Skip to main content

Aerial view of the Borgata complex. Hotel, Casino, and Spa in Atlantic City, New Jersey
Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Nelson Johnson ruled that the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa waitresses can be fired for gaining weight.

The twenty-two waitresses, known as the "Borgata babes", brought the suit:

They argued that the casino viewed them as nothing but sex objects and were forced to endure frequent weigh-ins and were even suspended when they gained excessive weight, which could not be 7% more than their initial weight when they were hired. The court essentially told the cocktail waitresses that they knew what they were getting into by citing the application process for future “babes,” which stated that the positions were “part fashion model, part beverage server, part charming host and hostess. All impossibly lovely.” Judge Johnson also cited the fact that the casino’s “babes” signed statements agreeing to the 7% weight-gain policy.
From the judge's ruling:
“For the individual labeled a ‘babe’ to become a sex object requires that person’s participation and nothing before the court supports a finding of fraud, duress or coercion in connection with the plaintiffs’ hiring,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs cannot shed the label ‘babe’; they embraced it when they went to work for the Borgata.”
This isn't the first time the policy has been challenged. In 2005, former "Borgata Babes" Trisha Hart and Renee Gaud brought a similar suit in 2005. That suit was quietly settled:
That fact didn't escape the notice of former Borgata Babes Renee Gaud and Trisha Hart, who bought a $70 million lawsuit against the casino in 2006 over the same policy. Their case ended quietly with a confidential settlement two years later.
Can you imagine having to weigh in for your employer? This seems like a terrible precedent.

Originally posted to Scout Finch on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:08 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Sure. I can definitely imagine having to weigh (13+ / 0-)

    in for my employer.

    If I was a jockey, a boxer, or creative ballast for a hot air balloon.

    Mr. Universe is a known degenerate Robotophile, and his sources include former Browncoat Traitors. What is their agenda in leaking top secret information about the Reavers and endangering us all?

    by JesseCW on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:13:56 PM PDT

    •  Rubenesque jockeys of the world, unite! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TooFolkGR, ssmt
    •  Or NFL cheerleader (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miscanthus, FG, BlackSheep1

      I recall a snafu of sorts where one such type was denied a trip to a recent Super Bowl for just this reason.

    •  Air Force / Navy / USMC / Coast Guard (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, mmacdDE, vcmvo2, gramofsam1, patbahn

      personnel have to all the time. Pilots ...

      LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 09:20:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  or in the miltary (7+ / 0-)

      where I could lose my retirement eligibility four years from now if I gain too much weight between now and then.

      •  We used to get shot at in the military too (0+ / 0-)

        I don't think that's usually part of the job description for a cocktail waitress, even in Atlanta.

        If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

        by Major Kong on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:06:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yup. I also think the judge made a good point that (9+ / 0-)

      they knew what those were the rules when they were hired. There's lots of jobs were employees are expected to be better looking than average.

      If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.

      by MikePhoenix on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 06:54:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What if the rules were (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        atana, gooderservice, dream weaver

        no black people?

        Or no gays?

        Or no Jewish people?

        It's not whether or not they knew what the rule was - it's the rule itself that should be in question here.

        If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

        by Major Kong on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:07:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  DKos guys would be against that (0+ / 0-)

          because that would discriminate against black men, gay men, and Jewish men.

          But we are talking about "babes" here -- so of course it's perfectly fine for a company to employ them as sex objects.

          •  They were hired as models! (0+ / 0-)

            And some of these women got really big, seriously!

            Republicans piss on you and tell you it's raining, Democrats hand you an umbrella!

            by Nica24 on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:21:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Andrea Dworkin, how I miss you... (0+ / 0-)

              and the days when we could organize a march of furious women against scumbag places like this club.

            •  "Part fashion model" was in (7+ / 0-)

              the job description, as was "impossibly lovely". That's the job they applied for, and they agreed in advance to the weight requirements.
              I turned down a couple of modeling offers and beauty contests back in the day, because I found the idea of agreeing to be stared at kinda freaky. Had I accepted, I could hardly have made a credible objection to being treated like a piece of meat, cause that's kinda the point. I'm just not feeling the outrage here.

              •  No outrage against objectification? /nt (0+ / 0-)
                •  Not if it's consensual. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  That's why I did not consent to the modeling or the beauty contest- it's not for me. For women who enjoy that kind of attention or who don't mind it, that's their decision to make. We're all adults here.

                  •  We are talking about *employment* here, (0+ / 0-)

                    not consensual sex between equals. The issue is not the willingness of the women to be exploited, it is whether the bar owner should be allowed to exploit them.

                    I suppose that you also approve of "dwarf tossing", if a bar owner wants offer that sort of entertainment?

                    •  Oh for god's sake- (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mconvente, Nica24

                      no I do not approve of dwarf tossing.
                      Nor do I agree that these women are necessarily being exploited. Talk to some of the women who've had these jobs, and you'll find that many of them feel quite empowered, they like the attention and they really like the money.
                      It's not your job to tell them how they should feel, nor is it mine. Women know their own minds and it's high time we acknowledged that.

                      •  So it's ok to ban dwarf tossing, but not ok (0+ / 0-)

                        to regulate exploitative employment of women?

                        As someone else in the thread pointed out, the Airline tried to turn stewardess into sex objects and were stopped by feminist outrage. This sort of exploitation could and should be stopped in the same way: just require bars to hire people of all genders, ages etc to serve drinks.

                        •  If you honestly see physical abuse (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          of people with physical limitations as equivalent to women serving drinks in a sexy outfit, I don't know what to tell you.

                          Bars already hire people of all ages and genders to serve drinks. But they don't hire all of those people to be Borgatta Babes, for obvious reasons. This is a job based on looks- you are free to find that concept offensive or exploitative but you are not entitled to make that determination for another woman who chooses it freely and enjoys it.

                          This is just turning into another second wave/third wave argument, and neither of us will convince the other. I'm all about maximum freedom for women, even if they make choices that would not be my choices. YMMV.

                          •  Objectification is extremely abusive (0+ / 0-)

                            By your reasoning, if the people hired for dwarf tossing agreed to the terms of the contract, it should be fine. They were adults; they knew the risks. Since are adults they can be abused and exploited if they "consent" to it. [As if employment is ever really "consensual" outside the 1%.]

                            Objectification doesn't just injure women's career prospects. It also contributes to rape statistics and other violent crimes against women. Society has every right to regulate it against the greed and sexism of bar owners.

                          •  There is no freaking equivalence (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            between physical abuse and serving drinks- none. The fact that you continue to suggest otherwise is beyond ridiculous.

                            How far would you go to "regulate" objectification? Censor movies? Censor books? Censor music or music videos? Censor the internet?
                            Tell women to be careful how they dress? Can they dress like hookers if they like that look, or would that just contribute to rape statistics? Can they work as models? Can they model underwear?
                            What about actresses in sex scenes? What about women who pose for erotic art photographs, or just nude photographs, or nude paintings for that matter.
                            What about dancers? How "suggestive" are their movement allowed to be? Would Beyonce be acceptable, or Lady Gaga, or Madonna? Is pole dancing an automatic violation?
                            And back to casino cocktail waitresses- how covered up or unattractive do they have to be to protect us all from exploitation?

                            I could go on forever, and really I don't intend your read your response if you have one, because as I said, this is beyond ridiculous and exactly what drives people nuts about that brand of feminism. But feel free to answer in your own mind. I'm done with this nonsense.

                          •  Objectifying women is not a progressive value (0+ / 0-)

                            It is entirely reactionary. The harm it does women has been documented for decades, and should not even have to be reiterated on a "progressive" website.

                            This is a simple legal fix for the corruption of pigsties like this sexist Atlantic City sleaze joint: take away their free pass to discriminate in hiring. They can hire anyone able to serve drinks, or they can go out of business. Problem solved. That is the progressive solution to the problem, not the sexist drivel that passes for "progressivism" on DKos.

                        •  We have lost sight of how objectification harms (0+ / 0-)

                          all women, even if some women have been acculturated to accept it.

                          Places like this bar normalize the idea that women can and should seen as sex objects in a workplace. This attitude carries over into every workplace, and becomes a barrier to career advancement when men who see women as objects are in control of their career advancement.

        •  Absolutely in this case. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          atana, dream weaver
          It's not whether or not they knew what the rule was - it's the rule itself that should be in question here.
        •  Those aren't choices. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You're born black, gay, and to some extent, a member of your religion.  Those aren't choices one makes.

          Moreover, even in the case where you're not making choices, sometimes an employer has a legitimate case for firing you.  For example, if I'm a construction worker and lose both my arms while I'm NOT at work.  As sad as that is, I could no longer be a construction worker.

        •  Haven't they partially allowed this already? (0+ / 0-)

          For situations where a certain atmosphere is expected? Like in situations where Chinese restaurants are allowed to only hire Asians?

          "No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it." - Sideshow Bob

          by ThinkerT on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 09:03:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Gays is not an appearance issue, but I see nothing (0+ / 0-)

          wrong with someone doing a male nude review requiring that his performers have intact foreskins, for example.

      •  many jobs (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Have requirements that do not part of the job.  For instance, many jobs require that one stand up the entire because sitting is seen as not working. Or some jobs require that one lifts a certain weight, even if the job is not moving objects.  Or that one be able to use a computer.

        Here is where I agree with the judge. When one is hired on the basis of being "part fashion model, part beverage server, part charming host and hostess" it implies that someone who might be a better host, or a better beverage server did not get the job because they are not a fashion model.  To know say that one should not be fired for potentially the same reason one was hired seems kind of hypocritical.

        Here is the other thing I see a lot.  People get into unskilled positions and then complain when they no longer meet the requirement or someone is able to work the unskilled position 'better'.  What I tell kids is there are a lot of unskilled and semi-skilled positions out there that pay good money, but they are not long term positions.  For instance,one might be able to make good money working an oil rig, but what happens when one hurts ones back in a motorcycle accidents.  Is the rig owner still expected to pay when one can't do the job.  I do understand that the two are different as one is objectifying women, which is wrong, while the other is simply consuming a human body for as long as it is able to be consumed, but the solution would be to now allow hiring based on looks.

    •  Airline stewardess have to be a certain size (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
    •  I'd tip you here, but this diary is posted to the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      front page well after the time to be able to tip comments that occurred in real time.

    •  It's no different than (0+ / 0-)

      having to give blood panels to my employer's insurance every year. These are the commitments republicans and democrats have made to insurers and corporations.

      I support the two-state solution: for the USA.

      by plok on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:21:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly what do you mean by "blood panels?" (0+ / 0-)

        And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

        by MrJersey on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 10:42:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Blood panels (0+ / 0-)

          are results of blood tests to screen for levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, etc.

          •  Isn't requiring information of that type a a (0+ / 0-)

            violation of HIPA, that is, sharing medical information with your employer?  Unless that information is required by a certifying authority for say, a flight crew certification, or a train engineer, is this a legal thing for your employer to be doing?

            And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

            by MrJersey on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:49:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not my employer, I was just (0+ / 0-)

              answering your question about blood panels. No idea if it's a HIPA violation, but if it's provided to an insurance company and it's employer paid insurance, maybe not.
              I do know that many employer-paid policies offer this as a voluntary program to improve employee health outcomes, and I think it often involves a premium discount.

              •  I know that there is a Federal law regulating the (0+ / 0-)

                collection and use of genetic material for hiring and firing decisions that would protect people from discrimination due to their genetic make-up (such as markers for chronic disease).  This sounds pretty close to that as an insurance company evaluator of the decision to insure, or not insure an employee.  

                And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

                by MrJersey on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:30:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  pre Obamacare, employers were looking (0+ / 0-)

      at some potential weight limits on employees
      to reduce health costs.

      BTW, the only industries where weight is standard
      monitoring is athletics and th emilitary.

  •  Given that employees can also be fired for (15+ / 0-)

    being "too attractive," sure. Why not? Let's get them at both ends of the scale. Gain weight? Fired! Lose weight, become "too attractive"? Fired!

  •  Pretty commone, especially with the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy, Praxical

    breast and beer places.  This sounds similar to that.

    I don't go to those places, but they would lose customers if their waitresses didn't all have a slender figure.   You could make sexually oriented businesses illegal, but we are far away from that.

  •  I Have Limited Sympathy (7+ / 0-)

    They are correct that the Borgota views them as nothing but sex objects.  And here's the important part: They knew that when they took the job.  

    It's like getting a job at Hooters.  Your PRIMARY function is to play a role, and that's the role of: "piece of meat to be drooled over while men eat a piece of meat."  

    Perhaps if they were in a Union they could have gotten a better contract negotiated, but if they signed one that said they'd lose their jobs if they gained weight and then gained weight.... sucks to be them.

    There's never been a point in my life when I could be one of those dudes who stands outside an Abercrombie and Fitch with no shirt on, c'est la vie.

    Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

    by TooFolkGR on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:20:50 PM PDT

  •  i think the ruling would have been different (6+ / 0-)

    if they'd been "regular" waitresses and not some sort of hooters thing.  I don't agree with the policy, but I think the facts significantly limit the case's precedential value.  7%  range and weekly weigh-ins seem particularly ridiculous, though.  Hire the "babes," and if they're making good tips they're doing something right.  If not, it takes care of itself and they can hire some new babes.  Not sure that's a legal issue, under the law as written, as this isn't a protected class.  Saying it's inherent sexism proves too much, given the particulars of the restaurant.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:23:27 PM PDT

  •  Ok, I'll probably get slammed (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TooFolkGR, Joe Bob, FG, VClib

    for my thoughts regarding this, but here goes:

    I think this type of situation is complex and cannot necessarily be assumed to be simple discrimination.  If the criteria for qualifying for a a job is having a certain appearance, and both parties agree to this in advance, the employer is within their rights to insist on it.  

    Weight change is not always the best way to measure appearance (e.g. someone can gain weight because they have added muscle due to working out), but if the limit of 7% weight gain was stipulated prior to the employee accepting the position, then that is acceptable.

    Using the term "sex object" is not persuasive in this context.  Part of many jobs is that the people are attractive to the opposite sex.  Chorus girls in las Vegas shows, for example, would certainly not be kept on the job if they became noticeably overweight.  An absurd example of this thinking gone too far was the case against Hooters a few years back, claiming that they were discriminating by not hiring male servers.

    Please don't assume that I am defending some sort of voyeristic behavior on my part.  I find strip clubs and places such as Hooters degrading (to myself as well as the women), and never go to them.  I worked in shows for years as a professional musician, however, as was in an environment where attractiveness was a job requirement for the singers and dancers.  I don't know how it could be otherwise.

  •  Considering that I would have never gotten (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the job in the first place considering the criteria involved, I am not all that sympathetic.

    Maybe the problem is that such jobs exist at all, rather than the follow on consequences.

  •  Since they can also be fired for being too.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, Sonnet, a gilas girl

    ...good-looking, can they be fired for not being good-looking enough. Gah.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:43:55 PM PDT

  •  Nothing wrong with hiring sex objects (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, Praxical

    It's a service industry. Part of that is image. Some of that service industry falls into a grey area. If the image is a sexual one, then they have a right to hire people who conform to that image.

    it does pose a grey area in regions where a casino is the only major source of employment. So is the prsence of the casino hindering other service businesses from cropping up where they can hire "regular" looking people. That is where I draw the line at fair and unfair. But when in doubt, I favor the expectations in such a job like being a hooters waitress. I personally do not patronize Hooters as a preferred restaurant even if I like looking at hot women. But if there are guys who like to do that, then more power to the restaurant to hire women accordingly.

  •  But then again Gloria Allred is there (0+ / 0-)

    That vampire looking woman actually won a case where a pregnant actress sued for being phased out of a bigger role in a show for being pregnant when she was hired for her looks more than her acting prowess in the first place.

    So you never know. I am surprised Allred is not all over this case.

  •  Wow, this was part of Ocean's Thirteen (0+ / 0-)

    where the second in charge of the fake casino fires waitresses for wait gain, and the excuse is that they were "models who serve" so the casino could get away with it. Can't believe it's happening in real life. (I mean, I can, I'm just perplexed...)

  •  I saw an interview witb Jane Fonda (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Praxical, VClib

    where the interviewer, probably trying to rile up Ms. Fonda, asked her how she felt about the fact that people would rather look at young actresses than her.

    Rather than the ageism rant that I expected would follow, Jane Fonda calmly agreed that, of course people would rather look at the younger actresses than her.

    Sometimes reality has to be acknowledged.

    •  Have to agree with her, and I'm (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, kingfishstew

      almost as old as Jane Fonda. A lot of people don't realize that women might enjoy looking good even as they age, but it's kind of a relief not to have every freaking moment and every freaking interaction be all about your looks.
      Plus- I'd rather look at Hugh Jackman than any dude my age, so I totally get it.

  •  I'm with the employer. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The employees need to grow up (figuratively only) or get out.  I'm sure there are thousands of others who would kill to take a job like this.

    Warren/3-D Print of Warren in 2016!

    by dov12348 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:59:56 PM PDT

    •  I Feel The Same, But Only Because of the Agreement (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1, La Gitane

      If you're still willing to work at a place like that after you have seen (and signed) the agreement with the weigh-ins and the 7%, etc... then you know what you're in for.

      Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

      by TooFolkGR on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:41:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do you feel about no other employee who (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        works for the same company has to sign such a contract?

        Understanding there are dealers, floor supervisors, pit bosses, shift bosses, pres or VP of table games, security, restaurant managers, waiters/waitresses for those restaurants, maids, butlers, car valets, et cetera.  

        •  I work in the casino industry, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1, ksuwildkat, mconvente

          and depending upon your position your appearance does indeed matter.

          Sometimes it is company policy (a company will have a specific policy towards appearance in the employee manual), and other times it is employee negotiated.

          I.E. - Say for table games (my specialty) it isn't terribly unusual for the employee toke committee to get a sort of veto power on new hires, because all tips are pooled, and if a person isn't going to "carry" their weight with tokes, you don't want them working with you. We call them "toke sucks", and no one wants them in their casino.

          Granted appearance isn't always the defining factor, attitude, competency, game knowledge, etc all factors in... but if you're say missing all your teeth or something, and have a terrible personality, or can't count.... The toke committee is going to recommend against your being hired.

          If you're smoking hot, but you're game knowledge isn't quite up to snuff... You'll likely get hired, because you'll pull your weight with tips. A bad attitude is a bad attitude though, and no one ever wants that, biggest toke suck there is...  

          And if you're attractive, have a good personality, and strong game knowledge, you can go anywhere, anytime, and they'll hire you on the spot.... Sometimes will pay you a signing bonus, and/or moving expenses to boot.

          Just the way it is.  

          Frontline employees in the casino industry are essentially entertainers first, and foremost. We're there to make sure patrons have a good time, and appearance, personality, it all factors in.

          "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

          by MichiganGirl on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 09:22:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Excellent (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Funny thing is that this is no different than any other job I know of.  There is an old leadership saying that I would rather have willing than able because I can make willing able.

            I had a guy who worked for me in Afghanistan.  To put it nicely he was not the brightest bulb on the sign.  But if I gave him a specific task I knew it was going to get done.  And with a lot of coaching and mentoring I expanded the number of tasks.  And he did everything with a great attitude no matter how many last second changes I made.  Given the high stress situation we were in, having that constant positive attitude was sometimes the most critical thing we needed.

            One of my peers had a team stocked with smart guys.  All great guys on their own but they never gelled as a team.  Too many guys with their own idea of what right looked like.  When they didnt get their way they sulked and the entire team became dysfunctional.

            I am willing to bet the management of the casino would have found a way to keep these ladies if they had been excellent in other areas.  We call it the asshole tax and it sounds like they paid it.

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:52:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Hooters was involved in a case like this too. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:40:14 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, if I'm hired as a sex object (which will (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton, Praxical, TooFolkGR

    never happen), weigh-ins are perfectly reasonable.

  •  Nothing new. Here in Las Vegas it's worse (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Have you visited lately? The Rio decided the way to get sexier cocktail servers was to make them into "Performers." A few years ago, the Rio made all the servers audition with a talent. If the talent didn't make the grade, bye well paying job. At certain times during their shifts, the servers have to get up on small mini-stages throughout the casino floor and perform. For most, it's dancing. Oh did I mention, the all but non-existent costumes?

    Recently one of the downtown/Fremont Street properties had a major renovation. The old Fitzgerald Hotel Casino was remodeled and became "the D." Now mind you this was a very tired worn out property before the upgrade. Now it's a very hot property. One of the major changes which has started a trend along the street was to put a bar on the street (Fremont is now a great pedestrian mall.) The bar is divided in two with one half being a full service bar, and the other half a margarita bar with multiple frozen margarita machines lining the back wall. The full service bar is staffed with men who are required to perform "Bottle Flair" service for every cocktail. The flair service moved indoors as well resulting in all the older bartenders who could not throw and spin the bottles losing their jobs. The out front margarita bar is staffed by women wearing black bikinis with long red fringes, stilettos, and fish net stockings. When not serving drinks, they are required to dance on top of the bar. All this is outdoors on the street and it doesn't matter hot, cold, rain, or shine, that's their uniform, and that is the job requirement they signed up for.

    On the inside, the cocktail servers are still many women who go back to the Fitzgerald days, but their days are numbered. The D is planning on a uniform change for all its cocktail servers. Very soon, all servers will be required to wear stiletto heels. A cocktail server spends their entire shift walking around on their feet. Imagine how many women over the age of 30 could survive that amount of time in stilettos every day? The obvious plan is to make sure they have a revolving door of young women servers who wear out rapidly only to be replaced with the next fresh face. If you call them performers, the law here lets you get away with it.

    Instead of career employees who might be more inclined to join the union, put in young people who know from the start the job is not permanent.

    These are just a couple of examples of what is happening all around Las Vegas.

  •  So, if a woman carries a pregnancy, she is sacked? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Post pregnancy can be hard on a figure.

  •  Airlines lost this one (6+ / 0-)

    Back in the day, the airlines tried to defend hiring only single and well-shaped young women as stewardesses, along with underwear checks and whatever. A group challenged it under the Federal sex discrimination law (which was quite new), and the SCOTUS eventually ruled that the primary job description was not "pleasing and titillating male customers" but "ensuring the safety of passengers." Since the airline couldn't demonstrate that the requirements related to safety, they lost.

    That's why now we call them "flight attendants" and they are a mix of male and female, younger and older, and the women can wear slacks, and not all have large bra sizes. (I actually feel safer with that mix, especially if there are disruptive male passengers.)

    I don't know about restaurants, but it seems to me this judge is back in the 1950s.

    •  rugymom - the key issue is are the rules (6+ / 0-)

      for a legitimate business purpose? The airlines lost because the flight attendants primary job is safety. For casinos or places like Hooters employers can have rules related to body shape and weight.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 09:55:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, their job is serving food and drinks. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        schnecke21, kyril

        If they want performers, put them on a stage and don't pay them the "tips-earner" minimum wage.

        Tips are for service.

        Service is serving food and drinks. If they're serving up their bodies, we have other names for places like that.

        For the record, Hooters doesn't even pay its girls minimum wage:.

        The lawsuit filed in the District's federal court late last week, claims the company counted the girls' tips toward the minimum wage and then violated the law by requiring them to pay the company for their uniforms, among other allegations.

        Federal law allows an employer to pay a tip-earning employee $2.13 an hour, which the lawsuit claims Hooters did. But, if the employer chooses that path, it can't then charge for uniforms.

        An employer paying the lower hourly wage also can't require employees to pool their tips and then have them include typically non-tip-earning employees in the payout. The lawsuit claims that Hooters did just that, making the waitresses share their tips with dishwashers and other kitchen employees.

        The suit also alleges the Hooters Girls were not paid overtime for the hours it took to open and close the restaurants, and for the meetings they attended. The nationwide restaurant chain also deducted from the girls' wages the cost of customer "walk-outs," the suit said.

        This is the second lawsuit in recent months filed by Hooters Girls alleging the company violated minimum wage laws.

        In May, eight girls filed a suit against the company in California claiming their tips were used in a similar scheme.


        © grover

        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:06:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm National Airlines. Fly Me. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, gramofsam1

      i remember when stewardesses had weigh-ins, had to be unmarried women, and even had something called "underwear checks"

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:33:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There is a wider debate here (16+ / 0-)

    and it is a little distressing to see quite so many commenters going for the easy pun, and missing the point.

    We live in a country where "at-will" hiring is still, in 2013, tragically allowing employers to fire on a whim. Any whim, any reason or no reason. He doesn't like the Ford you drive ... Fired, and if your kids starve it's tough, you should have bought a Chevy from his brother's lot ... he did suggest it.

    Allied and inseparable from this disgusting law is the acceptance that any and all contract terms are reasonable, if you sign the contract.

    A rather more sophisticated country might take the view that this is not a reasonable position to adopt, as the company offering the contract is often in a position to insist on any damned thing the like, because they are in the position of power.

    A law outlawing "unfair contract terms" would redress some of this balance, in that an individual could indeed sign a contract, but if we determined that any particular clause was "unfair", it could not be enforced.

    Maybe some pause for thought.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 06:54:12 PM PDT

    •  I'd like to see your suggestion of discussing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, atana, kyril

      more significant issues gain more traction here. Suspect it won't, sadly enough.

      Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue If you'd like to join the Motor City Kossacks, send me a Kosmail.

      by peregrine kate on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 06:59:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sing it. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, atana, kyril, dream weaver

      I've been saying this for many years: the root cause of much of our employment woes is "at will" employment.  European countries rarely practice at will employment.  It's much harder to get hired in some fields, but once you're in, you're under contract, and the reasons they can fire you are pretty limited.

      At Will was one of the things the left furiously attacked in the Depression, but the "flexibility of hiring" argument won out then.

    •  Thank you. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      schnecke21, atana, kyril, dream weaver, pcta, twigg

      May I add how horrifying it is to read alleged progressives say "if you don't like it, don't take the job,"  as though we haven't been the worst job collapse since the Great Depression,  as though we don't have skyrocketing food scarcity numbers, as if we don't have citizens still being pushed out into the streets by banks?

      Screw you. You need this job. But you eat reduced or free (fattening) meals at the restaurant now, so your kid can have new shoes. You hit 35 years old and suddenly you're carrying an extra few pounds. Your mom died and in your grief you find yourself carrying an extra little weight. You have a new baby and the baby weight isn't coming off. You finally win your battle with an eating disorder.

      Screw you, the leftwing says to you. You accepted a waitress job. You knew better.


      Is this place so misogynistic? Do we just despise pretty women? Or maybe this site really is full of older affluent men who really don't give a crap about "babes" they see as window dressing in bars.

      That's what they get for getting fat by some totally arbitrary standard.

      Wow. Quite the bunch of progressives.

      Thanks, Twigg for your post.

      © grover

      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:22:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, DKos is misogynistic. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dream weaver

        And "babes" are supposed to be sex objects. They deserve it, as punishment for being female.

        •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          grover, atana, twigg

          When you have a site that's dominated by comfortable white male progressives, they sometimes take up libertarian (and not particularly woman-friendly) views on things like sex work. And truly backwards views on organized labor, too.

        •  I wonder how much sympathy (0+ / 0-)

          these women had for the frumpy applicants who never got the job in the first place.  

          I want to see Snowden get a fair trial, an impartial jury, and the same sentence James Clapper gets for lying to Congress.

          by happymisanthropy on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:32:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Some aspects, I would agree (0+ / 0-)

          Be nice if the registered user base were wider, and more representative.

          Knowing the little I do about many of the leading contributors and management, I'm sure that is something they would welcome too.

          Yet I also worry that the site is a "two-tier" operation. The Left Page has a massive readership and circulation and is given a great deal of attention. The Right Page is smaller, and "noisier", but seems to receive rather less input.

          Personally I think each needs the other, and I'd like to see more management of the Right Page.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 09:34:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it's misogyny- (4+ / 0-)

        I'm a woman and a feminist but I don't see the outrage over this. This is not a typical cocktail waitress job. It's in a casino, and a big part of what casinos sell is fantasy. The Borgata in particular has laid claim to being the sexiest casino in town, and they push that image in every part of their operation, down to the hang tags on their doors, which say "tidy up" or "tied up".

        And the job description was pretty clear: "part fashion model" and "impossibly lovely" were listed as criteria. So were the weight requirements. This is a job for attractive young women who convey the sexy image of Borgata, and these women were I'm sure smart enough to know that when they applied and agreed to the conditions. It's not a job for the long term, and it's not meant to be, and I'm sure they knew that too. And they can make a fortune in tips during that short term if the people I know who've done it are any example.

        I have nothing against women who use their looks to their advantage- we've all done it to some extent. But it only works as long as the looks match the required image. As someone who works in a casino said above, all frontline casino workers are basically entertainers, and that's just how it is.

    •  It seems to me like people (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, grover, kyril

      largely find this contractual term fair.

      To me, I think the wider debate is the increasing sexualization of the culture. (And I realize I sound like a Church Lady.) I'm a straight guy who is emphatically pro-sexualization in general, but it's a slippery slope, as per Vegas Dave's comment, above. If you're going to redefine a waiter's job to include 'wearing a bikini and wriggling on a stage,' why not redefine a dental hygienist's the same way? The dentist is just trying to appeal to a certain clientele. Makes the waiting room more interesting if he only hires women who look sexy in skimpy underwear.

      I don't know. Judging performers on their looks, and enforcing via contract, makes sense. But there's something about this that makes me uneasy.

      "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

      by GussieFN on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:23:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  At will employment.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg part of the reason why wages and morale are low.

  •  Did it at least twice a year in the navy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and more often when my weight went over the max allowed for my height.

    "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

    by anonevent on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 06:58:16 PM PDT

  •  Sure I can imagine it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gramofsam1, kyril

    Used to be when I was on active duty you had to meet weight standards. if you didn't meet the standard they measured you for body fat. I was an exec a long time ago and processed 3 airmen a week kicked out for the crime of being fat. We also had to meet fitness standards and underwent random drug testing. The horror of having someone watch you from a foot away at crotch level as you urinated into a bottle (haha).

    The casino is selling an image. I stayed within standards for 25 years; it takes a lot of work and willpower especially as I got older.

    •  Well (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grover, schnecke21

      If you want to give the waitresses commissary privileges, base housing, free medical, 4 weeks vacation a year from year one, a full military retirement plus all the other benefits we enjoyed on active duty, the "I had to do it in the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines" argument might carry a little more weight.

      Military service is not the same as civilian employment. It's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and table lamps.

      If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

      by Major Kong on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:16:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought Hooters Girls protected us (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        from enemies foreign and domestic, no?

        I always wondered why they wore blaze orange instead of camo. Seemed counterintuitive.

        © grover

        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:25:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wait what? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, kingfishstew, mconvente

        so your argument is that its ok to have weight standards if the benefits are good enough?  I think you would be making a winning argument for the casinos then.  I have had a number of friends who worked at casinos and they made WAY more there than they did in regular waitressing jobs.  They were willing to put up with the additional "demands" - including being nice to really grabby folks (as long as they were losing) as well as keeping the pounds off.  It was worth it because they money was good.  

        I hate to say it but most civilian employment would work much better if they took lessons from the military.  You know why we have height weight standards?  Because we need healthy people.  Healthy people perform better and cost less.  We back up the desire for healthy people with mandatory exercise that you get paid for.  Win Win.  Does that mean we "fire" fat people.  Yup.  But not that many as a percentage because we do the things to keep people from getting fat in the first place.  

        The crazy thing is that even if a civilian employer wanted to institute the same thing they would be sued and forced to change.  Folks here have done a lot of bitching about evil employers yet would be the first ones calling for action against an employer who cared enough about employees to institute mandatory exercise and corresponding mandatory fitness standards.  We have become so accommodating as a nation that we would not even recognize when something was being done for our own good.

        My employer mandates a healthy lifestyle, preventative medical care, and continuing education.  Those requirements are backed up with consequences that have teeth.  Im 46 in good health, can run a 5K without a thought, with two "free" degrees and a ton of formal training.   Yeah, I work for some real jerks.  

        It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

        by ksuwildkat on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 08:20:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Very good points. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Most of the argumentation here seems to be, besides the interesting point of at will firing,  puritanism masquerading as feminism. But, as long as we're allowed to make money making other people horny, the employers should have some reasonable right to make sure the men or women selling their inflated priced chicken and drinks are actually doing just that.

          •  It's actually more a reflection (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jahiegel, mconvente

            of the difference between the second wave feminism of the 70's and more recent third wave feminism, which sees women more as agents of their own choices rather than victims of an oppressive culture.
            IMO, the third wave approach is actually healthier for women, including the women in this case.

  •  Penn State Professors Must Weigh in (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, MrJersey, happymisanthropy

    ...according to this article, PSU will require employees to submit to the insurer measuring various "health indicators," including waist measurements, blood pressure and other personal health information.  Employees declining to do this will be subjected to a $100/month fine.

    Whatever the merits of the "Borgata Babes" case, this step by PSU is clearly an invasion of employee's privacy.  Note that having your personal physician measure these indicators does not appear to be an option, giving lie to the University's claim that this is to increase "awareness."

    I don't know about you, but I'm glad I don't work for PSU.

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

    by mathGuyNTulsa on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:02:39 PM PDT

    • about the stick! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, gramofsam1, mconvente

      University of Michigan does the opposite: they pay you a $100 bonus for taking a health survey and either having your "health indicators" checked, or taking a fitness class of some sort.

      The carrot works really well.  HUGE numbers of UM employees do this.  The invasion of privacy was a bit queasy, but I work in the UM hospital, so they ALREADY had my medical records and history.  It was more or less free money to me.

  •  I understand they signed a "contract," (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dream weaver

    but I contend that the contract is discriminatory to begin with.

    Ever take a look a dealers who don't have to sign a contract like the waitresses do?

    The players spend the overwhelming majority of their time on the casino floor looking at the dealers, not the waitresses.

    I really wish someone with money had the guts to do a poll among players with two questions:  

    What do you care about the most?

    Being able to order and receive a drink in a timely fashion?


    How pretty and slim and curvy the waitress whom you order your drink from is?

    I don't deny that some might vote for the latter, but I'd bet big bucks that the former is what's most important to the players.

  •  Airline stewardesses had to do it all the time, (0+ / 0-)

    and it had nothing to do with flight safety. Lucky for them, they had a union.

  •  I suppose (0+ / 0-)

    It beats getting fired for getting sick or taking a preamp proved vacation or some demonstrably false reason, which happens all the time.  Two wrongs don't make a right (though three lefts often do), but yeah this seems like one of the few instances where it's make sense

    Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

    by Mindful Nature on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:11:25 PM PDT

  •  It is kind of disingenuous... (6+ / 0-) take employment that pays a premium for obvious physical-attractiveness reasons, only to complain (in a legal sense) later than it's discriminatory.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:12:54 PM PDT

    •  Most young women -like virtually (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dream weaver

      Every other person I know-- take the best paying job under the circumstances.  Period.

      Do you realize how outrageous it is for you to single out a specific set of people (people you've never even met) and say well, of course they were hired because of their "attractiveness," and that they should knew or should have realized that.

      Most of them thought they were hired because of their experience, personality, skills, or whatever reason MOST of us get hired for a job.

      Many of them likely disliked or even hated that stupid skimpy uniform, but they had to wear it, so they did.

      People take jobs they need. They presume they're hired because they are qualified. So why wouldn't they feel they were discriminated against when they were fired for appearance while they were still doing their jobs the same as ever?

      For you to say it's "disingenuous" for presumably attractive  women to act like everyone else on the world seems pretty patronizing (at best) to me.

      © grover

      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:56:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're missing the point (4+ / 0-)

        These women got hired over other women because of their relative attractiveness. No complaints then. Then, when they weren't deemed attractive enough to hold onto the jobs, they suddenly had a problem with the very notion.

        It's the four pillars of the male heterosexual psyche. We like: naked women, stockings, lesbians, and Sean Connery best as James Bond.

        by RIP Russ on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 09:56:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, you're missing the point. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dream weaver

          People in jobs like food service don't assume they're hired because they're attractive. They believe they're hired to do a job-- probably EXACTLY the same thing you think when you're hired.

          Oh, but you're a guy, right? So you get the luxury of knowing you were hired for your astounding skill, dashing personality and awesome experience over the other far inferior guy.


          © grover

          So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

          by grover on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:31:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But this is a special case (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gramofsam1, mattc129

            because casino cocktail servers are hired exactly because they are attractive.  And they know it.  At least at the really trendy, upscale casinos like The Borgata and Revel (in Atlantic City) and the Cosmopolitan, Venetian, Wynn/Encore, etc. (in Las Vegas).

            Obviously it takes skill to remember 20+ drink orders at once, carry all of them on the tray, walk miles a shift in heels, etc.

            But let's not hide from reality - if you end up being hired as a cocktail server, a large part of the reason is because you're attractive.

            And let's not forget that there are male cocktail servers.  They are quite rare, but they do exist (I've seen them at The Borgata, the very casino in question) and yes, they are very attractive as well.

            "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

            by mconvente on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:28:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're right about the male (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              cocktail servers- and they are subject to physical requirements too, according to the V.P. for "talent" at the Borgatta:

              "According to Fireman, the new policy clarifies appearance standards that were established before the casino opened -- namely, that women servers should have "natural hourglass figures" and men "V-shaped torsos, broad shoulders and slim waists."

              I just wanna know if any of them look like Hugh Jackman, cause that could make me rethink my attitude about casinos.

      •  There's no chance that is true. (6+ / 0-)

        Specifically, there is no chance that the women hired as hostesses at the Borgata thought they were hired for "experience, personality, skills" as opposed to looks.  Any discussion that proceeds on that fantasy basis doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:27:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Entirely agree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          For anyone to truly believe that casino cocktail servers are hired for their experience, swift work pace, etc. - pretty much anything other than their attractive appearance...

          That person is simply unaware of the reality (at best) or is being intentionally disingenuous (at worst).  Considering there is an admission of never having stepped foot in a Vegas or Atlantic City casino before, I'm going to go with the former.

          "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

          by mconvente on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 12:31:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I worked in Atlantic City for a very long time. (7+ / 0-)

    And there are many, many reprehensible things done here to employees, especially now that we have no regulations left. But this is a really bogus claim. I know quite a few of the people involved, and they signed on for this.

     It is no different then getting hired for a Las Vegas show, you better not miss a beat or put on 30 lbs. or you are gone. We seriously have girls gaining a ton of weight and still putting on these tiny costumes. I am not a small woman but I didn't apply for a job like that either.

    I hate to seem harsh, but these girls were really looking for a big payday, I have been with quite a few in social situations and they really thought they were getting rich over this.
    It was a big deal here when Borgata created the Babes, but they are hired as "showgirls, models etc who just happen to serve drinks. And they were some of the highest paid people in AC, especially tips.

    Republicans piss on you and tell you it's raining, Democrats hand you an umbrella!

    by Nica24 on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:20:22 PM PDT

  •  Contract rules (0+ / 0-)

    Unless the contract requires you to do something illegal.

    For instance, I don't think they could enforce a contract that required an employee to be of a certain race, religion or ethnicity, but there's no law against discrimination based on looks.  And frankly, I think life would be a mess if there was one.

    I think these women need to focus more on modifying the terms of their contracts before they sign them, or stay away all together.

    I loathe places that objectify women as a business.  There was a restaurant here in San Diego a year or so ago that was called Red Light District.  That's right - the whole theme of the place was prostitution.  The decor was plastered with ginormous photoshopped images of sultry Victoria's Secret models.  Yeah, I'd just love to go there on a date...  Thankfully they didn't make it - closed after a year.

    I say if you need a bunch of scantily-clothed Barbie dolls walking around to make your business work, then you probably suck.

    "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

    by La Gitane on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:28:26 PM PDT

  •  Why sue to work at a place you find unfair? (0+ / 0-)

    Just to upset them and yourself?


    What about patrons who like larger women?
    What are they supposed to do?

    Honesty is not a policy. It's a character trait.

    by Says Who on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:43:21 PM PDT

  •  This isn't broadly applicable (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, gramofsam1, mconvente

    So I don't think there's a reason to think this is a terrible precedent. Part of the job requirement is, obviously, to be in shape. The contract states up front what is expected. These women should not have been under any delusions that they were partly expected to be highly enticing visual candy associated with a certain weight level. Jesus Loves You.

    by DAISHI on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:44:35 PM PDT

  •  Im required to weigh in twice a year (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, Aquarius40, mconvente, gramofsam1

    That is a minimum.  I am subject to being weighed at any time.  I am also require to be able to complete certain physical tasks to a minimum standard as proof of overall physical fitness.  That is also a twice a year minimum requirement but I am subject to being tested with little or no notice.

    Sorry, but it is just not that difficult.  Its part of the job, one I agreed to when I accepted the job I have.  I am free to seek other employment if I dont want to keep within the minimums.

    Oh and my employer - its you.  Im a soldier and I work for you.

    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

    by ksuwildkat on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:50:31 PM PDT

  •  If you go to the restaurant (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gramofsam1, mconvente

    with certain expectations, & employees are aware of these expectations & agree to them, I don't think the judge is out of line siding with the restaurant.  There are many occupations with similar physical requirements. A judge can personally disapprove of such requirements without finding legal grounds for doing away with them.   If it happened in a roadside diner that promised only good food, the decision might well be different.

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

    by DJ Rix on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:51:45 PM PDT

  •  Looking pretty is part of the job description (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, gramofsam1, mconvente

    And while pretty is subjective, we all know what pretty means to 98% of men out there. They knew what the job description was when they signed on.

    If an athlete spends the offseason eating McDonalds every day, doesn't run an inch and never lifts anything heaver than a Big Mac, they're going to find themselves out of a job pretty damn quickly as they're also no longer going to be able to perform the job they're getting paid to do.

    "How come when it’s us, it’s an abortion, and when it’s a chicken, it’s an omelette?" - George Carlin

    by yg17 on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:56:55 PM PDT

  •  Seems similar to the work of Acting in film or (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, gramofsam1, Aquarius40, mconvente

    theater.  If a part calls for a skinny someone, then that is what it is. If it calls for a particular racial type, it isn't bigoted per se.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire.

    by JWK on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:57:54 PM PDT

  •  Disney has been doing this for years. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    You think those folks sweeping up the trash at Disneyland are janitors? They're not, they are cast members in a performance. That guy barely seen in a kitchen flipping burgers; also a cast member in a performance. Appearance counts as much as personality and talent in assigning rice operators to their jobs.

    Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your shackles. It is by the picket line and direct action that true freedom will be won, not by electing people who promise to screw us less than the other guy.

    by rhonan on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 09:05:06 PM PDT

  •  Mostly unrelated to the subject at hand.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ....but Judge Johnson wrote the book Boardwalk Empire. Also, a friend of mine clerked for him some years back.

  •  Weight gain is a valid reason to be let go from (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gramofsam1, mconvente

    numerous jobs. Many pro athletes have weight stipulations and regular weigh-ins. Actors, performers, firefighters;  I even know a lineman from a utility company who I recently saw at the gym, he said he had to lose weight because he's at the maximum (275lbs.) which the company allows.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site