A Hostile Mannequin?

The Columbus Dispatch reports that a barbecue restaurant owner in Reading, Ohio, is in trouble because of a life size mannequin right outside the restaurant’s front door. After the mannequin became a new customer greeter of sorts, business jumped 40%, but so did complaints.

Before you jump to the conclusion that employees complained about a hostile environment, you should know that it was Reading’s powers that be. The local zoning board found the busty, scantily clad mannequin was objectionable and ordered it removed. The restaurant owner won a temporary reprieve by agreeing to cover the skimpy halter top and tight short-shorts adorning the welcoming mannequin until he can appeal the adverse ruling to even higher powers. Eight hundred customers have signed a petition supporting the restaurant owner.

What if employees had complained? Would the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have required the same action? Hard to know for sure. Several cases involving Hooters show how the facts of each case are closely evaluated and make all the difference. (Click here and here.)

A sexy mannequin doesn’t seem to have much to do with a barbecue business. But what if the restaurant were called Busty Barbecue?

And what if Hooters changed its veiled logo from the owl with two big eyes to a mannequin of one of its scantily clad female servers? It might get it trouble in Reading, Ohio, but probably not because of any employment concerns.

Sex harassment cases involving required work attire are fact intensive. A business that sells sex appeal will be cut some slack. Its employees are on notice when they apply what the requirements are. Even then, as some of the Hooters cases demonstrate, servers can be required to go to far. Perhaps a good rule of thumb is that you need to be careful and get some legal advice when you ask employees not to wear many clothes.