Federal Judge rules baristas in Everett, Washington are allowed to wear bikinis

[NewYorkExpress]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-judge-rules-favor-bikini-baristas-dress-92344849

A Washington city's dress code ordinance saying bikini baristas must cover their bodies at work has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.

The decision in a partial summary judgment this week comes after a lengthy legal battle between bikini baristas and the city of Everett over the rights of workers to wear what they want, the Everett Herald reported. Everett is about 30 miles (50 kilometers) north of Seattle.

U.S. District Court in Seattle found Everett’s dress code ordinance violated the Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. and Washington state constitutions. The Court found that the ordinance was, at least in part, shaped by a gender-based discriminatory purpose, according to a 19-page ruling signed by U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.

[politicallefty]

I'm not convinced of the Equal Protection Clause argument here.

[NewYorkExpress]

I looked up Ricardo Martinez on Wikipedia, and apparently he's a Bush appointee, who once made a ruling in Backpage's favor when they sued Washington.

Seems like a moderate, at the minimum.

[politicallefty]

I looked up Ricardo Martinez on Wikipedia, and apparently he's a Bush appointee, who once made a ruling in Backpage's favor when they sued Washington.

Seems like a moderate, at the minimum.

I don't mean that the ruling was beyond the pale or anything like that. I'm not sure the gender-neutral aspect was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In this case, I think the First Amendment argument was more persuasive.

As far as the Equal Protection Clause goes, I think a law that forbids women from going topless in public while allowing men to do the same should be considered unconstitutional. I do not think a law that forbade everyone from going topless in public would violate the EPC.

[NewYorkExpress]

I looked up Ricardo Martinez on Wikipedia, and apparently he's a Bush appointee, who once made a ruling in Backpage's favor when they sued Washington.

Seems like a moderate, at the minimum.

I don't mean that the ruling was beyond the pale or anything like that. I'm not sure the gender-neutral aspect was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In this case, I think the First Amendment argument was more persuasive.

As far as the Equal Protection Clause goes, I think a law that forbids women from going topless in public while allowing men to do the same should be considered unconstitutional. I do not think a law that forbade everyone from going topless in public would violate the EPC.

That's the thing though. It may forbid everyone from being topless in public on paper, but in reality, it's probably only being enforced in regards to women, and that would be an Equal Protection Clause violation.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Today I learned "bikini barista" is a job that one can have. Wild.

Probably the right decision constitutionally.

[Vosem]

Equal Protection clause seems like an odd (though, eh, not necessarily wrong) reasoning for this, but obviously correct and good decision. The government should not be able to overrule workplace dress codes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Freedom Decision from this judge

[Sol]

Today I learned "bikini barista" is a job that one can have. Wild.

Probably the right decision constitutionally.

Apparently it's a vibrant subsector of the Pacific Northwest's economy. Pretty weird.