What, in your opinion, are offenses worthy of a firing for a waitress? Making out in the cooler? Calling a customer's child the Antichrist? Underwhelming flair? Apparently, some misguided manager out there thinks that not wearing makeup is a fireable offense, because that's how Shenoa Vild got fired from her serving gig.Click here to keep reading...
Vild worked at a Trophy's restaurant in Mission Valley, San Diego, for five flippin' years when new management bought the place and started requiring waitresses to wear makeup in an effort to class up the joint. (Because nothing says classy like pancake makeup and six coats of mascara.) Well, Shenoa's not a big fan of makeup and said no. Whoopsies! Management asked her to take her natural, glowing complexion elsewhere.
Since it is technically legal to fire an employee for not wearing makeup (we hope the same holds true for men), so Shenoa had no recourse for retaliation. (She's since found another gig with less offensive management.)
May we suggest that the next time you're in San Diego, you dine someplace where people don't get fired for liking the way they look -- and oh, their civil rights.
The Most Annoying Customers
The Very Important Person
Some charmers can't even take 30 seconds to place an order without taking a cell phone call. "I can't say how many times I want to take that phone and drop it in their water glass," says Steve Dublanica of waiterrant.net and writer of the best-selling book: "Waiter Rant: Thanks for the Tip -- Confessions of a Cynical Waiter."
Brian Indrelunas, Flickr
The Finger-Snapper
Let's get one thing straight: A server is not the same thing as a servant. The immediate neediness the act displays alone is enough. "Don't make your waitress run around like you're the only people in the restaurant!" says "Bitter" of bitterwaitress.com. Ali of ev-boulevard.blogspot.com has even had customers whistle to get her attention.
CarbonNYC, Flickr
The Mind Readee
The person who is ready to order but continues to read the menu and is annoyed when it takes the waitress longer to check in. This is the same person who is likely to be offended if you check in on them too soon.
radiospike photography, Flickr
The Square Peg
Strict vegans who are angry when a steakhouse can't accommodate them are barking up the wrong tree. "Let's put the shoe on the other foot," Dublanica says. "I walk into a vegan restaurant and I say I want a porterhouse." Doesn't work so much, does it?
ckpicker, Flickr
The Caste-Off
This snob blatantly talks down to their waiter or waitress or becomes aggressive when something is wrong. "Seriously, getting on like someone has just shat in your lap isn't going to make the waiter move with any greater urgency," says Manuel of welldonefillet.blogspot.com. If it's a bad idea to bite the hand that feeds you, it's equally dumb to insult the hand that brings you the plate.
MBIMOTMOG, Flickr
The Dieter
It's one thing to be a picky eater, but put the brakes on unreasonable requests. Greens instead of the side of roast parsnips? Probably fine. But the chef can't magically extract the cream and olive oil from the alfredo sauce that was pre-made for the night.
malias, Flickr
The Potlucker
Customers who bring their own food really shouldn't even be called customers. As one Insane Waiter (allprowaiter.blogspot.com) blogger states, "A customer spends money." You don't go to a boutique to try on your own clothes, so don't go to cafe to eat your tuna fish sandwich. There are park benches just begging for your company.
dannybirchall, Flickr
The Breeder
Kids can be cute, but pair noisy or rambunctious ones with oblivious parents and you've got a recipe for angry patrons. Especially when it's a Saturday night. The restaurant is rife with people who are hoping to get laid later -- they don't need have the mood killed by a screaming, sauce-smeared reminder of the consequences.
wakkysweet, Flickr
The Delicate Flower
We feel sorry for people who have terrible allergies, but not when they fail to communicate that fact until after the food has been served. "Don't say, 'I'm allergic to pine nuts,' after you start eating the pesto," says Dublanica.
justpat, Flickr
The Lingerer
Catching up with your friends? Fun. Sitting around long after you've finished, even though it's the height of the dinner rush? Jerk move. "If there's no one in the restaurant and you're making goo-goo eyes at your boyfriend, that's fine," says Dublanica. But if there's a wait at the door, you're keeping others from their meal and your server from her next chance to make money.
Becca Bandit, Flickr
13 Things to Do Before You Quit
Daring Summer Makeup Trends (in case you do wear the stuff)
Cool Waitresses Who Blog
Why You Should Quit if Your Boss is a Creep














Comments:
Add a comment
Friday 22 May
By bob
Boycott Trophy!
Reply
Friday 22 May
By Bob2
Whatever happened to it's my company and I will hire whom I choose? We are all doing things that we would not necessarily do in exchange for making a living. If the job requirements do not fit your personal views, get another job at a place that does. I think that we tend to see whomever is percieved as the victim as having greater rights than those that we do not. The person earned enough money to buy the business that this lady works at and then cannot make decisions that he or she deems necessary to make it successful. What about the infringement on his/her rights?
Friday 22 May
By Mule
I second that motion! Boycott Trophy's! What is the world coming to?
Friday 22 May
By hatesCorporateAmerica
bob i agree with you in boycotting this place.... to respond to the prick below this comment.... he is probably an A$$ kisser who or better yet a YES man at his place of employment and doesnt care about anyone but him self...... who cares if its the owners rules.... thats called micro-managing and no one like a micro managing boss... thats why i get happy when companies like Wachovia, and Bank of America, Citi, Bear Sterns, GM, Ford, etc... im glad they are going under.. The long hours for the bottom of the road employees to see their garbarge products and pay them nothing to begin with... Yea she should have a say in wearing make up.....its her face and as one person said what if she was allergic to makeup... Whatever happened to taking care of your employees... BOYCOTT THIS GAY A$$ Place
Saturday 23 May
By star
When you are WORKING for someone it is their rules. I don't wear alot of makeup either, It would be MY choice to continue to work for them or to look elsewhere. They BOUGHT the company, so when people say where is their rights... It's THE OWNERS RIGHTS to decide how their EMPLOYEES look.
I know people are thinking, Oh, you are probably an employer; NO, I am not.
I am a little above minimum wage, ( wish I could be ) but it is the employees CHOICE of who she / he WORKS for. I applaud the company for standing up for their rights to make decisions... That is America. It is also her right to choose not to work for someone who makes her wear makeup. Personally, I wouldn't work there and would resign, would not sue. Hope she does not..Our world is filled with frivolous lawsuits that the American taxpayers keep paying for. All in all --- It is the employees choice to decide who to work for or not work for. Remember this line in most applications -- " At will employee" You are hired and remain hired " At will ".
Friday 22 May
By juliefrein
I believe the waitress should go to the ACLU and sue on the grounds of discrimination and violation of her civil rights. If the management is not requiring men to wear make-up, then the women should not be required to either. There are also people who have allergies to make-up.
Reply
Friday 22 May
By Rachel
I totally agree!
Friday 22 May
By Erica P.
I study Business Law:
In the 2006 case of Jesperson v. Harrah's Operating Co. Jesperson lost the case or this very thing; however, she did NOT have an expert testimony on the time is takes to apply the make-up and the cost of make-up.
She can prove her case and file under disparate impact since men do not have to take the time, effort, and money to apply make-up. As long as she can PROVE these things with EVIDENCE, she might be able to win over the court system. However, since she's in California's 9th Circuit, I bid you GOOD LUCK because it's the same circuit that did Jesperson's case.
Make a case with the EEOC, this isn't covered under Title VII, but if you can show receipts of make-up prices and show the difference in prices vs. quality, show whether or not you're skin is sensitive to certain make-ups, and set up a demonstration on how lon it takes to apply the make-up at the quality that's sufficient to the employer.... you just might win this case.
Friday 22 May
By sandlionarrakis
Good point. Makeup can also aggravate some skin conditions and it's just not healthy either.
Friday 22 May
By Sandy
I think it is well within the rights of a business owner to create the look he/she wants for their business. The waitress was given time to comply with the new requirement and chose not to. In this recession I would think investing in $20.00 of make-up and spending 5 extra minutes preparing for work each day in exchange for regular employment would be well worth it.
Friday 22 May
By A4MANBOB
TYPICAL LIB
Friday 22 May
By Kathy
If the picture is correct, it shows that she is white and we all know that the ACLU doesn't even entertain the idea of helping white people!
LOLOL... Sad, but true.
Friday 22 May
By eric7454
Ha Call ACLU ? That is a job and jobs are not a Civil Right !!! should I "Sue" the NFL because I am not fast enough to play pro football ???? Grow Up !!!!!
Monday 01 June
By Bob S.
You are right. The waitress should sue for sex discrimination, whether through the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (if too much time hasn't passed),or the applicable state or local anti-discrimination governmental agency. Unless men are equally required to wear make-up, on its face, this seems to be a clear case of prohibited (illegal) sex discrimination.
Sunday 19 July
By Sarahv
Where do you draw the line when it comes to grooming, hygiene, and appearance? Can an employer demand that employees wear deodorant? Can an employer require employees to bathe at a certain interval, adopt (or not adopt) certain hairstyles, remove piercings, etc? What about uniforms? What if an employee doesn't like/isn't flattered by a uniform item?
I wouldn't want to work in a place where make-up was required, and I am curious to know how the management defined suitable "make-up" for employment. But, at the end of the day, if the management clearly outlined grooming standards and applied them equally to all employees, then it is generally a fair practice.
In light of that, then it is up to CONSUMERS (not the courts) to punish this business. If you don't like the business' policies, dine elsewhere (boycott). This situation is not worthy of the courts or the ACLU.
Friday 22 May
By vgkflc
Makeup?? The picture shows me that makeup would only take awy from a natural beauty and makeup is over rated anyway.
Reply
Saturday 23 May
By A Tight Scotswoman
There is no reason t o fire someone for not wearing makeup. It is a personal choice whether to do so or not. Would this allow a company to NOT hire someone who may be allergic to products or the contents?
Call the ACLU!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
Friday 22 May
By Don
The employer should be obligated to providing makeup and sessions on applications for their employees since it is their requirement for the job. What is their next step? Fire someone because their makeup isn't applied right or its the wrong shade for the particular employee?
Gimmeeabreak!
All the employees should wear makeup (men included) poorly applied, just to show how ridiculous it is.
Reply
Friday 22 May
By Mule
I agree! this is the most reasonable solution to most of the arguments presented. Make the employer responsible for the cost of make-up and application lessons. Many people live by the seat of their pants monetarily and this is a burden on many who either can't afford the stuff, are allergic to it, or just plain don't need it or want it. Some religions forbid it!
Friday 22 May
By joey
There is no reason for her to sue. If she owns the business then she makes the rules. If people dont like the way she was treated then they shoudnt patronize teh place. If they agree with the owner's policy of wanting to class up the place by doing that then they should patronize the place. The customers are ultimately in control of the business but the person who risks their money for the business should be the one who calls the shots as they see fit. The government should let the consumer ruin or make businesses. The government should stay butted out of business. This includes the ACLU and other organizations who think more laws are the answer.
Reply