# Waxer fired for refusing to get waxed: reasonable or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2013, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512 "2013-07-03T06:08:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/21 "2013-07-03T17:31:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > One issue I see is that somebody who’s going to work as a bikini waxer is obviously going to be working with a lot of crotches (groins? genital areas? bikini zones? happy places? what’s a good term here?). So you’d have to develop a certain detached attitude towards people’s junk (okay, that probably isn’t it) and be able to treat it as just another body part, like a knee or a hand or an ear. If you have issues with letting people see and touch you between the legs, how are you not going to have issues with doing it to other people? Who the person is makes a difference, though. You might be comfortable letting a stranger do it, but not a colleague. I doubt doctors especially want to be examined at the surgery or hospital they work at either. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/22 "2013-07-03T18:23:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Only if the spa actually _offers_ male happy-area waxing. Otherwise it would be pointless. I really don’t see a legal basis for this lawsuit. Pennsylvania is an at-will employment state. I guarantee that if a guy came in and requested the service, the salon would take his money. And if I remember correctly, in order to benefit from at-will policies you have to terminate your employee while giving no reason for the termination. Once you give a reason, or the reason is obvious, it can be determined to be a wrongful reason. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > . . . If you have issues with letting people see and touch you between the legs, how are you not going to have issues with doing it to other people? From reading the linked judgment, trainees were required to have the procedure done while being watched by the entire class. I very much hope that is not anything like how the procedure would be done in the salons. Let’s count the ways the judgement said the termination was wrongful. 1 - requirement violates Pennsylvania right to bodily privacy policies, 2 - touching her when she did not concent would violate Pennsylvania battery and sexual battery policies and statutes, 3 - since the others were also being given no right to refuse, she would be committing battery if she participated, 4 - refusing to violate a law is a protected activity, termination is therefore malicious retaliation, 5 - male trainees were not required to participate, making the requirement gender discrimination (with the plaintiff being a protected class), and 6 - requirement qualifies as sexual harassment. Personally, I think telling women that they have to have a waxing while they are menstruating, and when told that things get tender then replying “put in a fresh tampon and take an ibuprofen and you’ll be fine” is a) giving medical advice and b) totally outrageous. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/23 "2013-07-03T18:27:04Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > And if I remember correctly, in order to benefit from at-will policies you have to terminate your employee while giving no reason for the termination. Once you give a reason, or the reason is obvious, it can be determined to be a wrongful reason. No reason is necessary at the time. Unless it is mandated later, say at a request from unemployment or that state has a “Service Letter” law and the employee files a request under it. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/24 "2013-07-03T18:33:10Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > I > Let’s count the ways the judgement said the termination was wrongful. That’s not the Judgment, it is the actual Complaint. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/25 "2013-07-03T20:15:26Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > Let’s count the ways the judgement said the termination was wrongful. > > 1 - requirement violates Pennsylvania right to bodily privacy policies, > 2 - touching her when she did not concent would violate Pennsylvania battery and sexual battery policies and statutes, > 3 - since the others were also being given no right to refuse, she would be committing battery if she participated, > 4 - refusing to violate a law is a protected activity, termination is therefore malicious retaliation, > 5 - male trainees were not required to participate, making the requirement gender discrimination (with the plaintiff being a protected class), and > 6 - requirement qualifies as sexual harassment. As lawbuff noted, these are from the complaint not the judgement. Some of them are legitimate arguments. But others appear wrong. Finley and the other trainees were given a right to refuse - albeit such a refusal would cause them to lose their job. So claiming there was “battery” involved is not true - nobody was touched unless they consented. If consensual bikini waxing constitutes battery then how was Finley planning on doing her job without breaking the law? ---
**Author:** ![colander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@colander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colander)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/26 "2013-07-03T21:34:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > As lawbuff noted, these are from the complaint not the judgement. > > Some of them are legitimate arguments. But others appear wrong. One legitimate argument should be sufficient. > [@](#): > > Finley and the other trainees were given a right to refuse - albeit such a refusal would cause them to lose their job. So claiming there was “battery” involved is not true - nobody was touched unless they consented. If their continued employment depends on their consenting to undergo an experience that involves getting nude in front of their co-workers and having their genital areas manipulated by same, don’t you think that sounds just a little bit coercive? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/27 "2013-07-03T21:48:30Z")
nevermind ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/28 "2013-07-04T02:02:56Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > I dunno, seems reasonable to me. Police officers have to be hit with a tazer/pepper spray before they can use them. Police have been granted extraordinary powers that they may abuse against innocent bystanders without their consent. This is not comparable to someone who only inflicts pain on people who aren’t just consenting but _paying_ customers of their own free will. If doing this makes the police less prone to blithely using these torture devices as simple “man falls down” buttons (because hey, _this shit hurts_) then that’s a good thing. Just look at how Christopher Hitchins’ views on “enhanced interrogation” changed after getting himself waterboarded. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/29 "2013-07-04T02:50:02Z")
> [@colander](#): > > If their continued employment depends on their consenting to undergo an experience that involves getting nude in front of their co-workers and having their genital areas manipulated by same, don’t you think that sounds just a little bit coercive? If you are filming a pornographic movie and an actress refused to get nude in front of her co-workers can you fire her? I would say yes. Seems to me the question is whether doing what she was asked was reasonable given the job she was hired to do. Such a request would be inappropriate for a waitress or office worker. Personally I have no idea if experiencing a Brazilian Wax will make you better at performing one and an employer can justifiably expect you to go through the procedure as part of your training. I would think the case hinges on this. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/30 "2013-07-04T03:19:26Z")
> [@colander](#): > > One legitimate argument should be sufficient. You really can’t make a fair decision until you hear what both sides have to say. Presumably the spa will offer its own arguments, some of which may be equally legitimate, as the case proceeds. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/31 "2013-07-04T06:35:41Z")
> [@fumster](#): > > If everyone refused then the company would need to hire people to practice on, so I see it as a reasonable request. I don’t think the company would have to hire people to practice on. I used to live quite close to a barber school and I availed myself, as many customers did, of the very cheap prices to have students cut our hair. I don’t see any practical difference. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/32 "2013-07-04T06:57:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Personally I have no idea if experiencing a Brazilian Wax will make you better at performing one and an employer can justifiably expect you to go through the procedure as part of your training. I would think the case hinges on this. Going through the procedure as part of your training does not necessarily depend on being your co-worker’s guinea pig. ---
**Author:** ![colander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@colander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colander)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/33 "2013-07-04T07:04:49Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You really can’t make a fair decision until you hear what both sides have to say. Presumably the spa will offer its own arguments, some of which may be equally legitimate, as the case proceeds. Well, let me know when you think of one of those. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2013, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/34 "2013-07-04T07:51:26Z")
> [@colander](#): > > Well, let me know when you think of one of those. I checked. I’m not mentioned in the complaint. ---
**Author:** ![74westy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/74westy/32/3950_2.png) [@74westy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/74westy)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/35 "2013-07-08T16:33:03Z")
My question: If the waxer waxes all who do not wax themselves, who waxes the waxer? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/36 "2013-07-08T16:37:02Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > I don’t think the company would have to hire people to practice on. I used to live quite close to a barber school and I availed myself, as many customers did, of the very cheap prices to have students cut our hair. I don’t see any practical difference. A trainee barber might give you a bad haircut. Imagine what sort of damage a trainee waxer might do. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2013, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/37 "2013-07-08T21:03:55Z")
Looks like she was already subjected to some sort of [eyebrow torture](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2353801/Jennifer-Finley-Spa-owner-fired-woman-refusing-let-coworker-perform-Brazilian-wax-training-exercise.html). ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/38 "2013-07-09T00:10:04Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > As lawbuff noted, these are from the complaint not the judgement. . . Sorry. You’re right. They are only alledged and may not be considered to be wrongful. Should we start a pool on which are likely to stick? > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > . . . Personally I have no idea if experiencing a Brazilian Wax will make you better at performing one and an employer can justifiably expect you to go through the procedure as part of your training. I would think the case hinges on this. I’m pretty sure that if you’re stuck having a Brazilian with a ring of auditing trainees, your mind won’t be on learning anything. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/39 "2013-07-09T02:05:38Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > Did this seriously happen? So the male students practiced on their female associates? This is just - wow! Why is this just wow? Frankly, medical students go through quite a lot of stuff that’s not particularly appealing. That’s certainly not the worst. Vaginal exams aren’t done for the fun of the medical practitionner. That’s just a professional activity, and certainly not a pleasant one, if you ask me (I often wonder how heterosexual male gynecologists manage to keep having contacts with vaginas outside of their office). That’s the same here. The other students would be training. I don’t see the difference with a regular gyn exam. I don’t know if it’s done, or not anymore, or never was, but I don’t really see the issue here. Same with rectal exams or whatever. As long as it doesn’t amount to be opened up so that other students get a shot at removing your appendix… ---
**Author:** ![colander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e8c25b/32.png) [@colander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colander)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2013, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512/40 "2013-07-09T02:35:29Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Why is this just wow? Because modern treatments of worker’s and student’s rights typically include provisos to the effect that employers and instructors are not permitted to require their charges to offer up personal and private information about themselves as part of their professional or scholastic duties. Under this standard, ordering them to inspect each other’s genitals would be considered improper. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waxer-fired-for-refusing-to-get-waxed-reasonable-or-not/662512.md?page=3)