No smoking first and now...

[CSM]

Cocktail Waitresses Get Fat Fiat

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J., Feb. 18, 2005



Cocktail server Renata Malik, who is five months pregnant, works at the Borgata (Photo: AP)



"We feel it's fair, we feel it's legal, we feel it's what our customers have come to expect at Borgata."
Cassie Fireman, vice president, Borgata Hotel Casino, commenting on the casino's "stay slim" policy


Two of the casino hotel's 160 "Borgata Babes" - cocktail waitresses the company says should have "natural hourglass figures." (Photo: AP)



(CBS/AP) The Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa has told cocktail servers if they pack on too many pounds, they'll get an unpaid suspension to lose the weight - or be fired.

The policy will apply to anyone gaining more than 7 percent of their body weight; weight gain related to pregnancy or a medical condition will be exempt, casino officials said. The company will pay to put the offender through a weight-loss program during the up-to-90-day suspension.

The policy was laid out in a letter to employees last week - and has infuriated some women's advocates.

"Women should not have to starve themselves just to keep their jobs," said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group. "The policy places enormous stress on all the women and encourages eating disorders to reach a totally arbitrary goal."

The New York Post quoted a spokesman for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission saying federal anti-discrimination laws if the hotel fails to take into account such factors as pregnancy or a medical condition, such as diabetes.

The casino, whose edgy marketing themes and sexy accents have helped bowl over the competition since opening in July 2003, contends there's nothing wrong with setting weight limits for its 210 costumed beverage servers: 160 servers dubbed Borgata Babes and 50 other male and female bartenders.

A Borgata vice president, Cassie Fireman, said the policy clarifies existing appearance standards: that women servers should have "natural hourglass figures" and men "V-shaped torsos, broad shoulders and slim waists." No weight limits were ever set, however, she said.

"Our costumed beverage servers are a huge part of our marketing and our branding image," she said. "We feel it's fair, we feel it's legal, we feel it's what our customers have come to expect at Borgata."

Borgata Babes, who wear black, low-cut designer bustiers with crossing straps above the breasts, have appeared in pinup style photographs in the casino's calendar.

Borgata officials refused to allow cocktail servers to be interviewed Thursday; one who was asked her opinion of the weight limits declined to comment.

Local 54 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees union has filed a grievance.

Former Borgata Babe Lori Allen, 36, who resigned last month, said Borgata officials talked about weight limits long before they imposed them.

"It's going to cause girls to binge, purge, whatever," she said. "It's already causing stress."

Some gamblers don't think it's fair either.

"So what if they gain a little weight? They're serving drinks, they're smiling. All people are interested in is gambling, anyway," said Karen DiCaprio, 41, of Philadelphia, who was sitting at a roulette table.

So, corporations can discriminate based on wether or not someone smokes and on their looks....it wont be long before we are back to skin color and religious beliefs.

 

[Avatar4321]

im not sure i totally care about this one. The company should have a right to higher and fire whomever they choose. There are certain industries that require people stay in regularly shape and look nice. Of course most of those industries are the bain of human society... but its still there right to do so.

 

[Mr. P]

Ahhhhh...the airlines do this weight thing with the attendants..always have.
Can you imagine a 250lb lard ass pushing a cart up the aisle?

 

[CSM]

im not sure i totally care about this one. The company should have a right to higher and fire whomever they choose. There are certain industries that require people stay in regularly shape and look nice. Of course most of those industries are the bain of human society... but its still there right to do so.

You are absolutely correct. they have that right.

In extremis, a company should have the right to say that **** people (put in whatever ethnic or racial adjective or proper noun you desire) are aesthetically unfit for this job, therefore will not be employed. Also, people with **** (put in whatever physical attribute you desire) are also unemployable. Where do the comanies' rights end and the individuals' rights begin?

 

[manu1959]

You are absolutely correct. they have that right.

In extremis, a company should have the right to say that **** people (put in whatever ethnic or racial adjective or proper noun you desire) are aesthetically unfit for this job, therefore will not be employed. Also, people with **** (put in whatever physical attribute you desire) are also unemployable. Where do the comanies' rights end and the individuals' rights begin?

it will be decided on a case by case basis.... but last i checked the employer pays the employee to do the job they were hired for....she was agreed to take money to be a sexy slim waitress and they agreed to pay her to do that....she became a pregnant waitress...she chose to change what she agreed to be...they chose not to give her money ...how is her choice their fault

 

[CSM]

it will be decided on a case by case basis.... but last i checked the employer pays the employee to do the job they were hired for....she was agreed to take money to be a sexy slim waitress and they agreed to pay her to do that....she became a pregnant waitress...she chose to change what she agreed to be...they chose not to give her money ...how is her choice their fault

No argument from me....just raising the question as this sets a precedent for companies NOT in the entertainment industry. Obesity in America can be as much of a drain on health costs as smokers or alcoholism., so why not limit their employability as well?

 

[CSM]

it will be decided on a case by case basis.... but last i checked the employer pays the employee to do the job they were hired for....she was agreed to take money to be a sexy slim waitress and they agreed to pay her to do that....she became a pregnant waitress...she chose to change what she agreed to be...they chose not to give her money ...how is her choice their fault

Also, what prevents a company from hireing "whites only" (other than current law!) as a company could easily say "I hire white folks to do white folk jobs. Blacks (or whatever race) are simply unappealing to our clientelle."
The principle is the same, is it not?

 

[Mr. P]

You are absolutely correct. they have that right.....

Where do the comanies' rights end and the individuals' rights begin?

In my opinion the companies rights don't end. I as the employer have the right to hire and employ fat, thin, ugly, green, italian, Christian, non-Christian, jew or whatever the heck I want, afterall it's my business, isn't it? I don't see a problem with this.

 

[CSM]

In my opinion the companies rights don't end. I as the employer have the right to hire and employ fat, thin, ugly, green, italian, Christian, non-Christian, jew or whatever the heck I want, afterall it's my business, isn't it? I don't see a problem with this.

Not denying that at all.

What I am driving at here is that given what you say is true, then companies have the right to deny Blacks, Jews, Itallians, Christians, Muslims or whatever the heck they want employment! I am trying to determine the feelings of folks on these boards as to where the line is. Should a person be denied a job because of race, belief or gender? That is the question I am asking. Should a company be allowed to fire an employee because they switched political parties for instance?

 

[CivilLiberty]

Not denying that at all.

What I am driving at here is that given what you say is true, then companies have the right to deny Blacks, Jews, Itallians, Christians, Muslims or whatever the heck they want employment! I am trying to determine the feelings of folks on these boards as to where the line is. Should a person be denied a job because of race, belief or gender? That is the question I am asking. Should a company be allowed to fire an employee because they switched political parties for instance?

Like everything in law, it depends on the circumstances.

If you are an organization that caters to a specific group, you can hire specifically from that group. for instance, a groups called "Irish Defense Fund" can limit it's hiring to persons of Irish decent. The Republican National Committee can deny employment to Democrats.

In the case of businesses, employers can have reasonable restrictions for persons in public point of contact positions. For instance, that can mandate that an employee speak english without an accent, or follow specific appearance standards.

One interesting case, where I really disagree with the courts, dealt with the TV show Melrose Place. And actress on the show became pregnant, and Spelling fired her, as her contract had a no-pregnancy clause.

The court ruled in favor of the actress, saying that an employer cannot discriminate regarding reproductive rights. I disagree with the court - the actress signed a contract waiving this right. In addition, the producers of the show had a vested interest in the appearance of the actress in her role and should be free to cast anyone they wish.

In the case of airlines, they don't allow stewardesses to fly when pregnant, though I do believe they assign them to other ground based duties.



A

 

[CSM]

Like everything in law, it depends on the circumstances.

If you are an organization that caters to a specific group, you can hire specifically from that group. for instance, a groups called "Irish Defense Fund" can limit it's hiring to persons of Irish decent. The Republican National Committee can deny employment to Democrats.

In the case of businesses, employers can have reasonable restrictions for persons in public point of contact positions. For instance, that can mandate that an employee speak english without an accent, or follow specific appearance standards.

One interesting case, where I really disagree with the courts, dealt with the TV show Melrose Place. And actress on the show became pregnant, and Spelling fired her, as her contract had a no-pregnancy clause.

The court ruled in favor of the actress, saying that an employer cannot discriminate regarding reproductive rights. I disagree with the court - the actress signed a contract waiving this right. In addition, the producers of the show had a vested interest in the appearance of the actress in her role and should be free to cast anyone they wish.

In the case of airlines, they don't allow stewardesses to fly when pregnant, though I do believe they assign them to other ground based duties.



A

Great. Does that necessarily imply that a private business has a right to select its clientelle as well especially if it is based on the same criteria?

 

[CivilLiberty]

Great. Does that necessarily imply that a private business has a right to select its clientelle as well especially if it is based on the same criteria?

Yes. For instance, the United Negro College Funds gives scholarships only to blacks. The Boy Scouts *require* that you be a Christian.


However, if you are "open to the general public" then you cannot discriminate.


A

 

[freeandfun1]

Hell, all this has been settled in Las Vegas a long time ago. In the last 10 years I have been here, there have been several cases.

You now do see some pregnant cocktail waitresses (saw one last night myself when at the Suncoast to meet some friends for dinner) but you still don't see "fat" ones. They do get rid of them. My friends wife is a cocktail waitress and the rules are pretty clear. You agree to them when you sign your employment agreement. They have their obligations to you and you have your obligation to the job. Pretty cut and dry. The only exceptions that I have seen is the one with pregnacy. I think that was decided a couple of years back in a case here. That is why you now see some pregnant cocktail waitresses.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes. For instance, the United Negro College Funds gives scholarships only to blacks. The Boy Scouts *require* that you be a Christian.

Thats not true. The Boy Scouts dont require you to be Christian. one of my scout leaders was Jewish.

 

[no1tovote4]

Thats not true. The Boy Scouts dont require you to be Christian. one of my scout leaders was Jewish.

No, they simply require a belief in God.

 

[Trigg]

No, they simply require a belief in God.

My son was in cub scouts and I don't remember anyone asking if we were christian or what our religious beliefs were.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with the casinos requiring thin waitresses. You don't see any fat waitresses at Hooters either. These businesses have an image they are trying to uphold. No one is requiring these girls to work in these professions.

 

[CivilLiberty]

No, they simply require a belief in God.

OOOps...must be thinking of another group.

...There was *some* group that would nto allow a jewish boy to join, because they had to be Christian - I *thought* it was the BSA, My bad.


A

 

[Johnney]

its starting!
remember that company that said if you smoked on your own time, at your own house you could get fired?

 

[Shattered]

What I am driving at here is that given what you say is true, then companies have the right to deny Blacks, Jews, Itallians, Christians, Muslims or whatever the heck they want employment!

They have that right anyway.. They just can't vocalize it, and they'd better hope to God the applicant can't prove that's why they didn't get the job.

Most employers know upon sight who they're likely to hire, and who they're not, before a word is even spoken by either party.. They're just going through the motions in a lot of cases.