[quote]A muslim cocktail waitress who quit after refusing to wear a bright red dress for work has won almost £3,000 in compensation for sexual harassment.
Fata Lemes, 33, was handed the payout even though a tribunal panel rejected her claim that the dress was “sexually revealing and indecent”.
It concluded that the Bosnian Muslim “holds views about modesty and decency which some might think unusual in Britain”.
But it accepted that Miss Lemes genuinely believed that the short, low-cut dress was “disgusting” and made her look “like a prostitute”.
She told the tribunal she quit her job at the Rocket bar in London’s Mayfair after eight days as she “might as well be naked” in the dress.
She added: “I was brought up Muslim and am not used to wearing sexually attractive clothes.”
However, a Facebook picture of Miss Lemes emerged showing her in a skimpy outfit after the tribunal in December was finished.[/quote]
She’s clearly glossing over some aspects of her religion in profiting from selling alcohol.
On one hand, you could decry this kind of frivolous lawsuit and say that it trivialises real sexual harrassment. Or you could argue in a culture of reality TV and MP expenses money-for-nothing, you can’t demonise someone at the lower end of the income scale for cashing in when she can.
Who cares? It’s a shame that she doesn’t realise that poor and ignorant people use stories like this to demonise her culture and religion, and the next time there there is a real case of discrimination, fewer people will listen because she cried wolf to get some cash.
It’s pretty slinky. If you choose to wear that, or less, that’s your choice, but to be coerced into is pretty dodgy. A lot of women would feel uncomfortable wearing that, Muslim or not.
I think the dress looks great on her. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. I can imagine there are women who wouldn’t feel comfortable in it, though, but she doesn’t look uncomfortable and the dress isn’t unflattering.
I would ask the same question. Why does it suddenly become a religious question? Money, perhaps?[/quote]
1 minute to find the answer:
[quote]The Bosnian was given a loose-fitting, black uniform when she started work last May.
But she was told she would be expected to wear the red dress in the summer.[/quote]
Source with a picture of here in that dress.[/quote]
I guess they didn’t tell her about the new Summer uniform.
Still, why talk about religion when you are working in a location that is clearly not in compliance with said religion? If the labor laws in the UK are anything like what I’ve seen in Australia, it is very easy to get a claim off of an employer. I’ve seen people who have forged documents argue for reinstatement and win. Something sounds fishy when your initial claim is for 20k pounds. My guess that is more than annual compensation. If my firm asked me to do something I felt uncomfortable with, I would be out the door in a NY minute.
Of course, I’m quite sure The Sun with its high editorial standards has quoted her properly.
Why was she given £3k for this after only working there for 8 days? Doesn’t that compensation seem a little high for having worked there for such a short period of time? It isn’t as though she was out anything after 8 days, that’s still a probation period for most jobs. If she had been working for a significant amount of time then it would be understandable to receive compensation because she would actually be out something.
Weird. I thought that kind of silliness only went on in the US.
As has been mentioned, it does seem strange that she was working in a place selling alcohol.
I guess the point comes down to whether she was informed about having to wear that dress before she started or not. If yes, then why did she take the job? If not, then it seems like she was lied to, so fair enough. I don’t think I’d like to see the government involved, and I would prefer that such employers simply got ostracised by either patrons or employees for lying to their staff, though I can’t see that really happening.
The whole things sounds fishy to me… a little bit like vegetarians who eat fish. With all the current tensions that exist, is there no chance that this could just be some kind of stunt to elevate tensions and hatred?
Stunt to get £3000, I think, coupled with a little bit of ‘why should I put up with this shit?’. That’s a fair bit of cash for some one who doesn’t make much money, in the capital. I don’t think there’s any big conspiracy.
If she wasn’t told, or it was a new policy, then she may have a point- but in general, if you take the job you do it, doesn’t matter whether it’s Muslim taxi drivers refusing to take dogs or alcohol, or Fundy pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions they don’t like.
Here’s another example, also from the UK-didn’t crazy lawsuits used to be mostly American?
[quote]AN Orthodox Jewish couple are suing their neighbours in a block of Bournemouth flats over motion sensors which automatically turn on the lights in the communal hallway.
The pair of religious dolts – Dena and Gordon Coleman – insist that the system, installed to cut down lighting costs at Embassy Court, makes them prisoners in their own flat between Friday evenings and Saturday nights.
According to the Times, like many Orthodox Jews, the Colemans will not use electricity between sundown on Friday and Saturday night, which they regard as a day of rest. But since the sensors were installed, the lights come on as soon as they set foot outside their front door – which they say makes them “responsible” for switching them on and therefore prohibits them from leaving the building.
The couple say that their human rights have been breached, and are claiming up to £5,000 damages. If their claim is successful, the owners of the 35 flats in the seafront building will be liable to pay the couple’s costs as well as any damages.[/quote]
[quote]AN Orthodox Jewish couple are suing their neighbours in a block of Bournemouth flats over motion sensors which automatically turn on the lights in the communal hallway.
The pair of religious dolts – Dena and Gordon Coleman – insist that the system, installed to cut down lighting costs at Embassy Court, makes them prisoners in their own flat between Friday evenings and Saturday nights.
According to the Times, like many Orthodox Jews, the Colemans will not use electricity between sundown on Friday and Saturday night, which they regard as a day of rest. But since the sensors were installed, the lights come on as soon as they set foot outside their front door – which they say makes them “responsible” for switching them on and therefore prohibits them from leaving the building.
The couple say that their human rights have been breached, and are claiming up to £5,000 damages. If their claim is successful, the owners of the 35 flats in the seafront building will be liable to pay the couple’s costs as well as any damages.[/quote]
The original story is good fun too, but pretty much par for the course in the UK these days. You can be absolutely certain the bar has at least £10m in insurance against employees suing them. It’s de rigeur these days. Of all the insurance you buy in a business, the biggest coverage must be for employees suing you.
But back to the OP, guys, if you had always worn a regular white shirt and black pants to work and then were suddenly told you HAD TO wear a tight white tank top and cycling shorts, would you shrug and say ‘OK’? Of course, it might not bother you, but it might. Saying it’s your religion allows an easily understandable, codified excuse. She can’t say; ‘I felt fat in in, and trashy, and I hated being told I had to put myself on show or be unemployed again’. the more I think about it, the less problem I have with the award, which certainly won’t keep her long in London.
Ehh…just because you’re less well off and living in The City makes it less of a frivolous lawsuit?
You’re right though. The religion issue was just grasping for an issue. She did choose to become unemployed again, just grabbed some cash on the way out.
This is me mowing the lawn. I didn’t complain. Seems the couple next door had an opinion.
