Been to a Ruth’s Chris Steak House? Aside from it being a tongue twister (try saying “Ruth’s Chris” fast ten times), once you get inside you’ll notice it looks very…boys’ club.
It’s that solid wood thing going on that’s characteristic of most bigger name steak houses. Like Smith & Wollensky. Or Peter Luger (though Luger’s is missing those white lint-producing tablecloths). Outback, Longhorn’s, Morton’s…same drill. And the handles on those steak knives—if you didn’t know any better you’d think you were handling a Winchester Model 1895.
No, not much feminine going on there. So it seems almost apropos that a sexual discrimination lawsuit would somehow crop up in the midst of all that manliness. And so one has—for Ruth’s Chris Steak House.
A group of current and former female employees has filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against Ruth’s Chris. Their complaint alleges that female employees have been subjected to: lower compensation than their male counterparts; sexist comments; and harsher disciplinary action than that which is doled out to the guys there.
The women are seeking class action status for this one, and if gets certified the class would include all female Ruth’s Chris employees who worked at the restaurants or the company headquarters from September, 2006 to the present.
To quote from the lawsuit (Bush v. Ruth’s Chris Steak House, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 10-01721): “The work environment at RCSH [Ruth’s Chris Steak House] is one that is demeaning to women, reflects a culture of male domination and female subjugation, and is a causative factor in the discrimination against women in compensation, promotion, and termination.”
What’s interesting here is that the “Ruth” in Ruth’s Chris was actually Ruth U. Fertel, who purchased Chris Steak House in New Orleans in 1965 and got the whole thing going. She passed away in 2002. One can only wonder what the successful, entrepreneurial businesswoman who created this businessman’s beefery would think of this…
The recent spate of incidents where employees have been unjustly fired for health issues through no control of their own leaves an unsavory aftertaste, and paints employers guilty of such conduct as mean-spirited. A case in point is the former employee of a Michael’s store who felt pressured to return to work early after a double mastectomy, only to be fired soon after while continuing to undergo chemotherapy.
As inconvenient as it might be to have a vital employee sidelined for health issues, basic human rights suggest that the employer has a moral obligation to stand behind an employee who is suffering. There are also legal requirements to that end.
Nor should an employee who has health issues through no fault of his own—but still capable of working—find himself shut out by an employer, and from a job he needs and is quite capable of doing, just because he is not the pristine specimen that may fit the company profile.
Employees who suffer health discrimination in the workplace can, and do fight back. Recently a breast cancer patient sued her former employer for what she claimed to be an unjust firing and was awarded millions in compensation.
But there are two sides to every issue—and it can go both ways.
To wit, employees have to take some responsibility for their own health. When they fail to do so, who can blame an employer for feeling angry and betrayed?
How long have we known that smoking kills? And yet there are those who smoke like a Read the rest of this entry »