A waitress wearing jeans tying apron

The restaurant is accused of violating a provision of the Civil Rights Act requiring employers to provide reasonable religious accommodations to employees.

Kaetoya Watkins was thrilled when she was got offered a waitress job at Georgia Blue, a Mississippi restaurant chain. It seemed like a promising opportunity, and she immediately decided to accept. However, it didn’t take long for things to go south. Only after she was hired did Ms. Watkins learn of a company dress code policy which requires all employees to wear blue jeans while at work. The only problem?

Ms. Watkins, a devout Apostolic Pentecostal Christian, believes that women should never wear pants – only skirts and dresses.

She made a formal request to restaurant management asking them to make an exception on the dress code due to her religious beliefs. She proposed wearing a long blue denim skirt in lieu of the specified jeans.

However, the request went unanswered. Suddenly in a bind, Ms. Watkins chose to remain true to her deeply-held religious beliefs first. She showed up for her first shift wearing the denim skirt.

When her manager noticed the outfit, she was promptly sent home for failure to adhere to the dress code. The restaurant later refused Ms. Watkin’s dress code request, and her job offer was rescinded.

Bringing Suit in Support of Skirts

Ms. Watkins has since filed a lawsuit against the restaurant chain with the help of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The lawsuit alleges that “under federal law, employers have a duty to provide an accommodation to allow an employee to practice his or her religion when the employer can do so without undue hardship on the operation of the company.”

“This case shows the EEOC is committed to combatting religious discrimination in the workplace,” said district director Delner Franklin-Thomas.

Ultimately, the government lawyers are seeking to “prohibit Georgia Blue from discriminating against employees who need religious accommodations” and force them to pay lost wages and other damages to Ms. Watkins.

Not Going Down Without a Fight

The lawsuit accuses restaurant management of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandates that employers must provide reasonable religious accommodations to employees.

Georgia Blue management denies any wrongdoing, and the company insists that it “does not discriminate on any basis,” according to a statement from their legal team. They plan to fight the case in court.

Why Not Just Allow the Skirt?

Ms. Watkins’ was obviously qualified for the position, and who knows – she may have made a valuable employee. However, since her conservative faith precludes her from wearing certain types of attire, she was never given a chance. Her sincere belief against wearing pants, while unorthodox, are nonetheless a legitimate religious conviction.

Why didn’t the restaurant just respect her faith and make an exception to the dress code?

Well, for one, acquiescing to the request could have set a precedent and put the company in an uncomfortable position. Once one person was permitted to change their attire, who’s to say other requests wouldn’t follow?

Constrained religious freedomWhere Does Religious Freedom End?

Ms. Watkins’ case is only the latest in a string of lawsuits involving religious freedom and discrimination in the United States. Most notably, the case of a Colorado baker that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding has gone all the way to the Supreme Court.

At its essence, the restaurant conflict boils down to this: does mandating that employees adhere to a certain dress code constitute religious discrimination?

Only time will tell.

Meanwhile, critics argue that the definition of “religious freedom” is fast expanding to the point of becoming a catch-all legal defense that gives ammunition to people with all manner of religious beliefs – from the moderate to the extreme.

What do you think?



  1. Kevin Von Zell says:

    Next, it would be burkas… Where to end it all? With fake Jesus… http:jesusneverexisted.com

    1. Thom says:

      This is a case of how our courts determine what is right, not what the Will of God is or isn’t. EEOC is the government arm that acts as the investigator concerning employment rights. If the EEOC finds that a violation of religion is ongoing by a employer, mediation and law suits follow.

    2. pablo Fumero says:

      Religion run amok at the workplace. Religion should stay out of the workplace… PERIOD. It is time to relegate it back to the churches where it belongs. Jesus has been made into a conservative republican all against abortion and guess what? Int the bible he never says a word about it.

  2. mary therese lemanek says:

    Not likely that many burka wearing women would want to work there but if they did, would that be so bad?

    1. Kevin Von Zell says:

      No, it would NOT but would be actually WELCOMED by most Americans, no?
      (In fact, burka-clad waitresses might pull in more customers than Hooters…?!)
      My actual point was, it was FAKE JESUS that cost her that nice job…! A shame.
      …and, a SHAM! Love ONLY, Always, Rev. Dr. Kevin von Zell, D,D,, MDiv, B.Mus.

      1. mary therese lemanek says:

        Whether or not we wear love is more significant than a skirt vs. jeans. There is a restaurant near me that requires all employees to wear black pants. There is one waitress who for whatever reason always wears a mid calf black skirt. Nobody is inconvenienced or outraged, nor is there any placard proclaiming her motivation.
        Both sides in this case seem a bit intractable.

  3. Minister Clarice Marlene Moore-Grantt, PhD., D.M., M.S., M.S. says:

    My opinion is that this individual is within her God given rights to take this issue a step forward. Why not allow her the right to wear her long denim skirt instead if denim jeans? We are not all cut from the same mold when it comes to dressing. I could see a problem if this individual was dressing in a lewd fashion but a long denim skirt? Come on now!

    Minister Clarice

  4. mary therese lemanek says:

    It seems to be a reasonable request that could be easily accommodated.

    1. Rev.Hoagie says:

      So is wearing a uniform required by your employer. It seems she failed to do her due diligence before taking a job she is unwilling to conform to therefore, she not they are the problem. There is nothing unusual, immoral or illegal about wearing blue jeans if that is their uniform. What if she wanted to work at Hooters? For the police dept.? Be a letter carrier? Work at UPS? Are all employers supposed to acquiesce to her demands? This is a law suit in search of a victim and Georgia Blue is the victim. More nonsense from the perpetually aggrieved. This country has turned into a nation of crybabies.

      1. esquinton says:

        Exactly… a dress code is a dress code. It is her job to find jobs that are compatible with her religion… to take on jobs that are not and then sue them because they won’t kowtow is wrong. Short hair for men is part of the military dress code… when you sign a contract with an employer you are saying you agree and will adhere to the rules they have established. Growing your hair long as a male in the military will get you into trouble… even if having dreadlocks is part of your religious beliefs. The company did not discriminate against her. She is in fact discriminating against the company because she does not agree with the rules. If she wins this case it will indeed open up a can of worms. I remember when men couldn’t wear earings and no one could have tattoos that could be seen… her wanting to destroy their dress code could open up the doors to people whose religion opposes her own… religious freedom in the work place means you cant be discriminated or fired because of your beliefs… but a dress code is a system that speaks of the uniformity and name brand of a company. Once again, if you don’t want to cut your hair or wear pants… don’t take a job that requires you to. 😉

        1. ellen says:

          You said it all!!

      2. kimm says:

        And you can’t tell me that she didn’t notice all the employees wearing jeans. She couldn’t have been that clueless.

        For those who say she has a right to wear her skirts, well guess what. The employer has a right to set a dress code. She can find another waitress job. Or maybe she’s looking for her 15 minutes of fame and a good chunk of change.

  5. James says:

    GOD “Esquire” just spoke to me about my religious rights. My religious believes states I’m to be allowed to Trump all gals that come in. AND I NEED to have no less than $100 per hr. AND, I need to wear a G-string on Fridays & I need to have a new car & TV. AND I NEED to have food & a place to live ALL at the company expense. AND I need to have all customers wear a garb & no bra. AND I think meat should never be served on the Sat & Sunday. AND it is my religious conviction that all male waiter should wear kilts. No eggs will be served in the place for any reason at any time. Oh yes, there shall be no tip less than 50% of the tab. Off the wall? Naaaaa, it makes the point. Come on, where does it end? Oh yes.. MEN waiters at Hooters. What religion did she indicate was this weeks choice? I know of copious believe systems that it is a sin to file lawsuits. PS: I’ll let the LORD buy me that Mercedes-Benz & color TV. OK all you religious fanatics that eat no meat, lets move on this NOW. Get that job at the local steak house while the iron/meat is hot. You know the drill.

    1. Alicia says:

      I’m sorry, but “Trump all gals…”? What are you referring to? Could it be a conversation that our now POTUS had 10+ years ago that has been misquoted time and time again?

    2. Dreamsinger says:

      If that “male waiters at Hooters” offer’s still open…

      ….brrrrrring me… the KILT!

  6. Tom says:

    It seems to me that the business should have the right to have a dress code…but they should express the requirement in their advertising for employees…can you imagine Disney not being allowed to tell employees what to wear?…as long as the job requirements are fully described, this lawsuit is ridiculous…Tom

    1. Miki says:

      Most companies do not advertise dress codes. People ask during the interview process about dress code, or the employer upon offering employment—particularly eateries— state dress code. They don’t leave it up to you. Skirts present a hazard in some work areas…would she then expect additional accommodations for safety reasons, asking others to do her duties? I say: find a job elsewhere.

  7. gerrydiamond says:

    The law suit is ridiculous and wearing skirts is not a religious attire per se. The company should have a dress code and when the potential employee signs up usually in the UK, matters such as dress code and uniform are made available with the employee contract or part thereof. And sometimes we need to remember that religion is not about what you wear but more about what is in your heart, how you practice your faith and how you treat others. If she signed the contract with the company then it’s a no brainer then she agreed to the dress code. Hope she loses the case as you would have employees turning up to work dressed in anything they wish, lets take religion out of the dress code and be like her colleagues, she in not a team player and we need that in business. Most people would put aside their faith and do the service and wear the company uniform and then go home and practice their faith and how to dress. You cant have it always.

    1. Miki says:

      I agree Gerry. When I started working in the court system many years ago—mid last century 😂—we were required to wear suits with skirts before judges. Many of us wore slacks to work but kept skirts in our closets just in case we had to go to court. We were making good money and even worked Sundays if required—after attending an early mass thanking God we were employed!!! Although it was a day of rest, the Priests never said quit that job…. When religion interferes with your providing for your family, just think: Joseph was a carpenter and worked to provide for Jesus and Nary. They still needed to eat and have shelter.

      It is more important for everyone to remember that religious beliefs should not put restraints on honest work—particularly when they ask their participants to tithe. I think the variance should be made by the religion—as more conventional religions have done over the years.

      1. Miki says:

        Sorry: Jesus and Mary.

      2. Pastor Peter says:

        this is not really about religion. it is more about an individual who personally believes that they have “rights” which supercede everyone else. it is all about egotitical people who were spoiled when younger and expect their ways above all others. Hence the lawsiut disguised as religious accomodation. welcome to the New Jerusalem where political correctness prevails. i hope that she loses

        1. J says:

          Pastor P has it… Ego has become her current god. AKA ~ egotism. Lets see how OSHA likes it when she is in the kitchen area, a dish, knife or hot item is spilled / dropped & she is disfigured & looses her nite job as a GoGo dancer & shaving off safety measures was a contributing factor. We’ll see how Ben Franklin will be her next god. I hope they counter for frivolous & mischievous harassment. Maybe we all should counter sue for making US (the customer) pay for defending her chosen path). I’m sure the eatery will take the high road.

    2. Dreamsinger says:

      God’s a professional.

      Let’s dress like the Boss, mm’kay?

      1. J says:

        GOD = LOVE… Thru LOVE all things are possible. LORD = LAW. Follow the laws of / thru love. Love wears no masks.

  8. James says:

    Well stated Gerry… Religion / spiritualism in in ones heart, mind & expressions to others. Now the attire we adorn ourselves with.

    1. JOHN MAHER says:


    2. Dreamsinger says:

      There’s a reason why religion is considered an inappropriate topic at the dinner table by polite society.

      Hunger don’t care about your gods.

  9. Doug Barron says:

    She needs to comply with the dress code of the employer, or move on.
    Sabbatarians routinely avoid working for places that require Saturday work. They accept the paramaters of the employer’s business model and reauirements, or seek other employment. That is what peace seekers do.
    She is wrong.

    1. Dreamsinger says:

      If Muslims can run liqour stores without complaining, she’s got no excuse for that nonsense.

      Take that crap to Waffle House!

      1. J says:

        Waffle house? She’ll get gracious & copious tip there . What’s the most awful that will happen there? She needs a hot waffle upside the head.

  10. Geo says:

    God is not the author of confusion. Jesus is the author of life. The Holy Bible is a letter from Jesus to His Creation. We are part of His creation and He conceived us before He created the universe, our solar system and the earth. We have a birth right to know God and His truth. Jesus came down from Heaven, left His place of Glory to walk among us and show us the way, the truth and the life. Life abundant, eternal, with liberty and love. Jesus is not religious, His truth is not religious. Religion is human behavior, self centered and disobedient to truth. What is truth? Jesus Christ is truth. Get the Holy Bible, repent and read it with no outside influence, just you, God the Fathet, Son, and Holy Spirit to guide you and you will discover your life purpose. You will discover why the world is in confusion and chaos. When Jesus returns, He will restore order and His perfect Monarchy for those who know Him and love Him. You cannot know Him and love Him without repenting and reading the Holy Bible. Seek God now while He may be found. If you do not have Jesus as your Savior now, it will be too late when He returns, because if you do not know Him, He will not know you when he returns to rule as the supreme God of all creation and sustainer of all that is. He is the great I Am, AMEN.

    1. Carl Elfstrom says:

      Hey Geo, did you know that the bible also makes great rolling papers? Talk about a Holy high ! It’s against my religious beliefs for pretty women to ever wear clothes at all. And didn’t Trump say he he was going to legalize groping women. Where in the bible does it say anything about women not wearing blue jeans. It might mention corduroys but doesn’t say a damn thing about blue jeans. It doesn’t even mention mini skirts or bikinis. Are’nt all christian beliefs based on the bible. 5here’s no way anything in that book can be construed into forbidding women from wearing bluejeans. And Geo, don’t forget to take your medication. It might also help to smoke a joint.

      1. Carl Elfstrom says:

        ULC ministers certainly are over imaginative. It helps to maintain a good buzz too. Happy trails !

      2. J says:

        Rolling papers? Some books speak of “the burning bowl”. Let them ashes / smoke take bad spirits away. It also implies that Jesus drove a Honda… It clearly states “of his own accord”. This is all phaneron? How does any one interpret biblical teaching? The worst way to interpret is from Ego.

  11. Alicia says:

    I see the restaurant’s point. If her skirt is allowed, what will the next demand be? If this is a popular chain and this woman was familiar with it, and ate at their establishments, she should have seen that the waitstaff wears jeans. While I see nothing wrong with a server wearing a long denim skirt as opposed to jeans, it IS company policy to wear jeans, so why should they change that policy to accommodate someone in a religious cult (and yes, this “religion” is a cult, IMO. Just look at the Duggers.)? Instead of suing and tying up an already over-crowded Court system, this woman, who is supposedly well-qualified, could have simply gone to another restaurant chain, or mom and pop restaurant. How did she get to be so “well-qualified” unless she has experience in the field?

    Apparently, the chain now needs to make things very clear BEFORE hiring anyone. They must go through the expense of having their handbooks printed out to give to ALL potential employees at the interview process and have them initialed/signed so that there is no miscommunication about any of the company’s policies.

    Things are too one-sided. A religious person can sue for their right to wear what they want, pray when they want, or preach when they want, but what about the rights of others? Why can’t a restaurant chain have the right to determine their dress code? Why can’t others say “enough” when being preached to in public places? Why should anyone in the workforce be allowed to take time off to pray certain hours of the day while anyone not of that religion must actually work? Discrimination goes both ways, but these religious fanatics/cultists, seem to think they are the only ones being discriminated against.

    1. Dreamsinger says:

      Christians tried to sue Starbucks a few years ago, because the paper cups didn’t say “Merry Christmas”.

      They sue neighbors who refuse to put up nativity scene in their yards.

      They sue if you don’t allow them to set up bookstands at bus stops and proselytize at people who only want to get home safely.

      They sue if you try to give other religions the same rights.

      I thought Shari’a was only an Islam thing.

  12. Guairdean says:

    Perhaps we aren’t interpreting the Bible strictly enough. 1 Peter 3:3 (kjv) “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel.” If you take this single verse at its word, we shouldn’t allow women to wear clothing at all. If clothing is allowed, does it still have to be a single type of cloth. Does this woman have any cotton/poly blends in her closet? I hope not for the sake of her soul. Deuteronomy 22:11 (kjv) “Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.” The injunction against women wearing men’s clothing isn’t to prohibit women from wearing pants. Men rarely wore pants back then, most wore loose robes. It’s the best way to survive in a hot environment. Sadly, people edit out the context in a biblical reference and try to use specific verses to uphold their opinions. If she wishes to stay true to her beliefs, she should seek employment with like minded people. Expecting the world to change to suit the beliefs of her sect will only lead to disappointment.

    1. Dreamsinger says:

      To be fair, if we’re basing secular legalities on religious doctrine, then every woman of Christian sect must wear a hijab during all waking moments. Otherwise, she shows disrespect before God by eschewing the “mark of authority” of men.

      At least, according to 1 Cor. 11:5, 10, and 13 (KJV). My Latin’s rather terrible, so I may have paraphrased a bit.

      It just seems a bit strange to be worrying about a Pentecostal’s skirt in lieu of her headdress. Not to mention, the uproar over Muslim women’s commitment to religious freedom in lieu of Christian women mandating none in return.

  13. John Owens says:

    I wonder if the scripture they use is. “…a woman should not wear that which pertains to a man…”
    They should remember Paul was most likely wearing a dress when he wrote that.

    1. Carl Elfstrom says:

      Did women dress differently than men in biblical times ? I thought they all dressed the same. Maybe those bible verses were referring to something other than clothing. Maybe men and women wore different kinds of jewelry, or head coverings. I think they all wore sandals too. Maybe men had blue finger nails back then and women were supposed to have pink. But still, they didn’t say anything about women wearing bluejeàns, mini skirts, bikinis, or even going sky clad. There couldn’t have been anything wrong with nudity. Look at what they let Michelangelo Buonarroti do to the Sistine Chapel. Of course, he seemed to think that all men should have tiny penises. So maybe they thought women shouldn’t have larger clits than that or they would seem manly.

      1. John Owens says:

        They did wear basically similarly flowing clothing, but there were things about their clothing that made it obvious if it was for a man or a woman. A man also usually wore a belt with a sword, knife and pouch, (as in a Scottish sporran, but on the side and not fancy).

  14. Carl Elfstrom says:

    And that brings us to African genital mutilation. Why don’t y’all write an article about that?

    1. Dreamsinger says:

      There’s a great episode of “Adam Ruins Everything” on TruTV, talking about religious genital mutilation in America.

      How about we start there?

  15. Gilbert Mason says:

    The hiring manager should have made it clear in the interview that all employees are required to abide by the uniform dress code before hiring the person with religious restrictions. The person with religious restrictions should either agree to the terms or decline the job offer.

    Now, since the employer failed to inform the new employee of this restriction and continued with the legal paperwork of hiring the person, it may be too late for the business to win the suit, unless the legal paperwork made it clear about the dress code and was signed by the new employee. But even that might not hold because it does still conflict with the EEOC. Sounds like the hiring process wasn’t taken seriously and the business will take a hit for it, which may be devastating to the business’s reputation.

    1. Dreamsinger says:

      That’s alright. The town will likely let Ms. Watkins know how much they appreciate her efforts, in true genteel Mississippi fashion.

      She won’t be staying long.

  16. Tom Jaynes says:

    A long time ago, I learned that if I am going to apply for work at a place, I visit that place first and check it out. If possible I speak with employees, an easy thing to do in a restaurant. I am then prepared for my interview or I can decide not to apply there for whatever reason. To me religious accomodation is fine with respect to observation of Holy days, etc. but if a place of business has a dress code for whatever reason, I am obligated to adhere to it. There are plenty of places to work that do not have dress codes. It is not the employers responsibility to change established policies to acommodate one’s particular comfort level. If a religion prohibits certain apparel, find a place of employment that better suits your sensibilities. A question to ask here is, since employees are required to wear jeans, would you refuse your patronage to that business because it does not conform to your own particular religious beliefs? If you can eat there, you can conform and work there. God will forgive you.

    1. John Owens says:

      Tom, because your specific mention of Holy days, I interpret that to mean Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles. Is that what you meant?

      1. Tom Jaynes says:

        Whatever your special days are that you feel required to honor or celebrate are fine with me. Those kind of accommodations are fine and respectful and within the accommodations requirement in the law.

        1. John Owens says:

          I guess that wasn’t what you meant. Ok. I agree with your comment, though.

        2. J says:

          Holy days (for the lack of a vast neutral term) to me was taken as a personal call per each person. Thats how I took it.. To force that on others in a confined space, where ppl are a captive audiences & to change others to suit personal taste needs to be done with discretion. Ok you vegetarians. Get that job at the local butcher shop or meat serving facility & plug up the court systems with them changes. Besides, what religion did she claim to be with? One that not believe in lawsuits? Hmmm.

          1. John Owens says:

            Like Cosmo Cramer and Festivus? LOL!!!

    2. Dreamsinger says:

      As a Pagan, I kinda feel bummed out about this question, although it is valid and well-made.

      Every day is a holiday to us.

  17. John Owens says:

    I despise Christmas, but do you have any references about these lawsuits I could check?

  18. John doe says:

    The Holy Bible says, forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors, do not sue a brother over petty things This means as Christians we will be persecuted, and beaten and mocked, but forgiveness is the most important. Do not sue your brother, but forgive him. Jesus didn’t get even with the Jews and Romans for killing him. He forgave them on the cross because they really didn’t know what they were doing.

  19. the druid shrum says:

    I fail to understand what this prohibition against jeans is based upon. Are the Pentecostals excited that Jesus wore a dress? Are Pentecostal construction workers required to wear kilts?
    Just Askin”.

    1. John Owens says:

      Those who call themselves Pentecostals are a separate breed and steeped in customs which are not biblical nor rational. I commented elsewhere here that Paul was most likely wearing a dress when he wrote that men should not wear women’s clothes or women wear men’s. Pentecostals may dress old-fashioned, not curse or drink alcohol and they go to church 5 times a week and do not understand the scriptures.

    2. Bill Fox says:

      It’s a perceived modesty issue. Pants accentuate the shape of the body. The other issue is that men should dress like men and women should dress like women. Pants are considered masculine.

  20. Bill Fox says:

    Unless there is a safety issue, a skirt worn in the typical commercial environment is a “reasonable religious accommodation”.

  21. J. J. Mueller says:

    I live in MS. This group looks down on people who are not part of their group. This is just a case to waste the courts time. I do not believe Jesus would care, pants or dress.

  22. Father Fred says:

    The solution is simple, Kaetoya should resign. Let’s be careful with throwing around the term persecution. The fact is it’s part of the job, the criteria an employer has for working. Perhaps the biggest sin was that her wearing apparel was not discussed at the time of hiring or interview. In my work I -HAVE- to wear certain things my employer requires as part of dress code, and safety (OSHA). Be it a legitimate or my self professed need of religion, I have a choice. I can do what my employer says, or go elsewhere. Nobody is stopping me.

  23. Thom says:

    Yoga pants or mini skirts, does it matter what is worn at work? I believe so. Also, prior to being hired the employer should explain the rules, salaries,dress code, etc. and if the prospect accepts employers offer then it is expected that they follow the rules. EEOC should inform Ms Watkins to seek another employer that allows skirts. But most likely, the government enjoys forcing businesses to comply to government laws regarding religion. We are to live in the kingdom of God (KOG), and not concern ourselves with politicians and their governments.

  24. Grizzly says:

    If we have a country that separates church and state, if we have EEO laws to allow religious practice without imposing undue hardships on others, we have laws to promote religious freedom, then this lawsuit is warranted. If we are going to allow business people discriminate on who they serve (for the record I see signs everywhere saying service may be refused for any reason not just for religious reasons) then the next step is to allow employers to do the same when hiring personnel. They are projecting a company image and should be allowed to keep within this. If the dress code is discriminatory because of this then it should be explained as such. With this they should explain all the rules to the prospective employee instead of setting them up for failure.

  25. Ron Snow says:

    Unless the restaurant has an ‘official’ uniform like UPS, US Postal Service, Police, Fire, etc., where is the problem with her wearing a long skirt if it’s not affecting how she does her job? Jeans is not a uniform nor are they part of a uniform. The person doing the hiring should have stated the ‘dress code’ requirements during the hiring interview. On the other side of the issue, religion should be kept in the person’s home and place of worship. It has no place in the workplace, shops or government.

  26. Tom says:

    Ron…exactly right…Tom

  27. Prof. ML Watrous says:

    Everything has been flawed … from the very beginning of everything … remember Lucifer? Humans tend to want everything on their own terms … as if everything revolved around them, and it does not much matter who they are or what sex they are. The order of things now seems to be: whine, moan, and sue … and if they cannot do that, they try to go to war. Life is tough, but most people seem to think that rules do not apply to them. Depletion of Earth’s resources will solve most of the problems we now have in the world … and life is going to get a lot tougher for the whiners and moaners. We would all do much better if we prayed to the same God that Jesus prays to.

  28. Minister Timothy Calrstead says:

    The woman should not have been fired for refusing to wear pants because its stupid Why fire somebody just tell them it waiter dress code because it makes more sense telling them it is dress code. I mean its like telling the women at hooters not to wear a little shirt. They wear the shirt because of two things. 1- It is dress code to wear the shirt. 2- It gives their breast a bigger look and because it attracts men to hooters.The woman is also at fault here because she was told to wear jeans because of it being the dress code. She chose not to wear them and you have to follow the dress code just like everyone else should. For example if Fred wants to wear sunglasses inside and its not the dress code he has to follow it. that goes the same for every other waiter. If someone doesn’t get to wear what they want neither can the next person.

  29. BrotherCO says:

    If she knew going into this business relationship that it requires two legged attire, them she is hypocritical and greedy, but if she went to the interview in a skirt or dress and the employer changed up on her then she has a valid argument.
    I know that every human has the right to adorn themselves as he or she deems appropriate and we should respect that inherent right across the board, I hope it works out for both parties but someone is lying about their awareness level or simply being manipulated

  30. ellen says:

    If the employer requires jeans then she should be wearing jeans or working somewhere else. The employer apparently does not want jean skirts as part of the face of their business attire. I’m sure now the employer wishes they would’ve made this known prior to hiring. But to sue them over this is absolutely ridiculous. You cannot change everyone’s dress code to suit your beliefs. What if she didn’t believe in wearing jean material at all? Is the employer then gonna be required to change dress policy to any type of pants because of her beliefs? She needs to go work somewhere else. What she doesn’t realize is she has made it hard for herself to get a job ANYWHERE once employers find out about this ridiculous lawsuit. No one will hire her out of fear of lawsuits. They aren’t goint to tell her that but she will receive a lot of “we have already filled the position” answers or she will never hear from them again.

  31. John Owens says:

    THERE’S a mental picture I could live without!

    1. J says:

      Mental picture? Live w/ out ? It’s called Apophenia (Pareidolia). Seeing, hearing reading things in to intentions not meant 2B there. It may be a self generated illusion of what one is and how one already thinks.

      1. John Owens says:

        Sorry. Didn’t mean to mess up your fantasy.

Leave a Comment