Whatever happened to "coat and tie required"?

[Paisley]

Or that's what Dickies work wear is for.

fftopic:

I'm trying to imagine the club manager telling a plumber that he has to run home and change before he can fix their backed up sewer line.

 

[Lincsong]

There's the whole "public accomodations" sections of anti-discrimination laws which can be read very broadly. I remember reading about a lawsuit against Yankee Stadium in the late 1950's by a guy who was expelled from the stadium for wearing a white t-shirt, Yankee Stadium lost. Especially in a common law society as opposed to a civil law society laws can be read broadly. Add in the Supreme Court rulings on vagrancy laws and such and it would be a good guess that there are/were lawsuits that ended the practice of dress codes in restaurants. The term "private property" has little meaning in the present day.

 

[Lincsong]

fftopic:

I'm trying to imagine the club manager telling a plumber that he has to run home and change before he can fix their backed up sewer line.

Oh they took care of that, by sending letters to all their vendors informing them of the requirement and reminding them of it when they are called.

 

[Matt Crunk]

To get back on topic; I also think a lot of the requirements of restaurants went wayside because of the threat of lawsuits from an aggreived "group" with an axe to grind and a lawyer willing to bring about a discrimination lawsuit.

How is requiring a coat and tie discriminating against any group but the chronically casual? If you can afford to eat in such a restaurant, then surely you can afford the attire. A decent jacket and tie would cost you less than $20 at your local Goodwill.

I remember some of those "Coat and Tie Required" places even kept a few spare jackets and ties around that they would loan out to customers who came unprepared. It wasn't about barring anyone entry. It was about keeping the dining experience at a certain level.

 

[HadleyH]

Agreed! Isn't that what the service entrance is for?

fftopic:


Exactly! :eusa_clap

 

[Lincsong]

How is requiring a coat and tie discriminating against any group but the chronically casual? If you can afford to eat in such a restaurant, then surely you can afford the attire. A decent jacket and tie would cost you less than $20 at your local Goodwill.

I remember some of those "Coat and Tie Required" places even kept a few spare jackets and ties around that they would loan out to customers who came unprepared. It wasn't about barring anyone entry. It was about keeping the dining experience at a certain level.

Exactly. However, get a smooth talking lawyer, a sympathetic judge and couple crying defendents and a case is made. Sounds ridiculous but it does happen. What if the defendent couldn't afford $20 for a coat and tie at Goodwill???? The DMV in California wanted to institute a reservation system and a judge blocked it because it discriminated against people who don't use telephones or couldn't afford the money for a pay phone.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Exactly. However, get a smooth talking lawyer, a sympathetic judge and couple crying defendents and a case is made. Sounds ridiculous but it does happen. What if the defendent couldn't afford $20 for a coat and tie at Goodwill???? The DMV in California wanted to institute a reservation system and a judge blocked it because it discriminated against people who don't use telephones or couldn't afford the money for a pay phone.

The DMV is a governmental agency which is mandated to provide access to it's services or programs. [huh]

 

[Viola]

I would be against requiring a jacket/tie/whatever for the DMV as well: but a restaurant is not a governmental agency. Without a driver's license through much of this country its pretty hard to get a job or do much of anything. If you don't want to eat in my restaurant, well, you can ramble on down the road.

Its discrimination if its requiring things that are not clothes/behavior. If you have a problem with the complexion of your clientele that's a rather different issue than having an issue with their T-shirts.

 

[Lincsong]

The DMV is a governmental agency which is mandated to provide access to it's services or programs. [huh]

But that was the thing, no one was denied access. All that was required was that a person not just show up. If a person couldn't afford the .50 for a pay phone but could walk down anyway, they could in theory walk down to DMV, book a time then come back at their time to take their test, register their car etc. In a convoluted sense, it could then be argued that those who just show up at the DMV are denying access to those who booked a time.lol Circular? Yes, but that is how lawsuits are instituted.

Then there are the professional ADA types who go to various establishments who are not ADA compliant, threaten the owner with a lawsuit, but then suggest to the owner to settle out of court for cash.

Laws can be read as broadly and as narrowly as any lawyer and judge lawyer want. Except maybe in Louisiana but that is a totally different animal.

 

[Paisley]

fftopic:

Exactly. However, get a smooth talking lawyer, a sympathetic judge and couple crying defendents and a case is made. Sounds ridiculous but it does happen. What if the defendent couldn't afford $20 for a coat and tie at Goodwill???? The DMV in California wanted to institute a reservation system and a judge blocked it because it discriminated against people who don't use telephones or couldn't afford the money for a pay phone.

I don't think the deaf are able to use telephones.

 

[miss_elise]

fftopic:



I don't think the deaf are able to use telephones.

not really.. you can TTY


but they love mobile phones... text messages all the way

 

[miss_elise]

and then there are the places that don't let you in if you are wearing a suit because they don't want to have that kind of vibe (particularly after 5 on friday nights - i think they want you to change at the office or something)

 

[Geesie]

That, I have not seen. What sort of place is that?

 

[bobalooba]

To this day my father complains about a local long since closed jazz club that wouldn't let him in because he wore a shit and jacket without a tie and was told they wanted to "keep out the riffraff" this usually ends in a tangent about how jazz started in seedy clubs with no dress codes yaddayadda so I think it's a fine line to walk. You don't want people poorly dressed but you don't want to lose buisness or contend with preconceived notions.

 

[CopperNY]

i'll try and get the name, but my good friend had his bachelor party in Las Vegas, and the 'gentlemens club' was dinner jacket required.

locally, we've had a huge influx of Bosnian refugees. the clubs and restaurants they open are pretty adamant about "no oversize clothing, no baseball caps or doo rags". buttoned shirt and chinos are about the minimum you can get away with and not get the hairy eyeball from the owner and staff. the one exception is the cafe with outside seating where dark jeans and black tshirts seem to be acceptable, but not inside for dinner. surprisingly they are doing very well. i have friends, that i didn't know owned anything but jeans, getting out a jacket so they can go enjoy a great meal.

also. i just talked about this with my father (50's greaser/hotrodder) and he remembers very clearly the day he and two friends were physically tossed out of a roadside restaurant for wearing black leather and jeans. my grandparents had him change, go back, and apologize.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

But that was the thing, no one was denied access. All that was required was that a person not just show up. If a person couldn't afford the .50 for a pay phone but could walk down anyway, they could in theory walk down to DMV, book a time then come back at their time to take their test, register their car etc. In a convoluted sense, it could then be argued that those who just show up at the DMV are denying access to those who booked a time.lol Circular? Yes, but that is how lawsuits are instituted.

Then there are the professional ADA types who go to various establishments who are not ADA compliant, threaten the owner with a lawsuit, but then suggest to the owner to settle out of court for cash.

Laws can be read as broadly and as narrowly as any lawyer and judge lawyer want. Except maybe in Louisiana but that is a totally different animal.

Louisiana is based on the Napoleonic code; last I heard.

Without seeing the case or the "Black Letter Law" I can only speculate. For example, if the person has a phobia about using the phone and such is established through medical evidence then an accommodation must be provided for accessing the programs or services. There are certain requirements which I will not get into here.

The spirit of the why the "telephone" program was formed in the first place must be examined, perhaps that is what the judge did before ruling. If the application of the program undermines the purpose of the program to begin with then it was the program must be stricken.

As far as your extortion scenario; I have never heard of such a thing. I not saying it cannot happen. Think about it, if the owner of the business is going to pay he/she is a fool*. All the business owner has to do is call the cops. lol lol lol It sounds like a lot of baloney. First the business owner must refuse an administrative ruling, then the aggrieved party must go through the exhaustive machinations of a civil matter.


*( i know I just used the f_ _ l word please don't beat me up You know who you are).

 

[Lincsong]

Louisiana is based on the Napoleonic code; last I heard.

Without seeing the case or the "Black Letter Law" I can only speculate. For example, if the person has a phobia about using the phone and such is established through medical evidence then an accommodation must be provided for accessing the programs or services. There are certain requirements which I will not get into here.

The spirit of the why the "telephone" program was formed in the first place must be examined, perhaps that is what the judge did before ruling. If the application of the program undermines the purpose of the program to begin with then it was the program must be stricken.

As far as your extortion scenario; I have never heard of such a thing. I not saying it cannot happen. Think about it, if the owner of the business is going to pay he/she is a fool*. All the business owner has to do is call the cops. lol lol lol It sounds like a lot of baloney. First the business owner must refuse an administrative ruling, then the aggrieved party must go through the exhaustive machinations of a civil matter.


*( i know I just used the f_ _ l word please don't beat me up You know who you are).

Louisiana; exactly. The telephone phobia was probably argued, the DMV reservation thing happened about 26 years ago so I forgot the exact case.[huh] But I do remember that the meat of the argument was the .20 cost of a payphone call and that some people don't use telephones. But, people do manage to find a way to the DMV regardless of ability to use a pay phone, or drive. lol

The extortion thing was reported a couple years ago by one of the local television stations. I agree it sounds like baloney, but when threatened with a lawsuit and several thousand dollars of attorney fees it may just be cheaper for the business owner to settle out of court for $3000 and get the defendant down the road and out of his hair.

The same could be argued for the coat and tie argument; why spend thousands of dollars in attorney fees defending one's business and private property. Settle for a couple thousand dollars and drop the requirement. Sounds foolish, but it does happen.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I remember some of those "Coat and Tie Required" places even kept a few spare jackets and ties around that they would loan out to customers who came unprepared. It wasn't about barring anyone entry. It was about keeping the dining experience at a certain level.

I remember those spare jackets and ties that were loaned out. They were invariably made of double-knit nylon/dacron polyester, sometimes in loud colors and patterns. They weren't always very clean, either. Few restaurant patrons would want to be caught dead in such duds, not even in the '70s.


The idea behind those loan-outs was to EMBARRASS the customer. Either he would leave the restaurant, never to return ... or he would go home, change into a decent jacket and tie, and come back.



.

 

[John in Covina]

I'd like to pose the question, what are we teaching our children?

All of the people that show up at fine restaurant and swanky places in athletic apparel or what is truly physical labor work clothes what is their knowledge of dressing up?

What were they taught and by whom?

In the past when traveling to Las Vegas and going to a restaurant for the first time I would often call the restaurant and speak to some one there to ask what type of attire should I show up in? Suit, jacket & tie, etc.

The level goes up from breakfast to lunch to evening dining and there are so many levels of dining one to 5 stars.

*Much like the wine should be paired to the dish, the attire should be paired to the level of dining.*

And that is something parents should teach their children.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

To this day my father complains about a local long since closed jazz club that wouldn't let him in because he wore a shit and jacket ...

Well, no wonder they wouldn't let him in.


.