Aug 04, 2016
By Peter Friedmann

As infuriated as some might be at the seemingly insensitive actions of Hooters, this case is not as cut and dry as it seems. The full article, from the St. Louis Dispatch, is located here: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_db861563-d08b-5cb7-9cc9-91150b39351b.html

This will be an interesting case to follow. Ms. Lupo’s suit was brought under the Missouri Human Rights Act, based in part on perceived disability discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act protects employees from being discriminated against based on a disability. Section 12102 of the ADA defines disability as

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.html

When Lupo returned to work, she was almost bald and had a large scar from her surgery. Her lawsuit claims her post-surgery condition, namely the difficulty wearing a wig because it irritated her scar and slowed its healing, was an actual disability which limited the major life activity of working when that work required that a wig be worn.

The full text of the Complaint filed with the Circuit Court of St. Charles County can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/134755952/Sandra-Lupo-VS-Hooters

Hooter’s claims Lupo’s lawsuit is without merit.