YYYOUCH! Employee fired for refusing Brazilian wax claims sex discrimination.

You know, maybe I should have gone with the porta-potty-harassment post that I originally had planned for today. Nah. My analytics tell me that my best-received posts have a common theme: crotch and Brazil. Besides, everyone knows that nothing says Friday like a porta-potty post. Just wait ’til Friday.

So today, after the jump, let’s wax poetic, shall we?

(Ouch, again).

Dave Jamieson from the Huffington Post reports here about a woman hired at a spa as a “Wax Specialist” who, in this Complaint, alleges that her recent termination was discriminatory.

Ok, seems fairly vanilla so far.

But, you see, friends, it seems that this “Wax Specialist” was required to give and receive a Brazilian wax — in front of her female colleagues — as part of training. She further claims that, when she refused and complained to the spa owner, she was fired.

This is a first for me. Oh, you too? No kidding…

Notwithstanding alleged assurances from the corporate trainer that she should “put in a fresh tampon and take an ibuprofen and you’ll be fine,” (oh, if I had a nickel…) the plaintiff claims that her termination for refusing the big rip-off amounts to sex discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. 

Come on, please ask me why. 

Oh, why, you say? Because allegedly the employer did not require that male employees get Brazilian waxes too.

Further, the plaintiff claims that the Brazilian wax requirement amounts to sexual harassment. And that her termination, after she complained, was also retaliatory.

Here’s my prediction: The defendants have the plaintiff by her remaining short hairs The discrimination claims all get dismissed.

1. Sexual harassment: To have a hostile work environment, there must be some severe or pervasive bad behavior. The plaintiff claims that “mandatory Brazilian wax training was so severe and extreme as to alter the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.” But, folks, she refused it. So, she was never subjected to the alleged “severe and extreme” treatment. Plus, as far as I know, no court in PA has ever held that a single incident of harassment has created a hostile work environment. So, I can’t imagine that precedent will be set here with a Brazilian waxing.
2. Sex discrimination: I’m going to assume that men don’t give Brazilian waxes because a woman doesn’t want a man waxing her nether eye. (Straight Chaucer, son!) So, then, what reason would there be for male employees to give or get waxed by male co-workers? None, amirite? And call me sexist, but no man should be subjected to that. Ever. I present to you a NSFW — do not listen to this at work — Exhibit A.
3. Retaliation: Retaliation requires a protected activity; in this case, a complaint based on a reasonable belief that there is some discriminatory behavior in the workplace. Here, there is not protected activity. The underlying complaint of discrimination in connection with Nos. 1 and 2 above was not reasonably held.

I can’t wait for your comments below!

(h/t @RobinSchooling)