Lupo said her manager then reduced her hours to the point where she was making so little income that she was forced to quit, which made her ineligible for unemployment benefits.
My first question is "Why quit?" Why not just hang in there--a little money is better than nothing--and start looking for another job while you still have one.
And why not a soft cap?
I do think if the management said "Wig or Else" then that would suck, but if they let her wear one of those soft caps that are made out of sock material, then that would be acceptable. And if she had the support of her manager, as the article says, why didn't she appeal to the manager when her hours were reduced?
They could have modified her duties while her scar healed up and her hair grew back, too--it's not clear if that was an option.
I can understand the restaurant not wanting her to serve with a visibly healing wound--but it's not clear what went on, here. She is saying her customers were "not offended" but I don't think they'd necessarily say anything to her even if they found the wound a bit "off putting." And I don't know about other customers, but I sure as hell wouldn't ask someone about their "obvious scar" if they were serving me--in my circles, that would be considered rude.
In a complaint filed with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, Lupo said she never believed her customers were ever "offended" by her appearance at the chain, which is known for its hot wings and servers clad in tight white tank tops and orange hot pants.
"My customers were not offended, and were in fact curious about the obvious scar from my surgery," she wrote in the complaint.
I won't patronize those restaurants. I think they set a poor example.
= new reply since forum marked as read
