Twenty-one female servers at Atlantic City’s Borgata Casino sued their employer, claiming that they were objectified, discriminated against and demeaned by being forced to maintain slim and fit figures as “Borgata Babes.” I wrote about this case in 2013, saying,
“While it is true that physical attractiveness can be an employment asset in virtually any job—note #2 on fired TV reporter Shea Allen’s “confessions”— there are some jobs for which it is the primary, or at least a substantial and thus legitimate requirement. Strippers, of course. Fashion models. Cheerleaders. Actresses. Personal trainers. Fox newsreaders. Hooters girls, and pretty obviously, Borgata Babes. To say that a business can’t make a decision to have fantasy sex objects as part of its appeal is an excessive use of political correctness grafted to state power. Essentially, the suing Babes are arguing that they can pull a bait and switch—use their well-toned beauty to get hired, agree to maintain the high standard of visual perfection that they presented to their employer, then go to pot and sue if their employer objects. Beauty is an asset in the workplace and a tangible one: the pressure on the culture to behave as if that asset doesn’t exist (the pejorative labeling of a preference for the lovely over the hideous as “lookism” is the weapon of choice) and to prohibit employers from ever hiring on that basis in jobs where it is a substantial and relevant qualification is as unfair to the fit and comely as requiring an investment banker to look like Kate Upton….”
Now a state appellate court has ruled that the casino can impose appearance requirements as long as it does so fairly and equally.
Score a victory for the freedom to acknowledge that beauty can be a legitimate job qualification, and against ludicrous political correctness.
_____________
Pointer: Res Ipsa Loquitur
Ethics Alarms 
Encouraging, but let’s see what the NJ Supremes have to say. Higher courts seem to find it hard to resist demonstrating their superiority by trashing the opinions of their lesser brethren.
Steve in NJ can probably fill us in on this.
Are you the OTHER Other Bill?
???? I’m just saying the next set of judges may rule in these ladies’ (and their lawyers’) favor. I guess I could say the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. That’s all. Maybe there are a bunch of lefties on the NJ supreme court.
No, that’s just my dry, not-too-funny humor; Other Bill responding to Other Bill.
As far as your comment, you can count on it. The current climate of whining being rewarded all but guarantees they’ll try to push this as far up as their resources permit. It works the same way as it does in children.
“It works the same way as it does in children.”
That’s funny.
Sheesh! I’m glad I don’t have to be reminded not to pay for a lady to do pole-dancing in Michigan.
Your link with ” I wrote about this case in 2013″ is a link to the article not your previous post. Is that on purpose?
Crap. No. I’ll fix it.
At least SOMEONE checks the links!
“At least SOMEONE checks the links!”
Our president, at least daily.
Click here.
Maybe Trump’s Casinos in Atlantic City wouldn’t have gone under if he had done something like this. It’s hard to feel sorry for these young women who probably got big tips frequently.
And I’ll guarantee you they’re healthier than a fat, 70 year old man.
The Donald is not yet 70 and being tall along with under 200lbs, I don’t think he meets the Criteria for being fat. Christy is another story.
Cristy, however, is getting thinner, while The Donald will wake up exactly as arrogant and stupid next month as he is today.
(H/T Winston Churchill)
Unfortunately, I wasn’t referring to Trump, but to the other Donald…me.
Excellent! Now, the judge needs to sentence them to a public “stoning” with donuts and fried chicken, to deter this sort of misallocation of the court’s time and abuse of our patience.
I wonder how they compare with the ladies from Baby’s Badass Burgers (a food truck franchise)