Augustus Dumont, also known as “Farkle the Clown”, reached an out-of-court settlement with the Diamond Gym Casino and Bowling Alley adjacent to Atsamada U in suburban Dirt Valley, MO.
In court documents, he had alleged that Diamond Gym would not allow Dumont to serve food in the cafeteria when it was being used for the combined meetings of the local Chamber of Commerce and Young Republicans groups. Farkle the Clown was seen to be a derisive and divisive character, locally know for his own ‘trickle down’ expositories and anti-buisness theories.
No word from lawyers on either side was available as to the settlement. Farkle was silent on the subject.
I don’t think most men would want to look at a half naked pregnant women while watching football on Sundays. It was a business decision. Could you imagine going to Hooters and having all the girls be pregnant in their outfits? Their patrons would stop going. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a pregnant person working, but some restaurants, like Hooters, have a reputation and an expectation to uphold.
I don’t recall the article mentioning anything about the pregant waitress’ attire. It didn’t say anything about a “half naked pregnant waitress”. It was a Mexican grill, not a Hooters or Tilted Kilt.
They were making a business decision based on what they thought was best for the clients. But we have to look at what is best for the employee, screw the clients, its the employee rights first.
Why would anyone in their right mind hire an employee these days. The employee has more rights than the owner and the customer, the employer can’t ask questions before hiring and now after hiring can’t get rid of a problem employee before documenting everything for months. During which the business can fail. And on top of it now you must pay for health care or be fined. It is insanity to own a business at all!
Unless they could demonstrate that their business suffered on Sundays because the waitress was pregnant, they had no business changing her shift. They “thought” that patrons would object but they didn’t say that anyone actually complained. It’s like saying “I don’t think that my customers want to see a red-headed man server.” That dog don’t hunt!
She was hired to serve food and drinks, correct? She was still able to perform her job, correct? Did she apply and accept a job to specifically lure men into the establishment with her lean and lithe body? Sorry, but it appears the business owner was just disappointed that his server did not fulfill his own personal fantasies. Real Women become Real Pregnant. Next time hire a blow up doll and see how that works out.
I can’t stand those pregnant women with their child-bearing tendencies and all. No WAAAY would I ever buy tacos from her. Send over the guy that is 35 pounds overweight instead. How completely selfish of that woman to both want a job and a child! What do you say? She needs that job in order to pay for her child? Well, not in this establishment. If you have one in the belly you can’t feed the patrons’ bellies. Have one in the womb? Can’t serve this room.
In all seriousness, thank goodness the courts got this one right. As far as seeing a pregnant girl in a Hooters outift goes, who cares? Give the girl a break and quit being a pig.
My wife once got fired after giving birth from the office of a machine shop. They told her she should be at home with the kid instead of working. They were happy to approve her Unemployment Claim.
That, or course, was when a Business Owner actually had somethig to say about the way they ran the business.
Now, we have to take a chance on hiring someone that may be a comp claim looking for a place to happen. My brother has filed a comp claim and law suite against every one of his former employers for the past 15+ years. Heaven forbid your foot slipps off your break at a light and bump into him. Its a whole production with the ambulance and everything.
$15,000 seems fair and reasonable since she probably wouldn’t make that in a year anyway. I commend her for not going for $10,000,000 or some other outrageous $$ amount.
If she has a Cert of Credible coverage, wont be. If its an HMO, it would be covered too. If no prior and new coverage is not an HMO, then it would be excluded for 12 months.
Or less, considering she must have been showing an outie…
December 4, 2012 at 1:38 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The only good thing IL has for them is they are an at will state. I can hire and fire for any reason. Not saying I would fire based on pregnancy. I have only fired for Job Performance and for economic reasons.
No, FFA. There are some things you can not fire for because they are protected. Under Federal law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of:
Race
Sex
Pregnancy
Religion
National origin
Disability (physical or mental, including HIV status)
Age (for workers over 40)
Military service or affiliation
Bankruptcy or bad debts
Genetic information
Citizenship status (for citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, refugees, and asylees)
Its pretty much a non issue for me anyways. Wont be hiring any one any time soon. Maybe a JR in College – a business major or a marketing major. Thats it. Never a full timer any more thats for sure.
When I worked Retail, I worked for a major chain that is now gone. They wpould fire all the time based on bad debts. When my Duaghter was on the job market, she applied at some banks. They ran her credit and used it as the reason for not hiring her. Even mortgage companies dclined to hire her over bad debts.
On a related note…
Augustus Dumont, also known as “Farkle the Clown”, reached an out-of-court settlement with the Diamond Gym Casino and Bowling Alley adjacent to Atsamada U in suburban Dirt Valley, MO.
In court documents, he had alleged that Diamond Gym would not allow Dumont to serve food in the cafeteria when it was being used for the combined meetings of the local Chamber of Commerce and Young Republicans groups. Farkle the Clown was seen to be a derisive and divisive character, locally know for his own ‘trickle down’ expositories and anti-buisness theories.
No word from lawyers on either side was available as to the settlement. Farkle was silent on the subject.
I don’t think most men would want to look at a half naked pregnant women while watching football on Sundays. It was a business decision. Could you imagine going to Hooters and having all the girls be pregnant in their outfits? Their patrons would stop going. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a pregnant person working, but some restaurants, like Hooters, have a reputation and an expectation to uphold.
Burnie –
I don’t recall the article mentioning anything about the pregant waitress’ attire. It didn’t say anything about a “half naked pregnant waitress”. It was a Mexican grill, not a Hooters or Tilted Kilt.
They were too stupid to disguise the real reason & could have changed her shifts to accomodate her pregnancy.
They were making a business decision based on what they thought was best for the clients. But we have to look at what is best for the employee, screw the clients, its the employee rights first.
Why would anyone in their right mind hire an employee these days. The employee has more rights than the owner and the customer, the employer can’t ask questions before hiring and now after hiring can’t get rid of a problem employee before documenting everything for months. During which the business can fail. And on top of it now you must pay for health care or be fined. It is insanity to own a business at all!
Not in Illinois. They can fire you in our state for looking at someone crossed eyed.
Yes you can. You may also be sued.
Unless they could demonstrate that their business suffered on Sundays because the waitress was pregnant, they had no business changing her shift. They “thought” that patrons would object but they didn’t say that anyone actually complained. It’s like saying “I don’t think that my customers want to see a red-headed man server.” That dog don’t hunt!
I don’t know, I think some men dig pregnant women, check out this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76mexNsTyfo
She was hired to serve food and drinks, correct? She was still able to perform her job, correct? Did she apply and accept a job to specifically lure men into the establishment with her lean and lithe body? Sorry, but it appears the business owner was just disappointed that his server did not fulfill his own personal fantasies. Real Women become Real Pregnant. Next time hire a blow up doll and see how that works out.
Pregnant women are sexy she could wait on me anytime
I can’t stand those pregnant women with their child-bearing tendencies and all. No WAAAY would I ever buy tacos from her. Send over the guy that is 35 pounds overweight instead. How completely selfish of that woman to both want a job and a child! What do you say? She needs that job in order to pay for her child? Well, not in this establishment. If you have one in the belly you can’t feed the patrons’ bellies. Have one in the womb? Can’t serve this room.
In all seriousness, thank goodness the courts got this one right. As far as seeing a pregnant girl in a Hooters outift goes, who cares? Give the girl a break and quit being a pig.
My wife once got fired after giving birth from the office of a machine shop. They told her she should be at home with the kid instead of working. They were happy to approve her Unemployment Claim.
That, or course, was when a Business Owner actually had somethig to say about the way they ran the business.
Now, we have to take a chance on hiring someone that may be a comp claim looking for a place to happen. My brother has filed a comp claim and law suite against every one of his former employers for the past 15+ years. Heaven forbid your foot slipps off your break at a light and bump into him. Its a whole production with the ambulance and everything.
Your wife gave birth from the office of a machine shop? :)
Not sure. First marriage. She is old school so, maybe they had a mid wife on hand? A birth room with a pink slip waiting?
$15,000? That’s all?
You should be on a Crook COunty Jury. It would not be difficult to add a few 0000 on the end of that number.
$15,000 seems fair and reasonable since she probably wouldn’t make that in a year anyway. I commend her for not going for $10,000,000 or some other outrageous $$ amount.
It depends. The article doesn’t specify why she lost her job.
The article doesn’t say that she was fired – just that she was pulled from Sunday shifts. (I’m just sayin’.)
You’re right.
Who knows if she did or if she quit and filed the lawsuit. Either way she came out pretty good.
Well, I just googled her and she’s a manager at another restaurant, so I tend to agree with you. (The sky IS falling!)
I’m glad she got something, because what they did was wrong. You can’t hire women of child-bearing age and then penalize them when they get pregnant.
I wonder if her pregnancy will be excluded by her new employer’s health plan as a ‘pre-existing condition’…
If she has a Cert of Credible coverage, wont be. If its an HMO, it would be covered too. If no prior and new coverage is not an HMO, then it would be excluded for 12 months.
Good thing she only needs 9.
Or less, considering she must have been showing an outie…
The only good thing IL has for them is they are an at will state. I can hire and fire for any reason. Not saying I would fire based on pregnancy. I have only fired for Job Performance and for economic reasons.
No, FFA. There are some things you can not fire for because they are protected. Under Federal law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of:
Race
Sex
Pregnancy
Religion
National origin
Disability (physical or mental, including HIV status)
Age (for workers over 40)
Military service or affiliation
Bankruptcy or bad debts
Genetic information
Citizenship status (for citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, refugees, and asylees)
You need to know these things as an employer.
Its pretty much a non issue for me anyways. Wont be hiring any one any time soon. Maybe a JR in College – a business major or a marketing major. Thats it. Never a full timer any more thats for sure.
When I worked Retail, I worked for a major chain that is now gone. They wpould fire all the time based on bad debts. When my Duaghter was on the job market, she applied at some banks. They ran her credit and used it as the reason for not hiring her. Even mortgage companies dclined to hire her over bad debts.