A Washington State city’s dress code ordinance stating bikini baristas must cover their bodies at work has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.
The decision in a partial summary judgment came after a long legal fight between bikini baristas and the city of Everett over the rights of employees to wear what they want.
The proprietor of Everett bikini barista stand Hillbilly Hotties and some workers filed a legal complaint questioning the constitutionality of the dress code law.
In 2017, the city of Everett passed a law mandating all workers, owners and operators of quick service facilities to wear clothes that cover the upper and lower body.
The ordinance detailed coffee stands, fast food eateries, delis, food trucks and coffee shops as examples of quick service businesses.
The group also challenged the city’s lewd conduct ordinance, but the court dismissed all the baristas’ claims but the dress code question.
The US District Court in Seattle found the city of Everett’s dress code ordinance broke the Equal Protection clauses of the US and Washington state constitutions.
The Court found that the ordinance was, at least in part, shaped by a gender-based discriminatory purpose, according to a 19-page ruling signed by US District Judge Ricardo S Martinez.
US District Judge Ricardo S Martinez said the record showed that the law was passed in part to having a negative impact on female employees at bikini barista stands.
He said there was proof in the record that the bikini barista profession, indeed a target of the law, was completely or almost entirely female, and that it was difficult to imagine how this law would be equally applied to men and women in practice because the ordinance forbids clothing normally worn by women rather than men, including midriff and scoop back shirts, as well as bikinis.
Bikini baristas were indeed a target of the law, the court even ruled, adding that the profession was comprised of a workforce that is almost entirely women.
Barista Emma Dilemma told HeraldNet, that she believed that this protects protection from law enforcement touching their bodies, and she asked who was approving her outfit. Was it her female boss or some random male officer that she doesn’t know?
One of the plaintiffs Matteson Hernandez wrote that in some countries they make you wear lots of clothing because of their religious views, but in America, it’s different because you can wear what you want to wear.
So, in Seattle, you can poop on the sidewalk and burn down buildings, but they have a problem with a little cleavage, yes, that’s Seattle for you.
However, that’s not just a little cleavage, and no respectable man would want their daughter working like that, it’s called having a moral compass, but if we say that, which I just did, then we’re being extremely judgemental, but the lassies seem to be having fun or is it exploitation because this business trades on the ground of overtly objectifying women and using sexuality to make them money.
However, I’m always amused by women who believe places like this exploit women. The women there have a choice and they have enough sense to make their own decisions – it’s their body, their choice and the irony of it all is all too rich, but would you want your wife or daughter working there, or would you respect their judgement?
Clearly, this place wants to drum up business like Hooters or any place like that, and whoever wants to see this kind of stuff will go there.
THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO 