Muslim cocktail waitress awarded $4,700 for being made to wear “indecent” dress
- Cupidity, stupidity and complicity from the Â judiciary:
She was Â awarded Â Â£2,919.95 for “hurt feelings” and loss of earnings..
But wait, there’s more:
- Revealed: RisquÃ© Facebook picture of Muslim waitress who won Â£3,000 compensation for wearing ‘indecent’ dress
- We reported previously: See the girl with the red dress on, she do the compo boogie all night long…
- Better late than never: Andrew Bolt runs the story here:Â Banning not burkas but little red dresses
But this is how she displays herself on Facebook:
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â My feelings are hurt also…
What was a pious Muslim doing working as a cocktail waitress, anyway? And what did she expect to wear inside a bar — a burqa? Not coincidentally, she dresses more “indecently” than she was asked to in the bar on her Facebook page — indicating that this was all about intimidating the dhimmis, and of course, it worked. Absurd Brittania Alert: “Muslim cocktail waitress gets Â£3,000 for sexual harassment after bar ordered her to wear ‘indecent’ dress,” from theÂ Daily Mail, June 15 (Jihad Watch):
A Muslim cocktail waitress who quit after refusing to wear a bright red dress for work has won almost Â£3,000 in compensation for sexual harassment.Fata Lemes, 33, was handed the payout even though a tribunal rejected her claim that the dress was ‘sexually revealing and indecent’.
It concluded the Bosnian Muslim ‘holds views about modesty and decency which some might think unusual in Britain in the 21st century’.
But it accepted that Miss Lemes genuinely believed that the short, low-cut dress was ‘disgusting’ and made her look ‘like a prostitute’.
Bosses at the Rocket bar in London’s Mayfair should have made allowance for her feelings and their insistence that she wear the dress amounted to sexual harassment, the tribunal ruled.
The panel at Central London Employment Tribunal found that Miss Lemes overstated her trauma at being asked to wear the sleeveless dress that was open at the back.
It also rejected Miss Lemes’ claim that she was left with no choice but to walk out of her job after just eight days.
It branded her compensation claim of Â£20,000 including Â£17,500 for hurt feelings as ‘manifestly absurd’.
But it awarded her Â£2,919.95 for hurt feelings and loss of earnings.
Miss Lemes pictured in a low-cut top on her Facebook page
Miss Lemes told the tribunal that she ‘might as well be naked’ in the dress, adding: ‘I was brought up a Muslim and am not used to wearing sexually attractive clothes.’
A photo of Miss Lemes on Facebook, however, shows her wearing a low cut T-shirt revealing her cleavage….
Miss Lemes’ lawyer Joe Sykes asked the restaurant’s general manager Danila Bodei: ‘The reason for choosing the colour red was to indicate that the waitresses were sexually available, wasn’t it?’
She replied: ‘No, it was just the colour to match the bar.’
That color is gonna cost you.
A Bosnian Muslim woman, Fata Lemes, has just won Â£3,000 from an employment tribunal because the Mayfair cocktail bar in which she worked required her to wear a red dress (above) in the summer months. She said this was humiliating and made her feel ‘like a prostitute’ and ‘violated her dignity’ and therefore she refused to wear the dress. She complained and won her appeal. ..
The red dress Ms Lemes was required to wear was not in the least bit revealing, incidentally â€” less revealing than the slinky t-shirt worn by the woman (below) on her Facebook site, apparently. I assume Fata is now busy applying for jobs in a pork pie factory, or a dog pound, or a synagogue, and keeping in touch with her lawyers. There’s another thing about working in a cocktail bar which might make Mohammed, pbuh, a bit twitchy. Can you work out what that might be? Hmm, let me think….
The final irony of the Fata Lemes case is that the money was awarded to her not because her Muslim faith had been transgressed with that red dress, but because she had been transgressed as a woman. Those were not the grounds upon which she had based her appeal, but the tribunal seems to have decided unilaterally that those are the grounds upon which sheÂ shouldÂ have based her appeal. Their point being that while waitresses were expected to wear nice red dresses in the summer months, no such demand was made of the waiters. Somehow this unsurprising fact grated with the panel, the notion that women had to wear dresses and men did not. The discrepancy seems to have grated with the panel rather more than it grated with Fata Lemes. That is because â€” I would contend, M’lud â€” that the panel was comprised of mad men and mad women, as these panels usually are.
- Banning not burkas but little red dresses/Andrew Bolt