A federal judge recently ruled in favor of Washington State’s bikini barista stand, voiding the city of Everett’s dress code ordinance that required workers in bikinis to cover up.
The city passed an ordinance in 2017 requiring “quick service” workers to cover their upper and lower bodies. Daily Herald reportThe stand’s owner, Hillbilly Hotties, and some of its employees challenged the rules, arguing that dressing was a way of self-expression and that the rules were broken.I inherit the rights of the First Amendment.
a The United States District Court in Seattle ruled that the city’s dress code violated t.Equal Protection Clause of the United States and Washington State Constitutions.
U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo S. Martinez issued a 19-page judgment explaining that the ordinance was at least partially drafted Discriminatory purposes based on gender.
“This ordinance shows that it was passed to negatively impact female workers in bikini barista stands,” Martinez wrote. “There is evidence in the record that the bikini barista profession, which is clearly covered by the ordinance, is wholly or almost entirely female. It’s hard to imagine.”
The judgment referred to the prohibition of the ordinance Clothing “usually worn by women rather than men”, such as midriff or scoop-back shirts and bikinis.
“Assuming that bikini barista stand owners are unable or unwilling to enforce this dress code, at some point law enforcement will be required to somehow measure skin exposure.” The ruling said, “This is ‘a humiliating, intrusive and demoralizing search for women that facilitates, disempowers and deprives women of their freedom.'”
The City of Everett must meet with the plaintiff within 14 days to discuss next steps.
Challenge the bikini barista stand the town’s Obscenity Ordinance, Expanded definition of obscenity Includes exposure of “more than half of the area of a woman’s breast that lies below the top of the areola”, “genitals, anus, lower half of the anal fissure, or any part of the areola or nipple”. female breast. It made it a crime to abide by an obscene act.
However, the court dismissed all of the barista’s claims, except those related to the dress code ordinance.