No, because you haven’t been able to distinguish this practice from strip clubs. Or point to any evidence that the spa has male waxing clients, for that matter.
It’s really not hard to distinguish what goes on in a strip club from what goes on in a spa.
It has been established in the previously linked complaint that:
Whether or not the spa has male waxing clients has absolutely bupkus to do with anything.
Strip clubs employ adult dancers whose sole job duty is to to take off their clothes on stage. Since this duty literally defines their job, it is permitted to require them to do so. Similar reasoning is what enables casting directors to refuse to employ actors whose gender or ethnicity does not match that of the character to be played: being able to convincingly represent a certain character is the very thing that an actor is hired to do.
Again, please note that a club owner would not be legally permitted to require their dancer employees to give brazilian waxes to each other, as that is outside the purview of their job duties.
People hired as beauticians, by contrast, may not be required to take off their clothes to perform their job duties. This is because whether or not they are nude has no bearing on how satisfactorily they perform beautician-related job tasks.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings that you may have had re: the difference between strippers and salon technicians.
Of course it does. This is a training program. Why on earth would they require male waxers to train for something they don’t offer?
The ability to perform a Brazilian wax is literally what defines a waxer’s job.
The ability to receive a Brazilian wax does not.
Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think it’s particularly unreasonable to require somebody giving one to have had one herself, given the nature of the process.
Well it might be nice to know that your waxer has undergone the procedure and can sympathize with the discomfort, etc, I don’t see how it is necessary in order for the waxer to do the job well. Should bald men be disallowed from cutting women’s hair? Can a white hairdresser perform certain hair treatments on a black customer?
Or to take this farther, should we only allow female gynecologists?
It is if you go to the right kind of spa.
Why? Does a heart surgeon need to have undergone a heart transplant? Does a mortician need to have been embalmed?
She’s already licensed by the state. She has already demonstrated her ability to do the work.
“We” as a state? No. “We” as an employer? Why not?
Where do you see that?
Would it be acceptable if the salon had only required she bring back proof of getting a Brazillian wax? Like, from another company? Because I 100% sympathize with her about not wanting to show off my genitals to my coworkers. That problem could be solved by going to a different salon…?
In the previously linked complaint.
Assuming the facts as laid out in the complaint are correct, the spa clearly blew it in two ways:
-
While requiring a waxer to receive a waxing may have been reasonable, requiring a waxer to receive the waxing while her colleagues looked on most certainly wasn’t. As others have said, that’s sexual harassment territory.
-
Requiring the female waxers, but not the male waxers, to receive a waxing is simple and straightforward sex discrimination.
For what it’s worth, my wife is a licensed esthetician and said that they did sometimes wax each other during training (at school, while earning her certificate) but that it wasn’t mandatory to be waxed. Nor was it a training requirement at the spa where she now works, although they do wax each other voluntarily.
What it seems to hinge on (to me, anyway) is whether she actually was made aware of the requirement in her interview and consented to it, as she claims didn’t happen. Unless it was a written agreement that she signed, I’m not sure how either side could prove whether it happened or not.
I wax interested in this conundrum!
And what if the verbal agreement was “You have to get a brazilian wax” and not “by our employees”?
Yeah, there are a lot of possibilities… maybe they didn’t mention it at all, and if they had she would have strongly disagreed as she’s doing now. Maybe they did mention it but didn’t explain fully (or she didn’t understand) what it would entail. Maybe they mentioned it and she agreed, thinking she could get out of it when the time came. Maybe they asked and she consented, but planned ahead to balk, get shitcanned and then sue for a payout.
IMO those are in order from most to least likely, but who knows for sure. Her complaint (of course) makes her sound calm, collected, polite, and a paragon of reason compared to her inflexible employer, but maybe she actually went apeshit and screamed obscenities at them, making her a bad gamble in their eyes, hairless or not.
I’m sure the other trainees will be deposed, and if their testimony of their experience dovetails with what she alleges in her complaint, then that would be pretty good evidence, IMHO.
But I don’t think it hinges on that. Getting someone’s consent to discrimination and sexual harassment in advance don’t make these things go away.
An employer is required to not discriminate on the basis of sex, period; the employer can’t just get women employees to sign a waiver saying, “I am aware that XYZ Co. has differential working conditions on the basis of sex, and I consent to being discriminated against in this manner, including giving up my right to take legal action on that basis.” Similarly, I’m sure, for sexual harassment.
Well, it can make them sign a waiver, but it can’t enforce it.