WELCOME DOUG ROSS READERS -- hope you look around at other posts.
A Macomb county, Michigan, Judge recently refused to stop a suit by two former "Hooters" waitresses alleging "weight discrimination." The restaurant sought to dismiss the case claiming the servers had signed agreements obliging arbitration, not legal action, for employment discrimination claims.
The lead plaintiff says she was put on "weight probation" and told to join a gym, which she equated to being fired. She claims to be 5 foot, 8 inch tall, and weigh 132 pounds -- 13 pounds, she says, less than when Hooters recruited her in 2008. For what it's worth, she's pictured here--and, in my view, is well-qualified to work at Hooters. Not that I've ever been.
To be fair, the ruling can't really be blamed on the judge. Rather, Michigan is the sole state to prohibit discrimination based on weight. Hooters argues the law does not apply to "entertainers," and denies setting a weight limit--but vows to keep fighting the suit in order to uphold the restaurant's "image".
This suit largely is stupid, based on an over-broad law. But on such heavy matters are our judges stretched, the jurisdiction of our courts expanded and our legal system weighed-down.
2 comments:
She weighed 13 pounds more when she was hired. My guess is that she lost those 13 pounds in her breasts. That's why she was put on weight probation.
Compared to her breasts, the rest of her was overweight. That's the only conclusion the facts support.
If she gained weight in her breasts, I doubt it she would have been put on probation.
> But on such heavy matters are our judges stretched
Unfortunately, not on a rack.
Post a Comment