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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s not the Judgment, it is the actual Complaint.
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?
One legitimate argument should be sufficient.
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?
nevermind
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.
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.
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.
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.
Going through the procedure as part of your training does not necessarily depend on being your co-worker’s guinea pig.
Well, let me know when you think of one of those.
I checked. I’m not mentioned in the complaint.
My question: If the waxer waxes all who do not wax themselves, who waxes the waxer?
A trainee barber might give you a bad haircut. Imagine what sort of damage a trainee waxer might do.
Looks like she was already subjected to some sort of eyebrow torture.
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?
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.
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…
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.