Five years is too much, but some jail time is appropriate.
He should not be incarcerated. He needs help.
Let him go. It’s nothing I wouldn’t do myself.
0voters
According to major news reports “circumventing” the natural laws of relevancy, several women are suing Hooters over secret tapes… with “possible” repercussions here at Taiwan’s Hooters too.
…women who say they were secretly videotaped naked or undressing while they applied for jobs at a Los Angeles area Hooters are pissed off.
The lawsuit comes as police in a Los Angeles suburb investigate 180 video files seized from the personal computer of a former Hooters manager that show job applicants changing into the chain’s body-hugging uniforms, sometime with no underwear on so he could “see better.”
Not only that, but …what is this “private thing that girls do when they change.” (?) See next quote below.
“I was in shock when I found out,” plaintiff Elizabeth Navarette, 23, said at a press conference. “I was embarrassed to think that somebody was watching me while I thought I was alone and doing my own private thing that girls do when they change.”
The lawyer said some of the girls were asked by the manager to remove their underwear before putting on the uniform because he was concerned about lines showing through the shorts. What a leech! Or is that lech? Or letch?
Do they do that here in Taiwan, too, when local girls apply to be Hooterettes?
I can’t see any mention of Taiwan in that story either.
Here’s another random story from CNN, some cavers were rescued from a cave or something : cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03 … index.html
What repercusions will there be for cavers in Taiwan ?
I don’t see what’s so scandalous. The manager was just concerned about quality control. Similarly, women applying to be flight attendants at Singapore Airlines must wear a two piece swimsuit during part of the interview. No shit.
That “private thing that girls do when they change” is that they have hot lesbian group sex. That’s why they take so long in there.
I am shocked to learn that Hooters treats women as mere sex objects to be oogled over. I’m sure this would never happen in Taiwan, however.
The note about Singapore Airlines reminds me–many Turkish institutions (such as universities) require virginity checks from unmarried female applicants.
Dont give me any feminist crap after this but…
What exactly are the women complaining about? Someone was oggling their tits? They were trying on uniforms at Hooters, not stacking bibles in a convent. If the thought of men leering at them, and possibly beating their meat when they get home, is just too much for their sensitive personalities, then they should have tried on a McDonalds uniform instead.
[quote=“lane119”]According to major news reports “circumventing” the natural laws of relevancy, several women are suing Hooters over secret tapes… with “possible” repercussions here at Taiwan’s Hooters too.
…women who say they were secretly videotaped naked or undressing while they applied for jobs at a Los Angeles area Hooters are pissed off.
The lawyer said some of the girls were asked by the manager to remove their underwear before putting on the uniform because he was concerned about lines showing through the shorts. What a leech! Or is that lech? Or letch?
Do they do that here in Taiwan, too, when local girls apply to be Hooterettes?
CNN.com/2004/LAW/03/30/hoote … index.html[/quote]
Don’t know if it was in the CNN article, but in either Reuters or AP, it was specifically stated that Hooters actually has a policy against asking applicants to “model the uniform”, possibly for exactly that reason. The manager who taped them acted directly against the corporate policy of the chain.
While I don’t doubt that these women will sue the crap out of Hooters, the only person who actually bears responsibility in this incident is that one specific manager.
[quote]. . . Hooters actually has a policy against asking applicants to “model the uniform”, possibly for exactly that reason. The manager who taped them acted directly against the corporate policy of the chain.
While I don’t doubt that these women will sue the crap out of Hooters, the only person who actually bears responsibility in this incident is that one specific manager.[/quote]
Not only in violation of corporate policy but in clear violation of the law. I assume those who said above that they see nothing wrong with what happened weren’t being serious. Obviously there can’t be any justification for invading their privacy in this way except so the manager could get his rocks off. And I agree that he’ll probably be the only one liable unless the company was aware of his actions and did nothing about it.
On the other hand, maybe it’s just my paranoia, but I believe it’s legal for department stores to watch through a one-way mirror as one undresses in the changing room (in that case, unlike Hooters, the invasion of privacy is supposedly justified by the serious possibility that customers will steal stuff in there). For that reason, whenever I change in department store dressing rooms, I always make a point of dropping my pants and smooshing my ass against the glass just to give them a thrill. Just kidding about that last point, but I do believe they are allowed to watch you there.
[quote=“patterson”]Dont give me any feminist crap after this but…
What exactly are the women complaining about? Someone was oggling their tits? They were trying on uniforms at Hooters, not stacking bibles in a convent. If the thought of men leering at them, and possibly beating their meat when they get home, is just too much for their sensitive personalities, then they should have tried on a McDonalds uniform instead.[/quote]
I think that the response from the women was more than justified since they were changing in private. I agree that when they are working they have nothing to complain about with guys, even ladies looking at them, but when they go into a dressing room they think they are safely changing.
The guy who videotaped them is a pervert. I hope they throw his sorry ass in jail.
