Human Capital forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

US cheerleaders take action over "jiggle test"

Notify me of new replies via email
HC Online | 02 May 2014, 11:19 AM Agree 0
Five American cheerleaders have sued their employers after being subjected to "demeaning" employment conditions, including a weekly "jiggle test".
  • Deborah Pearson | 02 May 2014, 12:48 PM Agree 0
    Oh the landmines in a case like this!
    On the one hand, cheerleaders are representing a sporting club and (generally) wear uniforms that, if you're not in tip-top shape, will not be flattering. Keeping this in mind, clubs will want to ensure a certain responsibility by their cheerleaders to remain trim and toned throughout the season to represent the club in the manner intended.
    That being said, excess "jiggle" when you're wearing limited attire is probably not high on the clubs agenda so HOW the club ensures their cheerleaders stay in optimal shape needs to be handled carefully and respectfully. But when you think about it, a "jiggle" test could be viewed as completely acceptable if it were directly related to the needs of the position. ie: Competency - Promotion of the Company's Brand Image. Skill/Attribute - Retain a professional public image in keeping with the needs of the organisation. Measurement - physical "jiggle" tests will be completed on a weekly basis to ensure encumbent aesthetically demonstrates desired company image.
    Looking forward to reading how this case pans out...
  • Origin1859 | 03 May 2014, 12:30 AM Agree 0
    These lawsuits are over wage and hour violations, not jiggle tests. While I do not agree with the way these women were held to weight standards, the "jiggle test" is ultametly becoming a legal straw man in the media. The only reason it's mentioned in the legal complaints is to help prove employment status. The cheerleaders are not suing over jiggle tests!
  • Deborah Pearson | 06 May 2014, 08:48 AM Agree 0
    Hi Origin. According to you, the "jiggle" tests come under employment status. Employment status is covered by misclassification therefore it forms part of what they are suing for. Congratulations, you've just contradicted yourself.
  • Howard Whitton | 01 Sep 2014, 10:45 PM Agree 0
    @Deborah - that comment's rather harsh: Origin's summary of the basis of the case makes good sense to me.
Post a reply