When the froth of controversy over the attire of baristas in a quiet Washington town led to a hot legal brew, it raised far more than eyebrows and questions about dress codes.
Drive-up coffee shacks employing scantily dressed baristas in Everett, Washington, a humble town just outside of Seattle, have been stirring up more than just cappuccinos. As these businesses gained popularity, they also garnered disapproval from some members of the community. In response, the city council attempted to regulate the dress code of these establishments, sparking an unexpected backlash.
In an effort to quash these controversial businesses, the Everett city council passed two ordinances, essentially putting a ban on revealing attire at all quick-service food and drink venues, including the infamous espresso stand known as “Hillbilly Hotties.” One ordinance explicitly prohibited employees from revealing their midriffs, breasts, and upper legs, while the other introduced the new crime of facilitating lewd conduct.
The city council justified the restrictions, arguing that the skimpy attire of the so-called “bikini baristas” created an environment where explicit sexual conduct could easily transpire between the baristas and the customers. However, the employees of Hillbilly Hotties vehemently disagreed with the council’s perception of their professional conduct.
Responding to the council’s move to associate their work attire with potential sexual exploitation and negative influence on minors, a group of bikini baristas took legal action. They claimed that their First Amendment rights were being violated, providing the foundation for their lawsuit. They saw this as more than just a dress code issue, but a battle for their rights as women.
Natalie Bjerke, a barista involved in the case, expressed her sentiments bluntly, “The city council should not dictate what I can wear at work, it infringes on my First Amendment rights.”
Emilija Powell, another Hillbilly Hotties employee, echoed Bjerke’s sentiments, proclaiming, “Our bodies, our choice.” Many sympathizers felt the city had more pressing concerns, such as the drug crisis and homelessness, rather than the attire of coffee servers.
City officials, however, held a different perspective, linking the bikini-clad baristas to a rise in local crime. Assistant City Attorney Ramsey Ramerman clarified that it was not about being offended by the bikini attire. Rather, he compared some of these stands to poorly run strip clubs, stating that previous laws proved ineffective in maintaining standards.
Supporting this claim were previous arrests at these quick-service coffee stands involving charges of prostitution and indecent exposure. Some employees were found guilty of performing erotic shows, allowing customers to touch or photograph them in exchange for money. The Hillbilly Hotties, in particular, made headlines when three of their bikini baristas were arrested for indecent exposure.
WATCH:
Despite the controversy and ensuing legal battle, a federal judge ruled in favor of the bikini baristas. The judge granted a preliminary injunction that allowed the Everett-based business Hillbilly Hotties to remain open while the lawsuit was still ongoing. After several years and a significant financial drain, the federal court finally reached a decision, ruling in favor of the bikini baristas.
US District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez deemed the town’s dress code unconstitutional, stating it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. He did reject the claim that the ordinances infringed on free speech. Nevertheless, his ruling safeguarded the bikini baristas’ constitutional right to wear revealing attire while serving coffee.
Judge Martinez concluded, “This Ordinance was passed in part to have an adverse impact on female workers at bikini barista stands… The bikini barista profession, clearly a target of the Ordinance, is entirely or almost entirely female.” He further questioned how the ordinance could be equally applied to both men and women in practice.
WATCH:
While there is a valid argument on both sides of this issue, considering the criminal activities reported at such coffee stands, it does raise the question: should we punish all for the crimes of a few? The conundrum echoes the shady reputation of ‘massage parlors’ known for their ‘extra services.’ But as per Judge Martinez’s ruling, the solution isn’t a sweeping prohibition.
While the battle of the bikini baristas of Everett might seem small in the grand scheme of things, it serves as a potent reminder of the delicate balance between individual freedom and social responsibility. We must always question who gets to decide what is ‘acceptable,’ and at what point does regulation become repression?
Sources: Taphaps, Maxim, Legal Scoops, The Blaze