Restaurant lays off waitress who shaved head for cancer charity
Heal Emru sez, "An Owen Sound, Ontario waitress at Nathaniel's restaurant was laid off for the summer after she shaved her hair for a cancer fundraiser.
I wonder if they would also turn away paying customers who were bald, especially if it was from chemo?"
Stacey Fearnall raised more than $2,700 for charity, but when she showed up for work and refused to sport a wig for her shift, her boss told her to take the summer off.Link (Thanks, Heal Emru!)Her employer, Dan Hilliard, says his restaurant has certain standards prohibiting men from wearing earrings and requiring employees to keep their hair at a reasonable length...
He says he's already heard from some customers who agree with him and say they would have been "appalled" to have been served at Fearnall's table.
What an ass (the boss).
Things like this make me disappointed in humanity.
make his business suffer
Well, she did keep her hair from growing at any length at all!
Shock! Assholes exist, have restaurants, customers are also assholes!
i like sinead when her head was shaved
and I have a sack of bungs and a mallet
apparently owen sound, ontario is a wee bit different than austin, texas. she'd pass unnoticed in our fair city. (seated this afternoon by a shaven-headed hostess.)
Not that I agree with the management, but I'm curious why she had it shaved. When I first moved to Arizona I was sporting a long ponytail which - in 118 degree heat - was like wearing a scarf. Not only did I donate it for charity at a community college event ("locks for love" I think it was called - it was for chemo-kids) but they even had REALLY GOOD stylists on deck for the trims (and by good I mean they worked all day in 100 plus degree heat outside and did a heck of a job).
They were fast - did a great 50 plus dollar styling - and I captured the longest donation for the event (22inches). Didn't have to go "bald" tho - and no one should think that's the usual result of those who donate. And to play devil's advocate, not everyone has the head of Patrick Stewart ya know.
Donate if you can tho - it's a great move for the summer and always for a good cause.
MG, nt vryn thnks lk y! Sh chs t ct ff hr hr, nd th rsltng lk dsn't ft n wth hr bss' rstrnt's mg. Tgh cks.
f sh hd gnd 200 lbs nd sddnly rfsd t wsh r s ntprsprnt, wld xpct hr t b pt n th DL t.
jb
@ mgabrysSF
"Not that I agree with the management, but I'm curious why she had it shaved."
I am a bit at a loss to this, you don't know why she did it, and then go on to say that you had your hair cut off as a charity event.
Which is it?
Internationally the shaved head thing is a solidarity gesture with Cancer patients, it could so easily be any of us being the underlying message.
Just a bit confusing.
Anyway the restaurantuer is a fool and his customers as bad.
Having been a Skinhead since I was 15 (just turning 40 this year) I can never understand how peeps freek out about the skin.
And a Skinheaded girl is a very pleasing and happy making thing.
Its not even a full shave (not that that makes any difference - the restaurant is being dumb). See the photo here:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/05/shaved-head.html
My hair's shorter than that. But then, I am as bald as a coot.
One reassuring thing about bald waitresses and waiters is that they won't drop any hairs into your food. Everyone in the kitchen should be bald too as a rule.
One awful outcome from this might be less fund raising of this nature. I worry that people will be less likely to participate if they fear for their employment. The owner of this restaurant may inadvertently be taking money away from cancer research.
And I was feeling bad about having to wear a tie for work!
Silly Canucks...
I recall a restaurant in Lodi, Calif, having a 'baldies eat free on Tuesdays' promotion a while back.
And it wasn't too sexist; quite a few of the claimants were women who shaved their heads.
See www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2004-07-08-bald-eat-free_x.htm
Unbeleiver: Ah, that's a good point. I forgot that having short hair was so unhygienic.
..wait, what?
Owen Sound. Oh you cornerstone of style and taste.
Been there. Not surprised. Take your most small minded, toothless, backwater hovel in the US and add Fox News in the form of the Toronto Sun Newspaper and you have Owen Sound.
Owen Sound is an industrial town. I bet Nathaniel's restaurant is one high class, fancy falootin' place because no man has jewelery on. No sir! Neaderthaniel's is a family place.
1) I think shaved-head women are cool and kinda hot.
2) I've had more than one waitress at nice restaurants who had shaved heads (as in clipped like this woman, not "bicced").
3) At the end of the day, though, it's this guy's restaurant and if he (seemingly rightly) thinks his customers are morons who can't stand a short-haired woman, it's his right to do something about it. What he did, let's recall, is ask her to wear a wig to placate the stupid customers. She refused, and so he told her to come back after a few months.
He didn't fire her so much as she quit. He asked her to do something to follow the dress code and she balked. He actually was quite nice about it.
Look, when employers ask me to take out my earrings on the job, I'm happy to oblige. It's their call. Ideally, I prefer to work somewhere that doesn't care, but hey, that's life. I don't refuse and then go to the news.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't strike me as an egregious use of power. Many businesses have person aesthetic codes; that's particularly the case in the service industry where employees directly represent the company's brand. If management reasonably believed that a woman with a shaved head might drive away business, then that's a reasonable professional consequence of a personal action.
Sometimes I feel like we, the Bush-hating liberals, forget that it isn't always unjust if an authority figure imposes systems that affect aspects of one's personal life. I hate wire tapping and Kyoto-bucking as much as the next reader, but I can understand why a manager wouldn't want customers scared away.
and I have a sack of bungs and a mallet
...while I have a set of bangs and a mullet
actually, I live near Owen Sound. it is not a "toothless, backwater hovel" as you suggest, Dead Robot. it has a startlingly high proportion of millionaires per capita because they like to retire to the stately Georgian brick homes on the treed "mountain"-side and look out over their boats in the bay.
Owen Sound was the end of the underground railroad in Ontario for many escaped slaves and boasts a proud black history - in fact, the area Member of Parliament (that's our elected rep at the federal level) for many years was Ovid Jackson - a black immigrant from Guyana (for those of you who are feeling smug about Obama).
it also has a large and thriving arts community.
so this business owner is an anomoly. a blip. i'll be avoiding the restaurant...
"She said she told her bosses what she was planning to do"
and apparently they didn't tell her the consequences. That IS an egregious use of power. Shame on them. I hope they lose more customers than the few who would be "appalled" by short hair.
Wow. Just think of the positive publicity and new customers they could be getting for her actions. Short-sighted and foolish.
Thnk bck 30 yrs nd s wht th rctn wld hv bn. Sm s th mngr dd! Nt vryn chss t b s "prgrssv" s y, nd ccpt wmn's shvd hds s "nrml." H hs vry rght t dcd tht t wld shck hs clntèl nd hrt hs rstrnt's ncm, nd t's NN f yr bsnss!
Fr ppl wh r "tlrnt" nd wnt "frdm" fr thrs, y flks sr rn't shwng t t ths gy. Mst f ths cmmnts cnsttt th mst ntlrnt, htfl (nm-cllng!) stff 'v sn n lng whl. Y flks ght t lk t yr wn slvs, frst!
Props to Kyle and Jflex.
mplymnt s n dlt cnsnsl rltnshp.
For some jobs, personal appearance does not affect the job performance at all. I run a 12-person company, and there's no dress code at all. Then again, we operate out of what used to be the men's cellblock in the town jail in Arlington, MA.
If we faced out customers ever day, I might ask my (male) customer support guy not to wear a skirt to work, I might ask my female purchasing manager to wear a collared shirt, and I'd have to go shopping post-haste to get some respectable clothes myself.
T m, t snds lk th mngr ws mr thn wllng t mt th mply hlfwy, nd sh chs t mk pltcl stnc.
Fn, gd fr hr ('m srs bt tht, btw!).
f hr r f th cntry s nythng lk mn, thr r thsnds f thr jbs sh cn tk.
f cstmrs lk cnvntnl lkng wt stff, thy shld frqnt th rstrnt. f thy vl fr-frm "nythng gs" sthtc, thy shld byctt t.
cn't s tht ths s mrl ss t ll.
Kyle & Jflex & TJIC- very well put- :-)
I wonder what would happen if she lost her hair because she actually had cancer?
I wonder what would happen if her boss had cancer?
I don't wish cancer on anyone, it can be something that one can overcome, or something that is heartbreaking.
As others have noted the waitress' head is not "shaved", on the contrary she looks like a Buddhist monk, which I for one think is cool.
I am surprised by other posts that there is any significant population of rednecks in Canada: given Canada's anti-gun laws, high taxes, universal healthcare, sex education TV programs, etc., these poor bubbas-of-the-north must stoke out routinely amid a permanent state of stress, anguish and outrage. I am surprised they haven't loaded up their pickup trucks and emmigrated to the 'mericun midwest where they would not doubt find their utopia!
I just want to note that 'He says he's already heard from some customers who agree with him and say they would have been "appalled" to have been served at Fearnall's table.' sounds a lot like 'the lurkers support me by email'.
Some of the comments are a bit odd. Cory's summary and the story basically describe this woman who did a very noble thing and was laid off her job for it. Then immediately folks like Unbeliever and TJIC rush in with the "it's his restaurant, the owner can hire or fire whomever he wants for whatever aesthetic reasons he chooses." Which, of course, neither the summary nor the article dispute.
However, I think the prevailing opinion will certainly be that laying off someone for that hairstyle is unreasonable and bizarre, and it is good to know in order that people can avoid patronizing this restaurant and any other business this yahoo might own.
Yes, the employee/employer relationship is an "adult consensual" one as TJIC puts it, but so is my decision to patronize businesses, and as a diehard capitalist knowing that a business takes action against people like this is information I would find extremely valuable in deciding whether or not I really want to engage in an economic transaction at this restaurant.
If the restauranteur gets away with this kind of restriction, this will put a damper on cancer donations.
Most of the people employed in the service sector are women, and will be unlikely to participate in any fund-raising in the future so this is a gender related issue and damanges the prospect of raising money for cancer and will negatively impact cancer awareness.
Very possibly the interest was breast cancer that motivated the serving staff.
Either that, or she's a bush-diver.
@ Brian- you are mistaken. The woman did not do a noble thing, and get fired for doing that noble thing. She did a noble thing, and then went against her company's dress code. She was asked to put on a wig (I'm sure a scarf or something would have been fine too) and she refused. She was fired for demanding to display her bald head in the workplace, in a customer-service position, against the requirements of her job position (not scare the customers) and the requirements of her boss. She was NOT fired for 'doing a noble thing'.
I'm sorry but I would have done exactly the same thing as that boss. And I'll tell you- in that same vein, when I lived in the Seattle area, I have refused to patronize food establishments that had people with dreadlocks making or serving food. I would POLITELY tell the management about it too, and explain exactly why they were losing my business. So it goes both ways! sn't t grt tht w lv n fr cntry, whr LL ppl rn't frcd t pt p wth wht w cnsdr t b ffnsv!
Umm- "no people are forced"- double negative- yeah :-p
I won't dispute that the boss has the legal right to employ or not employ anyone he chooses. Canadian and Ontario employment standards offer less protection for food service and retail workers than most people expect.
And I've been to Owen Sound too. It's no Toronto, (and probably glad of that) but a shaven head, especially for the purposes of charity, is well within community standards.
It seems to me the real issue is the boss' moral and intellectual standards, as revealed by his callous and just-plain-stupid actions.
Or am I just arguing *ad hominum*?
A follow-up to this story is here: http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1062037
Probably it was a St. Baldrick's thing.
http://www.stbaldricks.org/
The small-c conservative meme that we must be tolerant of intolerance, lest the intolerant lose their shit, is very very strange.
Dreads are an entirely different proposition in terms of the only rational argument here, hygiene. Even then, though, if they are properly tied back and covered in the same way that all long hair in a kitchen should be, there's no reasonable objection beyond "I just think it's icky." Which is fine. Reasonable people are beholden to let you have that idea, but not to allow you to get people fired.
Sic 'em, internet.
So, exactly how is this boss being stupid, in listening to his customers say they would be "appalled" to be served by this woman? And taking into account the fact that they would have taken their business elsewhere, thereby hurting his restaurant's income? It's a simple business decision.
Why should this man be forced to put his business and his income on the line because of the statement this woman wants to make? Let her make her own statement, and reap the consequences. He is not required to, and neither is he stupid for refusing to lose income because he doesn't want to back her political views.
"Think back 30 years and see what the reaction would have been. Same as the manager did! Not everyone chooses to be as "progressive" as you, and accept women's shaved heads as "normal." He has every right to decide that it would shock his clientèle and hurt his restaurant's income, and it's NONE of your business!"
I can't hire fat people! My clients are shallow and would be shocked. (Also: No ugly chicks! Or chicks that aren't conventionally feminine in appearance. There will be girdle checks.)
I can't hire black people, either, because my clients are racist and it would hurt my business! I don't have to choose to accept black people in my restaurant. Well, actually maybe I *could* hire black people, but only if they wear light colored makeup to look "normal". Afros, after all, are inappropriate and non-professional. So maybe I'll hire black people, but only ones with light skin and straight hair.
And of course, I can't hire people with disabilities, because they are not "normal" and seeing someone with a withered arm would put my squeamish customers off their food!
Please, won't someone think of my asshole customers? Now that all the other restaurants in town don't factor conventionality of appearance into their hiring, they have nowhere else to go! I MUST DIFFERENTIATE MY BRAND!
Nathanials: Where you won't have to look at the scary, unpleasant freaks.
Hilliard said, "First it was all them funny outfits she was wearin', like a nurses uniform and fishnet stockings, the Alice in Wonderland dress, then the PVC catsuit . Then them big boots and the blue n' green hair. When she shaved her head I just couldn't take it any more. Finally when Myrtle Applegoober, the chairwoman of the Bride of Christ Ladies Auxiliary said she'd stop having their Wednesday afternoon meetin' here, I hadda let 'er go."
a business decision? Wallll! Thet's good news! "Hey Martha! Tell the coloureds and that jew-boy dishwasher the gummint made me hire to git lost!"
"Tell 'em its nuthin' person-nul, jist bidness"
So would this restaurant hire a naturally bald person? Isn't that discrimination if they didn't?
I grow my hair out for Locks of Love so this kind of story saddens me.
I think part of the outrage is that she didn't just shave her head as a personal aesthetic decision, she did it as a sacrifice and gesture of solidarity to cancer patients, as a fundraising event. This isn't even particularly unusual - I see it in Ottawa all the time, and I see stories about it on the internet. Someone will pledge to shave their head if X amount of donations to Y cancer charity are collected by date Z.
Other things I've seen pledged in a similar vein is wearing a ridiculous costume in public all day, or a non-transvestite man pledging to cross-dress for a day, or do some other mildly uncomfortable and socially embarrassing stunt.
Yes, the restaurant has a dress code, but I think if one of my employees told me they were doing this kind of fund-raiser, I'd use it as positive publicity for my company. Put a big sign up at the door congratulating the employee, and showing a before and after photo, and proudly displaying how much money she raised doing this. Put a collection box under the sign, soliciting further donations for the charity.
That way your customers know that this doesn't reflect your company's aesthetic, but it DOES reflect your companies morals. And they may be less rude to the waitress when they see her, having been primed to understand it was for charity. Folks who otherwise would be nasty because they don't like the image this projects might be inclined to at least keep it to themselves.
@Lilorfnannie:
Well, it's stupid in a number of ways.
1) Healthcare and the like are one of the most important ways Canadians distinguish themselves from Americans (the others being peacekeeping with the army through the UN, and beer. No, I'm not trying to be funny.) Since Canadian national identity is closely tied to the notion of being Not American -- again, I'm quite serious -- doing anything that even vaguely resembles messing with a cancer charity is going to rile up most Canadians.
2) Somehow thinking that waving "employee-employer issue" around is going to make people not talk about something, or the press not report on something.
3) Thinking that risking all his clientele and horrible publicity is worth it to save some of his clientele. This is especially true in that Tim Horton's (which, again, is a major Canadian icon) had been getting pounded in the news in just the last few weeks for similar cases. He's undoubtedly seen in just the last few weeks that marketing is optics, not truth and justice.
In short, being a fool for thinking that just because he's the boss of his restaurant there either aren't forces much bigger than he and utterly pitiless, or that he doesn't need to pay attention to them.
For his naivete, it looks like his restaurant might be taking a whole lot more than just the summer off.
To recap:
- Employee within her rights to go suedehead for charity.
- Employer within his rights to impose arbitrary dress code.
- Everyone on the internet within their rights to boycott the restaurant, or not.
Thank you and have a pleasant day.
Employer within his rights to impose arbitrary dress code.
debatable
Hey, does anybody else remember this post:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/23/fishstick-a-brand-ne.html
and did anybody else listen to the Sacks-Minnelli Disease episode(~22m) of youlooknicetoday:
http://youlooknicetoday.com/episode/sacksminnelli-disease
I can't help but wonder if Stacey is also being sleepy and nauseated. Did she watch T.V. (maybe some Days of Our Lives)? How big was her cheque?
This could be a good case study to determine if the phrase "there is no such thing as bad publicity" is really true.
How many people out there are so anti-bald, anti-philanthropic or pro-cancer that they would go out of there way to eat at this restaurant? Versus those that will now avoid it because of the press.
The internet and media in general could screw this up by making a martyr of the man they call for action go beyond "vote with your wallet!" Don't give him the opportunity to play himself off as the victim.
@ #39:
"So, exactly how is this boss being stupid, in listening to his customers say they would be "appalled" to be served by this woman? And taking into account the fact that they would have taken their business elsewhere, thereby hurting his restaurant's income? It's a simple business decision."
Well, a smarter boss might have anticipated that there could be a public backlash against his actions, resulting in an even greater loss of business for the restaurant. Which appears to have happened.
However, reading the follow-up by coreDumped (@ #45) I'm beginning to wonder if the boss wasn't set up for this. It seems he and the waitress discussed this in advance. And instead of threatening to fire her if she shaved her head, he warned her that she'd have to wear a wig while serving the public to conform to the established dress code of this "upscale restaurant".
She refused, and he sent her home until either she agreed to wear a wig or her hair grew back.
Lilorfnannie @24:
Don't be absurd. "Us folks" should be tolerent of intolerence? How is that supposed to even work? Even if it was a tenet of our little community out here on the internet prairie, which it isn't.
The manager has clearly been intolerent. It is not a shocking or even a clearly unaesthetic choice to wear one's hair cropped short. And that it was done for charity, and in honour of one's dead friend, just makes the manager's intolerence of it and reluctance to look beyond his dress code that much more appalling. It doesn't even make good business sense, as has been pointed out above. Even the most self-serving and venal businessman knows to at least make the appearance of supporting charity.
Preaching tolerence of intolerence is a recipe for allowing the intolerent to take over. "Us folks" don't believe in that namby-pamby "logical" all-inclusive toleration, we believe in active, muscular toleration that will not allow intolerence to grow in any dark corner. The excoriation this foolish man is getting here is an example of that.
let the story unfold and see what else emerges
wonder how his customers feel about turbans?
@47
In Canada, its not debatable. Employer's have that right.
On the internet, it certainly is debatable.
Right or wrong, clearly bad business as the restraunt has been locked down to weather the storm. No profits made, no salaries paid.
I am so sick of people not understanding this..
Someone is capable of being a complete dick while simultaneously being "within their rights".
If a muscular young man shoves an old lady out of the way to cross the street, he is an asshole.
NO, he doesn't *have* to help her cross the street, but he really should.
And of course in that instance there would be a flock of internet libertarians coming out to defend his actions: "He shouldn't be forced to help an old lady across the street! He was within his rights to shove her out of the way!"
The owner is an ASSHOLE for firing his employee.
Just because he may technically have the right to be an asshole means NOTHING, so shut up and stop pointing it out.
I'm always shocked and a little horrified when people say it's alright to fire someone on dubious grounds. An 'adult consensual relationships' someone even described it as. You think anyone with any kind of choice or freedom would spend the majority of their time working at a restaurant? No. You have to work to survive, and you have to accept the terms given to you if you want to work. I think anyone who thinks they, as an employee, have much of a choice in the matter is buying into the bullshit a bit.
That said, there is probably a legal reason why this is wrong. Particularly in Canada, the law protects employees from wrongful dismissal--if you look into the Tim Horton's case that somebody mentions above, what's more likely: that she was fired for giving a crying child a mini-donut? Or that her manager had been watching the surveillance tapes like a hawk for the flimsiest excuse to fire anyone? These laws meant to protect us just means the managers of the world have to enlist surveillance techniques to screw us.
And anyone who would feel 'appalled' to be served by a bald waitress, is just too small-minded for words. I mean, were they dropped on their heads as a child by a bald babysitter or what?
Well, now that his restaurant is closed for a bit, some of his customers won't have to be appalled at seeing this woman's short hair.
Well, now that his restaurant is closed for a bit, some of his customers won't have to be appalled at seeing this woman's short hair.
hair discrimination. Wow. IF the staff has to have a certain look, will the same principle applies to everybody in management and upper management?. Who came out with this rule?, some long hair person with no earrings?.
Anybody knows if this goes against the Charter of Rights?
By the way, those people lost my business, I wonder what other restaurant/stores they own.
It occurs to me that any boss willing to fire you for supporting cancer (and the point of shaving the head was to be seen without hair) then this isn't the sort of boss you want. She'll have a new job soon I think.
regarding employer's rights to set terms of employment (consented to by the employee at the onset), specifically in regard to dress:
What if the employer tell the waitresses to dress like prostitutes and lets the male waiters wear what they wish?
What if the employer forbids religious garb such as crucifixes, stars of David, hijabs, burkas, turbans, kirpans etc.?
What if the employer has all staff, including those in their sixties, to dress like hip hop skateboarders?
What if the employer requires staff to wear SS uniforms in sympathy with the employer's support of the Nazi Party?
start there
@61
I'm no lawyer, but I used do marketing for an employment standards act newsletter/magazine, so I have some layman's understanding.
In Canada its likely:
What if the employer tell the waitresses to dress like prostitutes and lets the male waiters wear what they wish?
Within employer's rights.
What if the employer forbids religious garb such as crucifixes, stars of David, hijabs, burkas, turbans, kirpans etc.?
Not within employer's rights.
What if the employer has all staff, including those in their sixties, to dress like hip hop skateboarders?
Within employer's rights.
What if the employer requires staff to wear SS uniforms in sympathy with the employer's support of the Nazi Party?
Not within an employer's rights.
I appreciate your point, Takuan, but I really object to the term consent here. Waitressing/waitering are the best paying jobs someone without qualifications is likely to get. I know plenty of people who essentially make careers out of it. So it's not like when the boss hands you a dress code or whatever you quibble over details. It's more likely she signed off on it whenever she was hired and forgot about it for the crock of shite it was, only for it to come back now. The boss has all the power here because I guarantee there are loads of people working at the McDonald's down the road who wouldn't mind trying their hand at waitressing. If she hadn't agreed to the dress code, the positions would be reversed--she would be at McDonald's looking in. So, you know, I always thought consensus was something reached between equals, not something you get forced into while possessing some purely hypothetical freedom to go elsewhere.
Regardless, employees have legal protections from wrongful dismissal, and I'm not sure those protections haven't failed here.
Hey Takuan,
I realize it's not Canadian, although they may well have branches there, but consider Hooters.
All the waitresses are required to be women. And all of them are required to dress like prostitutes.
Do you have to like it, no.
But it's definitely legal here in the US.
-abs
"Appalled"?! Really?! I'm appalled that their are people that think like that.
hmmm (Ontario Human Rights Act)
"What are my rights in employment?
The Ontario Human Rights Code (the "Code") states that it is public policy to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every person, and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination.
Employment decisions should be based on the applicant's ability to do the job and not on factors that are unrelated to the job. For this reason, employers are advised to ask only questions that relate to the job, and not ask questions that might lead to discrimination.
Freedom from discrimination
The Code prohibits discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, same-sex partnership status, family status and handicap.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (the Commission) considers "employment" to include full-time and part-time work, contract work, temporary work for an agency, and probationary periods. "Employment" may even include volunteer work.
What about job ads?
Job advertisements cannot directly or indirectly ask about race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, same-sex partnership status, family status or handicap.
Some qualifications can unfairly prevent or discourage people from applying for a job. For example, a job that requires "Canadian experience" may create discriminatory barriers.
Requirements or duties of employment should be reasonable, genuine and directly related to the job. For example, it is reasonable and job-related to require that a receptionist speak clearly in English, but it is not acceptable to require "unaccented English".
What about applications forms?
It is not acceptable to include questions that relate directly or indirectly to the prohibited grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, same-sex partnership status, family status or handicap.
The types of questions that are acceptable are those that ask if it is legal for a candidate to work in Canada, or if the candidate has the necessary skills needed to perform the job (such as fluency in English for a receptionist’s position).
Employment-related medical examinations or inquiries that are part of the applicant screening process are not permitted (see the Commission’s Policy on Employment-Related Medical Information)."
It seems that an opportunity was missed here by the restaurant owner. The responses of his customers aren't a given - the same customer might agree with him that a shaved head is inappropriate or that it's not so shocking and in a good cause depending on how he is approached, and the general tone of the restaurant. It's sad that it was missed, but representatively human that it was missed, and those of us who only know part of the story shouldn't get too upset by it.
Would this be an issue if the employee was male?
Methinks not (though I cant be 100% sure, of course. I don't know what the restaurant's exact policy for appearance is).
I am guessing these "appalled" customer are the sorts who think women belong in the kitchen and/or poppin' out babies once a year.
This strikes me as sexism.
@61 - Takuan
Given the convolutions over what is legal or not and my lack of understanding of said nitpickery, I can't comment on the legality of your scenarios. My method of judging situations is to look for signs of respect or disrespect in them. In this case the follow-up article includes information to show that both sides were probably boneheaded.
Specific to your scenarios, though, I'll apply my filter:
"What if the employer tell the waitresses to dress like prostitutes and lets the male waiters wear what they wish?"
I know of several places like this: Hooters, bars, strip clubs, "lingerie" eateries, etc. Maybe not "prostitutes" per se, but the expected dress for women is definitely much more risque. Of the women that I know that have worked there, all have chosen to work there and have appreciated the jump in tip money over more traditional places.
So in this case if the owner respects his employees, provides a safe work environment and is up-front about the dress requirement then I've got no problem.
"What if the employer forbids religious garb such as crucifixes, stars of David, hijabs, burkas, turbans, kirpans etc.?"
It's hard for me to think of any situation where restricting a employee's right to wear appropriate religious symbols is respectful. "Appropriate" obviously being a term that could merit more discussion.
"What if the employer has all staff, including those in their sixties, to dress like hip hop skateboarders?"
Could go either way depending on the employer. It's definitely well within what I'd consider fun and appropriate if the owner isn't an douche about it.
"What if the employer requires staff to wear SS uniforms in sympathy with the employer's support of the Nazi Party?"
Since there a lack of respect in the very basis of the scenario I can't see any reason why I'd support it.
This seems like an exercise that's screaming for a "devil's advocate" approach to show the other side.
Also the suggestion that shaving's one head is equvalent to not bathing is one of the least intelligent things I have ever heard.
I am reminded of a company a coworker of mine interviewed with, once upon a time. She said that they not only had required hair lengths (certainly maximum, probably minimum as well) for both women and men, but they actually had barbers on staff, and employees were required to get their hair cut by them on a defined schedule.
I don't imagine they could have gotten away with that (in the sense of being able to hire and retain people, not in the sense of being allowed to do it) if they hadn't been located in Rockford, Illinois, which at the time (1994) had a terrible job market. I wonder if they're still in business and have this bizarre policy.
#55 - That was the most insightful thing I've read in a month.
I'm sending this story to a friend who grew up in Owen Sound. Hopefully he can head (pun) over to Nathanial's so-called restaurant when he's back for Christmas and see if the other patrons can keep their meals down while he sits near them, shaved head and all. This owner needs to get the hell out of town once in awhile and see what's going on in the real world. What a JACKASS! As for the patrons who would have been appalled to have been served by Fearnall: I would be appalled to have to sit at the same table as you.
"I can understand why a manager wouldn't want customers scared away."
What the fuck is wrong with people? Scared away?
By what?
And all the other what ifs are bullshit. There is no what if. The woman got a hair cut, and even if it wasn't for charity, it's not affecting anybody else in the slightest, and as others have pointed out, it's actually somewhat more hygenic and neat than a lot of other options.
This isn't the 1950s y mrns. Grw p.
It takes all kids of motherfuckers to make this world go round.
If I was a regular at that restaurant I would tell the manager I would never eat there again.
What the hell is wrong with people? We need to publicly ridicule these people to re-educate them on social norms.
I know one place i'll never eat, and regardless of legal "rights" I hope the majority of the people who hear this think the same...what ever happened to morals?
I'll be in that neck of the woods in July with my family. Maybe I'll stop in, eat and then proceed to shave my head right at the table. We'll see who is appalled then.
BTW I am a cancer survivor.
> The owner is an ASSHOLE for firing his employee.
And the others who seem to think this is 'just employer vs. employee' or 'just business'...
For one, the employer wants to treat the dismissal as a permanent layoff so he can skirt labour laws that govern the employer/employee relationship, so that black and white treatment of the relationship is bunk. It's nuanced and governed by law, not by libertarian wet dreams. If the reality were otherwise, he would have just fired her.
For another, the employer was told what was happening and consented. Going back on a verbal agreement does arguably make it a moral issue.
I feel that the manager who dismissed her is pretty much a social invalid, as are customers who are 'appalled' to be served by her. The Owen Sound chamber of commerce has some work to do.
Considering the bad press the owner is now getting and the no doubt large number of boycotts his restaurant will now be enduring (rightfully imo), it wouldn't appear he was showing ANY amount of business acumen or economic sense by bowing to the concerns of what could very well be a small number of narrow minded customers.
He could have made a donation to the cause, then explained to concerned customers that he supported cops with cancer too, and ask these customers if they would like to have a portion of the profits of their meal donated to cops with cancer. Then he would have taken a possible negative and possibly turned it into something positive. So it doesn't look like PR is his strong suit either.
There's an opportunity here to capture that coveted "appalled by baldness" demographic. The restaurant should hang a banner over its door that says "OWEN SOUND'S ONLY GUARANTEED BALD-FREE RESTAURANT!"
Lbrtrns jst lv ths knds f sshls.
"The Sun Times reported that both owners said they told Fearnall before the event that they would not be happy if she shaved her head.
Fearnall, whose father died of cancer five years ago, also has a cousin fighting the disease. She said she had her head shaved Saturday, along with several dozen others in Owen Sound, as part of the Cops for Cancer project, which annually raises money for children's cancer research.
Fearnall said her bosses knew she was interested in having her head shaved because she had mentioned it on two occasions, dating back to March. She even wrote a letter expressing interest in participating in the program. She was told management would deal with it at a later time.
She said she told her boss she would not change her mind, nor would she wear a wig; her boss showed reservations about approving of a staff member appearing at work with a bald head.
"I feel like I was mistreated for doing something good, and it's not right," said Fearnall who has two daughters, aged nine and seven.
Jennifer Wright, fundraising co-ordinator for the Canadian Cancer Society's Bluewater unit, called the incident: "an unfortunate situation."
"She's one of our top fundraisers and has really put her heart into the cause."
Fearnall said she had raised $2,700 through online and local pledges.
Fearnall said even if an amicable solution were to be presented, she would not return to work at the restaurant but added she would not seek any legal action against her former employer.
"I don't want him to go out of business. They made a mistake," she said."
I hope my friend who just lost all her hair to chemo doesn't read this. While she's kind of a brash person in general, I went out to eat with her the other day and for the first half of the meal she kept her hat on despite being too hot. Not because she was ashamed of how she looks (she actually looks awesome) but because she "thought it might make someone uncomfortable." The last thing she needs is reinforcement that random restaurant-goers are appalled by bald ladies.
If the employer sent her home for having very short hair and there are male employees with equally short hair then it is plainly discrimination.
If the dress code states that all persons hair must be of a certain length or longer then the employer did nothing wrong.
I have a suspicion, having been a bald woman for several years, that this is a case of the manager not liking women with short hair.
https://secureccs.ca/donations/donations.aspx?div=2&lang=en
A petition has already been created, is ciculating via e-mail forwards, and can be accesssed here:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/JulieAnd/petition.html
Hi all. Assistant moderator here, to fill you in on why I've made off with some vowels.
Unbeliever, you've lost your vowels for being the guy who barges into a civil rights thread and whines about how everyone is foolish to be concerned about some unfortunate person's liberties, and doing it rudely. And it's your first comment, too. "Tough cookies" indeed.
Lilorfanannie, your #24 has been disemvowelled too, for telling Cory that he has no business writing about this matter, and telling everybody else that they're intolerant and hateful. And the last sentence of your #32. I've left your #39 alone.
By comparison, see Kyle Armbruster's comment (#19, unless something's been deleted). He's also making the argument that the restaurant owner has the right to establish an arbitrary dress code and fire workers for not conforming, but Kyle's got a history here as not being a troglodyte, and he's taken care to phrase his comment more respectfully, and provided more context. (Although, Kyle, while the owner does have the right to fire that waitress, Cory's also got the right to blog about it, and people have the right to be annoyed about it, and people in that town have the right, if they're also annoyed, to tell the owner that he's being a jerk, and stop eating at his restaurant. Same with you, Jflex. If management acts like jerks, and that causes an uproar, that's also a predictable consequence of their behavior.)
TJIC -- Hi! Remember me from [semi-secret mailing list]? I remember you as somebody who could consistently be counted on to take the side of conservative bullying authority and dress it up in the name of liberty. You're on thin ice here as far as I'm concerned. I'm leaving intact the parts of your comment that describe your personal experiences, desemvowelling the parts where you passive-agressively imply that there's no loss in losing a job, or that being upset about losing a job is childish, or that there's no moral dimension to treating people like property.
Aldasin, you lost the vowels from your last four words.
Sirkowsky, I am much less tolerant than most liberals are of cheap shots at libertarians.
Hey boss! You can save on hairnets!
Ironically, I had my husband shave my head in October as solidarity with a good friend of ours who was diagnosed with second stage ovarian cancer. When she lost her hair to chemo, I lost mine too. Told her that she wasn't allowed to be the only bald, hot chick on the west coast. Other than my Dad who announced upon seeing the 'after' picture that it "looked masculine," I met with absolutely no negative comments or insinuations. My work didn't care - in Hollywood, there are far, far stranger hairstyles than "really short."
I certainly see both sides of the issue - to a degree. Gender ought have absolutely no bearing upon the matter. Hair is hair, regardless of the sex of the person it is growing on. That said, it is legally within an employer's rights to require women to conform to a different dress and appearance standard than men. It simply must be written in the handbook. I am guessing that it (this case) is gender based, but there may be a huge problem if the employee handbook does not have separate entries for male and female requirements.
On the other side of the fence, she's not BALD. She's still got hair. She didn't come in with a chrome-dome (not that it'd matter to me personally), which was the impression I got initially before seeing a picture. Hair grows fast...but how long do they think it needs to be before she's allowed to come back? An inch? Two? Six? Rather arbitrary, unless clearly written out. I'd love to get my hands on a copy of their employee guidelines.
First comment on BoingBoing (and since I'm coming at this from a libertarian perspective, I rather hope I don't get disemvowelled - incidentally something I loathe about the commenting here, I'd much rather people were condemned by their own words than somebody decide for me what I should read, but meh...probably the wrong thread for that discussion)
My 2p worth is that this is a rather sad situation that has ended badly for all concerned, something that with a bit of thought should have been very a positive thing for both parties.
Assuming that he was acting within Canadian employment law (I really have no idea), it seems to me from what I've read that the owner was entitled to enforce his restaurant's dress code, and it does sound like he made this clear to the waitress beforehand. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a service buisness with an image to present to have a dress code for customer-facing employees.
However, it appears he made his decision for pure business reasons, and from the reaction it would seem that this was totally misjudged (unsurprisingly). I honestly can't believe that there are many people (any?) who would be offended, or scared by a short haircut (particularly one that's been chosen for charitable reasons), and even if there were, then surely this could have been outweighed by the positive groundswell of apprecation for a business that actively supports such a positive cause.
Given the apparent backlash, I sure hope Nathaniel's owners do the smart thing and take their own advice to "take the summer off". Because according to the interviews I've seen they seem to believe unpaid summer vacations are normal employer/employee relations and are no hardship, I am sure they won't mind one for themselves. They can spend the summer trying on clown wigs.
In a few months, the woman's hair will have grown back, and hopefully the public will have forgotten what graceless marketing-blind asses the owners were, and the restaurant can be reöpened without fear of cancer patients stampeding the place with torches and pitchforks.
welcome aboard, I shouldn't worry about disemvowelling. If you look at who it happens to it you will see it has nothing to do with opinions, just how they are expressed.
Daneel 90: You're being polite and reasonable. A Libertarian perspective by itself won't get you disemvowelled here.
As for the policy of disemvowelling, you're free to loathe it. I'd suggest you read the Moderation Policy (link just above the recent comments on the front page) to understand the reasons why people aren't being permitted to just be "condemned by their own words." <