|
Hooters Settles Crude Comments Case for $15K |
 |
 Unless a Missouri high school really has a “history of racial tension,” school officials may not be able to show they had a legitimate reason to discipline a freshman for displaying the Confederate flag on his clothing.
In a civil-rights suit filed in November, Bryce Archambo, 14, alleges his sartorial expression is protected under the First Amendment and seeks a court order enjoining the Farmington R-7 School District from conditioning his attendance on how he dresses.
Officials suspended Archambo from Farmington High in September, the complaint says, after warning him that he “could not wear any clothing with the 'rebel flag' or any representation of the Confederate States, due to the alleged inherent message of racism that such insignia sends.”
The offending clothing included a belt buckle and t-shirt that featured the Confederate flag and the words “Dixie Classics.” Archambo's mother removed him from the district “as a direct result of Defendants' censorship of [his] speech” and he has been home-schooled ever since.
Under Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), school officials may forbid student speech that they reasonably believe would “substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students.”
Cases involving representations of the Confederacy have boiled down to the possible effect on school discipline. In West v. Derby Unified, 206 F.3d 1358 (2000), the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the suspension of a student who drew a picture of the Confederate flag, citing, among other things, past verbal confrontations between black and white students.
Farmington R-7 “has a history of racial tension," the district's attorney, Thomas A. Mickes, argues in a court brief, "which makes it substantially likely that allowing [Archambo] to wear t-shirts and other clothing with the confederate flag symbol will cause disruption to the work of the District."
The pleading does not provide any details, but Mickes told the Daily Journal newspaper of Park Hills, Mo., that the state investigated a case of racial remarks made during a basketball game in a neighboring school district.
“Schools have become far too violent,” he lamented. “We want to remove any of those potential sources.”
But Mickes' evidence of racial tension looks weak in comparison to West. And Tinker makes clear that "undifferentiated fear or apprehension" of a disturbance is not enough to overcome a student's free-speech rights.
The population of Farmington, a small town 60 miles south of St. Louis, is 90 percent white and only seven percent black.
By Peyton Burgess
2/26/07
 The owner of a Hooters restaurant in Alabama agreed to pay $15,600 to a former employee who alleged he was illegally fired for complaining about lewd comments made to waitresses by a training manager, On Point has learned.
The waitresses asked Jarman Gray to intercede with the management of Alabama Wings, which operates Hooters of Auburn, after a trainer identified only as Cat allegedly told them they were “the ones with the pussys” and “If you need the extra money, go ahead and suck a dick or fuck the customer if the money is right.”
Gray contacted the head of the franchise division at Hooters' corporate office. But according to a complaint filed in April 2006, franchise owner Darrell Spikes terminated him, saying, “I'm top dog. You don't call corporate.”
The parties agreed to the $15,600 settlement in December, but the terms were not made public until the plaintiff filed a motion claiming Alabama Wings had failed to make the first two of three installment payments.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Russ Walker last week ordered the company to pay $12,275 -– consisting of the remaining amount due under the settlement plus penalties and attorney's fees -- no later than March 10.
Hooters and its franchisees have settled a series of high-profile harassment cases in recent years (see table below). Alabama Wings accused Gray in a counterclaim of making false representations to six Hooters girls to induce them to quit their jobs.
|
HARASSMENT AT HOOTERS
|
|
Case
|
Claim
|
Outcome
|
|
Anenberg v. Hooters of America (Los Angeles Super. Ct. 2004)
|
Manager secretly videotaped applicants for waitress jobs while they were changing into uniforms.
|
Most of the plaintiffs settled in April 2006.
|
|
Ciesielski v. Hooters Management (USDC, N. Ill. 2003)
|
Workers spied on waitress through peepholes in changing room wall.
|
Case settled in June 2005 after jury awarded $275,000 to plaintiff.
|
|
Colangelo v. Hooters of America (USDC, E. Pa. 2005)
|
Manager made comments about waitress's breasts and required her to wear tight tank tops.
|
Case settled in September 2006.
|
|
Gray v. Jarman (USDC, M. Ala. 2006)
|
Owner fired manager for complaining about lewd comments to waitresses.
|
Case settled for $15,600 in December 2006.
|
|
Steinhoff v. Upriver Restaurant (USDC, E. Ky. 1999)
|
Two managers made unwanted sexual advances toward waitress.
|
Case settled in January 2001 after judge reduced jury award from $275,000 to $25,000.
|
By Matthew Heller
2/26/07
|