Court says Borgata can limit server weight gain

The court has said that Borgata servers agreed to the weight gain limit policy when hired so they have to abide by it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/18/borgata-casino-can-regulate-employee-weight-nj-app/

What do you think of this?

My opinion is Many jobs have conditions of employment that workers have to follow. The servers make big Money and they should be expected to keep up their end of the agreement

I would agree that if you sign a contract,. you should be held to its terms. However, it sounds like management was harassing the servers about their appearance, rather than taking a professional approach. It looks like the harassment cases are going forward.

I'm just glad my job doesn't have a weight gain policy. I would have been fired years ago!

Quote: Joeman

I would agree that if you sign a contract,. you should be held to its terms. However, it sounds like management was harassing the servers about their appearance, rather than taking a professional approach. It looks like the harassment cases are going forward...

Well, once they sign the contract and you agree management has the right to "remind" them, it kind of becomes a grey area on how they do it. I mean, how on Earth do you even approach that conversation? Have you ever tried telling your gf she should maybe just watch what she eats? I'm not saying the managers didn't harass them, but I also can't see a conversation about a girls weight where she's not going to be upset and 'feel' harassed... professionally done or not.

Unless the girls have recordings or specific comments to prove harassment, I can't see it going well for them. Even then, if a manager says "Hey, you're getting a bit chubby" is that harassment? Surely it could have been handled in a more "professional" way, but at the same time I don't know if I'd qualify that as harassment in a job where you agree up front your manager can tell you about your weight. Just seems like a cluster-F* to me.

I agree with much of what you say, Romes. It's often a very touchy subject.

Borg should have specified the terms (for all I know, they did). Something like, your limit is X, and weigh-ins will be every quarter. Two quarters in a row above X, and you're fired. That way, there is nothing more to be said than, "Q1, you weighed Y, which is above X, if your weight is >X at the Q2 weigh-in, you lose your job."

What I read here mentions "pig snorts" and pregnancy inquiries (which may very well be legitimate, but in the context of the story seem insulting). I don't see this as professional. Harassment? Maybe. Who knows what was really said/done?

... and not once did I see the term "models who serve".

It's a cruel, cruel practice.


I would hope that they have other server positions - maybe a "Babes" group that gets first choice of premium hours & events, and a regular group that doesn't wear corsets. You gain 10% weight, you get moved to the regular server pool from the premium pool.

People still want beverage service at 10am on a Tuesday, and that clientele is slightly less picky about having their server be a bombshell in a corset than the weekend nightlife crowd that I expect the "Babes" are there to cater to.

Having the policy and how it's enforced are two very different things.

I think they can specify up front, in the employment contract, that it is a condition of employment, and if the server agrees to it, they can monitor the situation and it can be a justifiable separation for cause.

I don't think it's a subject which can be a source of casual remarks, inconsistent enforcement, or harassment. They wanted the clause, they have to be the ones who maintain the highest, impersonal standards in enforcement. Privacy for weigh-ins on at least a monthly basis, employee counseling, disciplinary actions as necessary, and no tolerance for peer criticisms or public shaming in this area would have demonstrated a lot more respect for their employees, and not allowed a hostile work environment to develop around it.

I don't doubt in the slightest that there was harassment, because if you're the target of personal remarks at work that can affect whether you keep your job, even if meant teasingly, your perception is not necessarily going to match the intent of the provoker, and harassment is usually a matter of perspective at least in part. So I'm guessing they still have a case, but possibly not as a group, though the prevailing culture could be a component of the harassment.

Greetings!

If anyone is interested, I wrote an Article pertaining to this very matter recently:

https://wizardofvegas.com/article/(Hot)-Help-Wanted/

I do agree that if the servers agreed to the weight gain policy as a condition of employment they must abide by it or possibly forfeit their jobs.
However, it must be applied fairly across the board and not used for selective discipline. with exceptions for pregnancies.

This is why we have eating disorders in this country. I know they agreed to abide to the weight gain policy, but we really don't know by what parameters they use and 7% of what. As a woman, I know that weight fluctuates 5-10 lbs. for a variety of different reasons. (no need to go into those here) baring pregnancy and illness. I think that monitoring weight should be a quarterly requirement not daily or multiple times in 1 day, This gives you 3 months to loose those extra lbs. and not have to starve or become bulimic in a short amount of time. I remember when stewardesses had the weight requirement and they sued the airlines and now that's a thing of the past.

High school wrestling is an example of where many boys starving (and more) to make weight class. It does such damage to the body.

What also get me is that it is men who are evaluating these women and it all comes down to how this requirement is monitored and judged.

I'm surprised nothing has been mentioned of age. Are these servers able to keep their jobs till retirement?

If the purpose of the weight gain policy is to have sexy voluptuous desirable women serving then what happens when a server keeps their weight and is now sixty-five years old?

And I know plenty men that would take a thicker twenty-something to a skinny fifty year old.

Not hurling age insults, just laying it bare. I personally think there should be no age or weight requirements except for sports.

Many jobs such as the military have strict body fat proportion limits, and have systems of measuring your weight and proportion of body fat. As well as physical strength standards.

So I see no reason Borgata should not do it. Borgata has a right to care about the health of their servers, and encourage them to maintain healthy habbits for their personal wellness.

I'm actually friends with several people who are servers there (Borgata Babe's I think they call themselves), and they look really great and are never overweight, that's more than I can say for many people I know, so their policy seems to work at encouraging healthy habbits because they always watch what they eat and work out a lot.

From a logistical perspective (as opposed to the whole legality of it) there are two types of jobs/careers where you need to monitor your weight.

The first is competitive. The second is managerial passive.

Okay, I made up the second term but can't think of a better term.

So, competitive would be any field where weight gain can be competitively used against you.

The military - can't have soldiers huffing and puffing on the battlefield.

Sports - same as above on the sports-field.

Acting/modeling - yes, this is competitive in its own way. There will be someone who is attempting to take your job by being that much thinner or sexier.

Then we have managerial passive. I mean by this, management wants to claim they follow strict weight and age guidelines because of the public but no one is actively attempting to compete for anyone's job besides the normal ebb and flow of a business. You won't find agents or underhanded sneaky acts to displace someone because of a talent here. You won't find someone training for years in the gym to become an airline stewardess or -- a Borgata cocktail waitress.

I certainly support the right to use weight in the former example as a hiring practice but not in the second. We need to make the clear distinction between the two types as I have done above.

Unfortunately, it looks like the courts are siding with Borgata for contractual reasons. Lets see how harassment plays into it.

What's to say these "Borgata Babes" lead a healthy lifestyle. They may smoke, drink, have a fast metabolism and are gifted with the ability to eat and not gain weight, while eating sugars, fats and carbs. I've seen the fittest people have heart attacks, need open heart surgery and have all kinds of medical issues while leading a healthy lifestyle.

If you think for one minute that the Borgata is implementing weight restrictions because they want healthy employees, you're delusional. Look at some of those cashiers, dealers and food workers they are also their employees. If a healthily lifestyle is what you want to require of your employees then provide them a smoke free environment for one. (not debating smoking here one way or the other) and a weight requirement for all employees. Their weight restrictions for the Borgata Babes is strictly aesthetic.

The waitresses knew the job requirements going into the job and yes they probably watch what they eat and work out because they have to for job security, that's not my issue. My issue is how they go about monitoring, what the weight parameters are and fostering an environment of harassment.

Quote: Gandler

Many jobs such as the military have strict body fat proportion limits, and have systems of measuring your weight and proportion of body fat. As well as physical strength standards.

So I see no reason Borgata should not do it. Borgata has a right to care about the health of their servers, and encourage them to maintain healthy habbits for their personal wellness.

I'm actually friends with several people who are servers there (Borgata Babe's I think they call themselves), and they look really great and are never overweight, that's more than I can say for many people I know, so their policy seems to work at encouraging healthy habbits because they always watch what they eat and work out a lot.

Quote: MrsHeartRN

What's to say these "Borgata Babes" lead a healthy lifestyle. They may smoke, drink, have a fast metabolism and are gifted with the ability to eat and not gain weight, while eating sugars, fats and carbs. I've seen the fittest people have heart attacks, need open heart surgery and have all kinds of medical issues while leading a healthy lifestyle.

If you think for one minute that the Borgata is implementing weight restrictions because they want healthy employees, you're delusional. Look at some of those cashiers, dealers and food workers they are also their employees. If a healthily lifestyle is what you want to require of your employees then provide them a smoke free environment for one. (not debating smoking here one way or the other) and a weight requirement for all employees. Their weight restrictions for the Borgata Babes is strictly aesthetic.

The waitresses knew the job requirements going into the job and yes they probably watch what they eat and work out because they have to for job security, that's not my issue. My issue is how they go about monitoring, what the weight parameters are and fostering an environment of harassment.

They probably have a height based system. (IE depending on your height you have a minimum and maximum weight that you must stay between).

It might be strictly for looks, but it works very well. Even the ones I know with kids look really healthy and great.

And, if you go into that kind of job, you know that your looks matter, and you know you will have to maintain an appearance.