This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/london/8101973.stm

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Muslim waitress wins dress payout Cocktail waitress wins dress case
(about 14 hours later)
A Muslim cocktail waitress who refused to wear a tight-fitting dress at work has been awarded £3,000 compensation. A cocktail waitress who refused to wear a tight-fitting dress at work has been awarded £3,000 compensation.
Fata Lemes, 33, worked at the Rocket Bar in Mayfair for eight days last year and was told female staff would have to wear the tight red dress in the summer.Fata Lemes, 33, worked at the Rocket Bar in Mayfair for eight days last year and was told female staff would have to wear the tight red dress in the summer.
At the time the uniform was a black shirt and trousers for men and women.At the time the uniform was a black shirt and trousers for men and women.
A panel upheld her claim that bar owners Spring and Green had discriminated against her on the grounds of her gender.A panel upheld her claim that bar owners Spring and Green had discriminated against her on the grounds of her gender.
Unlike the women, the men were not required to switch to brightly coloured, figure-hugging garb Employment judge Anthony SnelsonUnlike the women, the men were not required to switch to brightly coloured, figure-hugging garb Employment judge Anthony Snelson
Led by employment judge Anthony Snelson, the panel said Ms Lemes, who said the dress made her feel like a prostitute, held "views about modesty and decency which some might think unusual in Britain in the 21st Century".Led by employment judge Anthony Snelson, the panel said Ms Lemes, who said the dress made her feel like a prostitute, held "views about modesty and decency which some might think unusual in Britain in the 21st Century".
The panel said: "Plainly, it [the dress] related to her sex. It was gender-specific.The panel said: "Plainly, it [the dress] related to her sex. It was gender-specific.
"The respondents did not introduce a summer uniform for male waiting staff. Unlike the women, the men were not required to switch to brightly coloured, figure-hugging garb.""The respondents did not introduce a summer uniform for male waiting staff. Unlike the women, the men were not required to switch to brightly coloured, figure-hugging garb."
The panel decided that forcing Ms Lemes to wear the dress in order to keep her job at the bar "violated her dignity" and created a "humiliating" environment.The panel decided that forcing Ms Lemes to wear the dress in order to keep her job at the bar "violated her dignity" and created a "humiliating" environment.
Ms Lemes told the panel she was even propositioned by two men on her second shift, who were looking for "a blonde Scandinavian or Swedish girl for one or more nights".Ms Lemes told the panel she was even propositioned by two men on her second shift, who were looking for "a blonde Scandinavian or Swedish girl for one or more nights".
'Manifestly absurd''Manifestly absurd'
She told bosses she felt unable to wear the dress, and it became clear neither side would compromise, the panel found.She told bosses she felt unable to wear the dress, and it became clear neither side would compromise, the panel found.
It rejected Ms Lemes' claims that she was sacked from the bar and that she fell prey to discrimination because she did not receive tips for the shifts she worked.It rejected Ms Lemes' claims that she was sacked from the bar and that she fell prey to discrimination because she did not receive tips for the shifts she worked.
For that reason the panel decided her original claim of £17,500 was dismissed as "manifestly absurd".For that reason the panel decided her original claim of £17,500 was dismissed as "manifestly absurd".
However, it granted £3,000 compensation and £711.73 in wages, plus interest, giving a total of £3,893.26.However, it granted £3,000 compensation and £711.73 in wages, plus interest, giving a total of £3,893.26.
This was reduced by 25% because the members found Ms Lemes's solicitor Joe Sykes did not set out the basis of grievance properly.This was reduced by 25% because the members found Ms Lemes's solicitor Joe Sykes did not set out the basis of grievance properly.