Speedo Lifeguard Uniform Troubles
Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:19 am
Since someone posted in Speedo Talk about lifeguards being prohibited from wearing Speedos, I thought you might enjoy this bit of fantasy:
There was once a time when the church ruled the world. That time was called the "Dark Ages"...
From my extensive experience in human resources management, I have several things to bring up (other than an erection) in consideration of what appears to be an unlawful attempt by the aforesaid mentioned employer to control the dress and/or behavior of certain employees, to wit, the prohibition of erections on or about the bodies of swimming pool attendants and lifeguards wearing Speedo® swim trunks, hereinafter referred to as Speedos.
Although the employer may require the wearing of a uniform or costume, he must provide them to the employee at no cost, and furthermore, must show a reasonable business need in order to enforce a dress code. The employer shall provide in writing what standards the employee must meet. Such standards must apply equally to male and female employees regardless of age, race, color, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation. In fact, the Americans With Disabilities Act would also apply if the employee claims the size, shape, or appearance of his/her penis consti-tutes a real or believed disability.
Neither federal nor state labor codes contain a definition of what constitutes an erection, pro-vide a standard for the determination of whether an erection does or does not exist, provide direction for the measurement thereof, or provide a suitable method of mitigation should an employee allegedly sustain an erection. Neither is there a stated time limit within which an allegedly erect employee must come into compliance if in fact such a code did exist.
The employer in this instance would be hard pressed to sustain disciplinary action against or discharge of the employee. If the employee protests his discharge as being unlawful, the burden of proof falls on the employer to prove that the employee maliciously and with forethought became erect with intent to harm the well being of the employer.
It further appears that an attempt by the employer to require the wearing of an athletic supporter in concert with the Speedo would constitute unlawful restraint. Such a move would call for an immediate release of the detainee.
Should you experience a problem wearing your Speedo on the job, contact your local chapter of the Society for the Protection of Speedo Wearers in America (SPSWA) or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for legal assistance.
Happy hard-ons, dude!
There was once a time when the church ruled the world. That time was called the "Dark Ages"...
From my extensive experience in human resources management, I have several things to bring up (other than an erection) in consideration of what appears to be an unlawful attempt by the aforesaid mentioned employer to control the dress and/or behavior of certain employees, to wit, the prohibition of erections on or about the bodies of swimming pool attendants and lifeguards wearing Speedo® swim trunks, hereinafter referred to as Speedos.
Although the employer may require the wearing of a uniform or costume, he must provide them to the employee at no cost, and furthermore, must show a reasonable business need in order to enforce a dress code. The employer shall provide in writing what standards the employee must meet. Such standards must apply equally to male and female employees regardless of age, race, color, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation. In fact, the Americans With Disabilities Act would also apply if the employee claims the size, shape, or appearance of his/her penis consti-tutes a real or believed disability.
Neither federal nor state labor codes contain a definition of what constitutes an erection, pro-vide a standard for the determination of whether an erection does or does not exist, provide direction for the measurement thereof, or provide a suitable method of mitigation should an employee allegedly sustain an erection. Neither is there a stated time limit within which an allegedly erect employee must come into compliance if in fact such a code did exist.
The employer in this instance would be hard pressed to sustain disciplinary action against or discharge of the employee. If the employee protests his discharge as being unlawful, the burden of proof falls on the employer to prove that the employee maliciously and with forethought became erect with intent to harm the well being of the employer.
It further appears that an attempt by the employer to require the wearing of an athletic supporter in concert with the Speedo would constitute unlawful restraint. Such a move would call for an immediate release of the detainee.
Should you experience a problem wearing your Speedo on the job, contact your local chapter of the Society for the Protection of Speedo Wearers in America (SPSWA) or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for legal assistance.
Happy hard-ons, dude!
