Bruised Hooter’s Waitress Wins Lawsuit

by Venomous Kate

It’s no coincidence that ugly girls don’t work at Hooter’s. After all, the company’s employee handbook requires waitresses to maintain a “glamorous appearance” with hair that’s styled as if they’re going out on a big date or to a photo shoot.

So when 27-year-old Sara Dye’s “domestic partner” beat the crap out of her, leaving her with a black eye and bruises over her body along with a hunk of missing hair, managers where she worked at the Davenport Hooter’s said the waitress couldn’t work because of the bruising.

While Dye said the restaurant was supportive after the assault, and that she understood why her appearance rendered her ineligible to work since her “body wasn’t up to par”, she nevertheless sued.

And won.

5 Comments to “Bruised Hooter’s Waitress Wins Lawsuit”

  1. She agreed to take time off, and they fired her. Big difference between the two. She and her boss agreed she should take time off to heal, then when she called to come back she was told she was fired.

    “was badly beaten and her assailant – unidentified at the hearing – cut off some of her hair.”

    How is that her “domestic partner”? And why are those words in quotes, is that a bad thing?

  2. Whether she was fired or not depends on whose story you believe; however, even she acknowledges that it was a fellow employee (not management) who told her that she was fired.

    She didn’t verify that with management and stopped going to work, hence management’s claim that she’d abandoned her job.

    And the first sentence of paragraph 4 makes it clear it was a domestic violence incident, without saying whether it was a roommate, boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, whatever. Which makes “domestic partner” the only accurate description.

    Might want to give those knees a break now, since they apparently jerked into attack mode a bit too quickly there, Summer.

  3. “the man who lays his hand upon a woman, save in the way of kindness, is a wretch whom t’were gross flattery to name a coward.”

    my father used to always say, “a man who hits a woman is not a man.”

    of course, i am making the assumption that her partner is a man.

  4. It looks like she only sued for unemployment. That seems alright.

  5. Hmmm. I would have thought she’d have sued her partner. Hooters has a set of standards, such as they are, and she could not meet those standards as the result of her partner’s beating. How is that Hooters’ fault?