Waitresses: No one gives a Hooters

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Brooklyn Federal Court was awash with lycra tank tops and beige panty hose last week when a contingent of Hooters girls came a calling, looking to file claim against their employers.

Plaintiffs Gina Rosati and Amy Frederick waitresses of the “tacky yet unrefined” chicken wing chain filed a class action lawsuit against the East Meadow franchise, claiming labor law violations.

According to court papers, the owners force the women to “purchase and wear a nationally recognizable uniform” and are forced to share their tips with the kitchen staff, which is illegal.

While it may be illegal for them to order their staff to buy Hooters duds, the uniform is not all that expensive -- probably because there’s not a lot of it.

The eye-catching ensemble includes “Dolphin” shorts ($5.45) a clingy lycra tank-top ($6.00), shiny beige panty hose ($2.50) and thick white socks ($2.25). All told, it’s $16.20 for one uniform, according to the New York Post, which broke the story.

Officials at the Long Island chain wound not comment on the lawsuit -- or the uniform.

A judge quashed a motorcycle driving school’s attempt to get a lawsuit against them dropped and instead wheeled the case into a courtroom.

In a recently filed decision, Judge Francois A. Rivera turned down a plea by members of Grand Prix Driving School to have the case against them dismissed.

Plaintiff Barbara Sanders, a former student of Grand Prix, filed against the driving school in 2008 after her fifth lesson went horribly wrong.

According to court papers, Sanders claims that Grand Prix was negligent because they chose an unsafe location for the lesson (namely a dead-end street in Manhattan), failed to supervise the instruction and failed to maintain the 1992 Honda motorcycle used for the lesson.

As a result, Sanders smacked into wall at the end of the dead end street, she claimed. The impact left her with “serious bodily injuries.”

Although attorneys for Grand Prix pushed for the dismissal, their plans fell apart when Attila Andrew Gusso, Sanders instructor who is also a plaintiff in the case, apparently mucked up his deposition.

Under questioning, Gusso admitted that while he is certified to teach students how to drive a motorcycle, he received “no formal training” to teach others how to drive a motorcycle.

In addition, Gusso said that he would look over the motorcycle before every lesson, he could offer no testimony pertaining to the mechanical maintenance of the motorcycle.

Judge Rivera dismissed the motion claiming that Grand Prix “failed to meet their burden” giving a green light to an impending trial.

A man convicted of sexually assaulting his girlfriend tried to worm his way out of a conviction recently by claiming that the plea deal he made with prosecutors was not “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made” because, among other things, he suffered from Attention Deficit Disorder as well as a learning disability.

We only have one thing to say: that’s what attorneys are for.

Daniel Marcel was sentenced to ten years in jail in 2003 for forcing his girlfriend and mother of his child to have sex with him.

According to court records, Marcel allegedly grabbed his girlfriend by her throat when she refused to have sex with him. He threatened to cut her with a box cutter if she didn’t do what she said, but the woman wouldn’t budge. She only acquiesced when he threatened to turn the box-cutter on their baby, officials allege, adding that he had also forced her into sex in a park.

He was initially charged with rape in the first degree, but ultimately pled guilty to sexual assault by forcible compulsion.

Yet now Marcel’s claiming that he didn’t know what he was getting into when he agreed to the plea. He also charged that his attorney was ineffective and that his girlfriend ultimately recanted her story, so the guilty plea should be vacated automatically.

Judge William Garnett disputed Marcel’s ADD defense, saying that according to the record the plea negotiations were lengthy and that the “defendant’s answers to the courts inquiries were clear, unequivocal and responsive.”

Garnett did allow Marcel to appeal the decision.

Updated 11:48 am, January 16, 2019
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: