Kentucky Student May Sue After Mall Claimed Her Dress Was Too Short For Shopping

[Wretched Excess]

My POV is the mall was wrong, but it's stupid to sue.  What damages?  Deprived of one day of shopping experience at one mall?  Some moderate and passing humiliation or anger?  What the Hell is all that really worth, $50?

I don't see what basis the case would be on. The Mall is a public place, but it is private property.  She was escorted off because of a conclusion on her garb's effect on other shoppers -- a proper business decision.

I cannot for the life of me see what the legal basis for the suit is.   

OMG!  we agree!  something must be wrong with one of us.

I concur - regarding the OP, not something being wrong.

Seems to me to be a stupid decision on the part of the security guard - the women complaining should just lose some damn weight and maybe their husbands will look at them more, and college co-eds less

But businesses should have every right to make stupid business decisions, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.  And nobody has a right to shop at a mall.

OK, legal geniuses, I can see at least two different torts she could try, one concerning infliction of emotional harm (but a long shot in Kentucky, it's on the trailing edge of that kind of tort law) and the other based on discrimination (how many guys have they ever thrown out for too-short shorts?).  The "Business decision" stuff sounds nice until someone brings up the question about White patrons objecting to Black ones or something along those lines, having a commercial, public business place as opposed to non-business private property are two entirely different breeds of cat.  You're arguing what you think the rules "otstabe" rather than what they really are.  The real problem she has that makes a lawsuit a stupid option is that she just doesn't have any demonstrable damages.   

it turns out that she was wearing a shirt with no pants.  I think anyone would get thrown out of a public place for that.  the complicated life of kymbery clem hasn't gotten any simpler since the incident, though.  now she is suing an anonymous online poster. 

poor girl just can't catch a break.

[jtyangel]

The girl was interviewed on Fox earlier today.

She's very pretty. I've seen shorter skirts on many girls this summer. Even I've had one or two on almost as short and I'm in my mid 50's!

From her pictures in the dress......I'd say those little green gremlins were running amok in the mall.

Mall security was wrong.

i dunno.  i think they probably exercised poor judgment, but i don't see how it's actionable.  a mall is private property, isn't it?  if it's like the malls in my area, they chase out kids wearing jeans that only cover half of their ass, or that they think is gang related, & etc.  i don't see much difference.

This is the part that is gonna make another lawyer a millionaire:

Kymberly Clem, a 20-year-old student at Eastern Kentucky University, wore the dress Sunday after purchasing it from the mall in Richmond the previous day,

It would be a "reasonable person's" belief that if the dress could be purchased there, it can be worn there.

it's ironic, but I don't see how it makes embarrassment actionable.

Well, let's put it this way:  if she had purchased that dress that very day, and had chosen to wear it out of the store, would there have been the same response from the "Rent-a-Barney"?

I personally don't think so.  More to the point, her lawyer is gonna sell that point wholesale to the jury, and the jury is gonna buy it by the 20-piece bucket full.

it will never see the inside of a court room.  at most, she gets a public apology for the mall-cops for perhaps exercising poor judgment (but acting well within their authority).

I think that's all she's asking for considering she's planning to auction the dress and donate any proceeds to charity. Her lawyer says the mall won't even contact them so I'll reserve judgement for what she's after when she gets her apology.

And I agree with the comments about the green-eyed monster. Would seem more appropriate to escort your husband's roving eye out of the mall instead of some young woman in a short dress, but we wouldn't want to piss off the 'checkbook' paying for that shopping trip I guess.

[jtyangel]

My POV is the mall was wrong, but it's stupid to sue.  What damages?  Deprived of one day of shopping experience at one mall?  Some moderate and passing humiliation or anger?  What the Hell is all that really worth, $50?

I don't see what basis the case would be on. The Mall is a public place, but it is private property.  She was escorted off because of a conclusion on her garb's effect on other shoppers -- a proper business decision.

I cannot for the life of me see what the legal basis for the suit is.   

OMG!  we agree!  something must be wrong with one of us.

I concur - regarding the OP, not something being wrong.

Seems to me to be a stupid decision on the part of the security guard - the women complaining should just lose some damn weight and maybe their husbands will look at them more, and college co-eds less

But businesses should have every right to make stupid business decisions, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.  And nobody has a right to shop at a mall.

OK, legal geniuses, I can see at least two different torts she could try, one concerning infliction of emotional harm (but a long shot in Kentucky, it's on the trailing edge of that kind of tort law) and the other based on discrimination (how many guys have they ever thrown out for too-short shorts?).  The "Business decision" stuff sounds nice until someone brings up the question about White patrons objecting to Black ones or something along those lines, having a commercial, public business place as opposed to non-business private property are two entirely different breeds of cat.  You're arguing what you think the rules "otstabe" rather than what they really are.  The real problem she has that makes a lawsuit a stupid option is that she just doesn't have any demonstrable damages.   

I remember the shorts back in the 70's and 80's to know it didn't happen.

Case in point:




I remember men and women wearing these:




Not a decade for fashion

[DumbAss Tanker]

it turns out that she was wearing a shirt with no pants.  I think anyone would get thrown out of a public place for that.  the complicated life of kymbery clem hasn't gotten any simpler since the incident, though.  now she is suing an anonymous online poster. 

poor girl just can't catch a break.

Really doesn't signify one way or the other as to what you call it, the question is only whether it overexposed any naughty bits.

[Wretched Excess]

it turns out that she was wearing a shirt with no pants.  I think anyone would get thrown out of a public place for that.  the complicated life of kymbery clem hasn't gotten any simpler since the incident, though.  now she is suing an anonymous online poster. 

poor girl just can't catch a break.

Really doesn't signify one way or the other as to what you call it, the question is only whether it overexposed any naughty bits.

I think it matters very much long before we ever get to civil liability, emotional distress or discrimination. 

we're just going to have to disagree on this one.