management's rationale was that it was her "lifestyle choice" to stay in the abusive relationship, as opposed to being in an accident. I originally read this on Fark.com, a news aggregator that's packed full of misogynists, and 90% of the reader comments were about how she "chose" to be in the relationship instead of doing the smart thing and going to a shelter.
Of course, if she hid in a shelter for a couple of weeks, she'd probably lose her job for that too.
Also, since she wanted to come back to work so badly but couldn't serve customers due to her appearance, why couldn't they have her work in the back in the meantime?
I remember reading that Obama wants to add a clause to the FMLA that would allow victims of DV to take time off from work to leave an abusive situation (staying in a shelter, moving out and into a new place, etc.). I hope that comes to pass.
Yes. Definitely yes on the victim-blaming in both the girl getting fired and all over the comments on this post.
Am I irrational to think that if the U.S. could have just passed the Equal Rights Amendment 35 years ago, these discussions about employers regulating the softness of skin, suppleness of breasts, and glow of youth would all be moot?
The real issue of this story, though quite disgustingly reported on, is workplace leave and discrimination. (I'm sad to say I'm from Iowa and the Des Moines Register did not do such a great job with this one. Very insensitive writing and did offer any context to help readers understand what the big deal is.) While the Federal Family Medical Leave Act does not YET include leave for domestic violence, states have been working individually to do this AND to include "victim of domestic violence" into the human rights laws to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, etc., the same way that race, gender and sexual orientation are protected. NY successfully got this done a couple years ago, and Hawaii has had it for years. This would supersede a company policy on "appearance." Of course landlord and business owners were the primary opposition of including a new category into the human rights law, but sometimes doing the right thing DOES win out over what makes the most money. *oozing optimism here*
No, my point was the fact that she made no attempt to hide her disdain for someone being aroused by a specific thing that she doesn't approve of.
It's offensive and insulting.
"Lowest common denominator", indeed. Who the hell does she think she is, attempting to define what is good or bad in terms of arousal of an adult, by another adult?
I think that's a misread. I don't know Samhita at all (so correct me if I'm wrong), but what I read from that comment is different. I get that Hooters sets a common standard of attraction for its servers that in its rigidity offers no room for complexity in arousal.
I think you have more right to be offended and insulted by Hooters which seems to assert that there is not complexity in heterosexual male patterns of arousal. IMHO Samhita's point is well taken.
The phrase "lowest common denominator" is not used as a neutral descriptor. Nor does it mean it's a "rigid standard for attraction".
The phrase is also used to describe the most basic, least sophisticated level of taste, sensibility, or opinion among a group of people.
Basic, unsophisticated, etcetera.
It's insulting. It's also sexist.
Making a statement that is directed at a specific segment of the male population is not sexist. Where did she claim that all men are turned on by big titties and crappy food?
Yes, it is. At least in the way she did it. She didn't make some loose claim that some men are attracted to large breasts (which there is NOTHING wrong with, contrary to some feminist belief I've seen here). She made a claim that being attracted to such things is low-class, unsophisticated, etcetera.
That's where it becomes sexist.
It's also highly insulting. It's not up to her to determine that a form of attraction she apparently doesn't approve of, is low class or unsophisticated.
I work on the employment rights of survivors of domestic and sexual violence and stalking. Unfortunately this situation is very common, and not just with Hooters – employers of all types, whether large corporations, state agencies or neighborhood businesses, frequently are not sympathetic to survivors’ needs and often fire them. Gender and socioeconomic stereotypes about survivors and abusers are rampant. Many states have laws now that protect survivors from employment discrimination, provide them with leave to address the effects of the violence, and access to unemployment insurance benefits. Unfortunately, Iowa doesn't have any of these protections, so Ms. Dye was actually "lucky" to get unemployment insurance benefits in this case. I spoke to her to see if she needed assistance or referrals, and there is more to this case than is public; she was actually very positive about Hooters.
That is just disgusting! The poor woman has to work in that disgusting place only to get denied her income, on top of the fact that she was severely assaulted! Hooters just reinforces the fact that women should be treated as objects! The worst form of female objectification yet! DISGUSTING...all i can say is...get me a paper bag...I'm gonna hurl