CHICAGO — A federal judge has to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit from 31 women who used to work at the Twin Peaks "breastaurant" chain, and accused their former employer of setting an environment of "rampant sexual harassment" in which male managers, co-workers and customers "felt free to touch" female workers "and say things to them without consequence."
U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso issued an opinion July 15 rejecting motions to dismiss from Front Burner Restaurants and a dozen other defendants. Restaurant locations implicated in the allegations include those in Oakbrook Terrace, Orland Park, Wheeling and Warrenville, as well as some in Texas.
According to Alonso, Twin Peaks co-founder Randy DeWitt, in 2005, said of his chain that “Hooters just wasn’t racy enough,” while CEO Joe Hummel is quoted as calling Twin Peaks part of the so-called “breastaurant” market.
Tamara Holder
| Law Firm of Tamara N. Holder
“To attract female employees, Twin Peaks requires no experience, offers flexible scheduling and does not require servers to perform side work,” Alonson wrote. “As part of the application process, Twin Peaks managers require applicants to put on the Twin Peaks Girl uniform, which consists of a plaid shirt and short shorts. The manager takes pictures of each applicant from the front, side and back and sends the photos to ‘corporate for approval.’ If corporate approves, the woman is hired immediately and provided a plaid shirt and money belt. The woman is required to purchase her own short shorts, rhinestone belt and winter boots.”
But the standard uniform could be shelved in favor of weeklong costume parties, according to allegations, during which female workers had to buy and wear lingerie — a different outfit for each shift — or else they would not work during those weeks. They further alleged shift managers scored female workers on physical appearance and assigned working sections based on those scores. The women said some workers received no tips while working and women could improve their scores by sleeping with a manager.
In their complaint, the women said the workplace culture included “rampant sexual harassment and a hostile work environment in which men — ranging from the managers to the kitchen staff to the customers — felt free to touch them and say things to them without consequence.”
The women further alleged a culture of body shaming, including probation for women deemed to have gained too much weight and a ban on eating during working hours that applied only to women and not male employees. They also said complaints resulted in demotions and placement on internal “do not hire” lists, while other alleged discrimination occurred based on pregnancy, other medical conditions, or race.
One male worker who joined as a plaintiff alleged managers harassed him for being gay, while another said senior executives fired him after he reported on his observations of the culture of harassment.
Although the defendants argued for dismissal on the grounds the allegations lacked specificity, “discrimination claims are the easiest to state and require the least elaboration” Alonso wrote, later adding that “harassment claims are similarly easy to state.”
He also rejected the defendants’ contention that some of the complaints were untimely and that others shouldn’t be allowed because the workers failed to exhaust other administrative remedies. Alonso said the complaint didn’t include the types of details that would allow defendants to mount such affirmative defenses and that the question of whether certain plaintiffs filed discrimination charges was outside the scope of pleadings and only appropriate for a motion for summary judgment, not dismissal
Finally, Alonso rejected a motion to compel arbitration with respect to only one plaintiff, whom they allege signed an arbitration agreement, saying the defendants “do not bother to explain why the arbitration agreement is enforceable under Texas law or why any of the Twin Peaks defendants who filed the motion to dismiss is entitled to enforce the agreement.”
Front Burner also sought dismissal on the grounds it was not the workers’ employer, but Alonso said the plaintiffs included plausible allegations that it was a joint employer along with the franchise defendants. Among those details are the listing of Front Burner employees on a “who to call sheet” given to Twin Peaks managers, and that Front Burner is the entity listed on health insurance paperwork.
Alonso gave the defendants until Aug. 9 to respond to his opinion and set a status hearing for Aug. 27.
The plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys Tamara N. Holder and Johanna J. Raimond, of Chicago.
Twin Peaks and related defendants are represented by attorneys Meredith Cavallaro and Courtney Fain, of Paduano & Weintraub, of New York; Ines M. Monte and Christopher W. Sheekey, of LaPointe Law, of Northbrook; and Kristine S. Phillips and Bryan White, of O'Hagan Meyer, of Chicago.
Front Burner is represented by attorneys Stephanie F. Jones, Patrick F. Moran and Katherine P. Decker, of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhan, of Chicago.