Former Hooters Waitress Sues

[Hum]

A former Hooters waitress has sued the restaurant chain in federal court, alleging she was pushed out of her job after brain surgery left her with buzz cut hair and a healing scar that made it too painful to wear a wig.

Sandra Lupo, 27, had worked as a waitress at a St. Peters, Mo., Hooters since April 2005 but took a leave from her job for a few weeks last summer to have a cranial mass removed.

Lupo had the support of her manager, who visited her in the hospital and suggested when she was ready to return to work that she wear a "chemo cap" or jewelry items "to distract from her lack of hair and the visibility of her cranial scar," court documents said.

On July 16, 2012, doctors gave Lupo clearance to go back to work at Hooters, where she worked to put herself through nursing school.

Shortly before she returned to work, Lupo and her immediate manager met with the Hooters regional manager who said Lupo would be required to wear a wig while at work, according to court documents.

Lupo told him "she did not have a wig and that she could not afford a wig, as they range in cost between several hundred and several thousands of dollars," according to the lawsuit, adding that the regional manager did not offer to pay for the wig.

After her manager approached her again regarding a wig, Lupo said she borrowed one and tried to wear it at work. But it "caused extreme stress to her body because of the surgery and the healing wound," according to court records.

Lupo said her manager then reduced her hours to the point where she was making so little income that she was forced to quit, which made her ineligible for unemployment benefits.

"[Lupo's] physical injury was an actual disability from her surgery which limited the major life activity of working when such work required a wig to be worn," court documents said.

In a complaint filed with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, Lupo said she never believed her customers were ever "offended" by her appearance at the chain.

The Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals who have a disability. This includes having a physical or mental impairment, a history of having an impairment or the perception of having one.

more

[Growled Member]

I honestly would not want a waitress looking like that in any restaurant, but especially at Hooters.

[McKay]

Well legally they aren't waitresses at all, they're models, which is why they can legally discriminate against "ugly" women who apply.

[chrisj1968]

not in regards to the ADA Americans with disabilities Act.

[FloatingFatMan]

If you don't want to get fired because of your looks, then dont get a job thats based on your looks.

You didn't bother to actually read the article, did you?

[chrisj1968]

If you don't want to get fired because of your looks, then dont get a job thats based on your looks.

Callous..

[User6060]

i don't know if being temporarily bald is a disability.

certain appearances were a bonafide job req she fell outside the req...just like you can't make a person without an arm or a leg a fireman.

i dont think she should have been fired but i think its within an owners right to be able to in this instance...she wasnt even fired just reduced hours actually

[FloatingFatMan]

yeah i read it, did you?

Having hair contributes to the way one looks.

Then you clearly didn't understand it. She already HAD the job there; she was fired because she had to have a life-saving medical procedure that temporarily affected her looks.

[astropheed Veteran]

If you don't want to get fired because of your looks, then dont get a job thats based on your looks.

she was fired because...

She wasn't fired; she quit. Did either of you read it?

I feel for her, I really do, but, this is what that job entails. She's better off not working for them, and if she can get a little coin from them all the better. I don't really side with either on this though. Hooters is doing what it does and people are doing what they do. Open and shut case.

[FloatingFatMan]

She wasn't fired; she quit. Did either of you read it?

I feel for her, I really do, but, this is what that job entails. She's better off not working for them, and if she can get a little coin from them all the better. I don't really side with either on this though. Hooters is doing what it does and people are doing what they do. Open and shut case.

I say fired because they essentially did so by reducing her hours to a level where she couldn't afford to work. We call it constructive dismissal over here, but it's essentially being fired.

[HighwayGlider]

If you have a job which relies on your looks, unfortunately, you should expect these kind of things. Nothing surprising, but sad.