For someone like me who spends a lot of time researching lesser-known stories, there are some stories and images that keep getting reposted online. Usually, they’re shared because they’re unusual, quirky, or just a little sexually suggestive.

One image in particular has crossed my path many times. It was taken on August 1, 1969, outside a San Francisco department store and shows a young secretary named Shelly Drake standing on a platform, triumphantly holding her bra high above her head. Behind her is a crowd of hundreds of men – and, as far as I can tell, just one other woman.

It’s an odd scene because it’s not clear what all those men expected to see. Shelly is fully clothed, and from where they’re standing, they can only see her from behind.

Over the years, each time that photograph is reproduced, there is usually some mention of this being a symbol of the women’s liberation movement and the fight for equality. And while women certainly were challenging traditional expectations and demanding equal rights in the late 1960s, a little digging reveals that the men gathered around Shelly probably weren’t there to support the cause of women’s liberation at all.

An advertisement in the July 31, 1969, edition of the San Francisco Chronicle announced the event:

“Mail Coupon – “Women Feel Free” – Demonstrate – ANTI-BRA-DAY – turn in your bras – Friday, Aug. 1st. 12 noon – FINANCIAL DISTRICT – Corner of Montgomery & Pine – Mail Your Bras to: THE CONDOR, 300 Columbus Ave., San Francisco, Cal 94133.”

At the time that Shelly Drake’s picture hit the newswires, it was reported that over 200 bras had already been mailed in for destruction, ranging in size from 32-B to 52-DD.

And just what was The Condor? An equal rights organization? A newspaper?

Nope. It was none of those. A historical marker on the building explains it all:

“The Condor, Where It All Began, Topless & Bottomless Entertainment, Topless – June 19, 1964, Bottomless – Sept 3, 1969, Starring Ms. Carol Doda, San Francisco, California.”

Yes, the sponsor of Anti-Bra Day was a strip club, and women were encouraged to come and throw their brassieres in a garbage can.

The publicity stunt worked. Some 5,000 men packed the area to get a glimpse of the women disposing of their brassieres. Yet, few women showed up to the event. Of those that did, it was reported that they were all professional topless dancers, and, of course, Shelly Drake.

A story like Anti-Bra Day is the type that appears in the newspaper one day and is forgotten by the next. As the old expression goes, sex sells…

It’s also not the story that I set out to tell. Instead, my focus was on another story that occurred during that same month.

Let me introduce you to Mrs. Jane Andre, a 39-year-old divorcee with a 20-year-old son. As the first woman with a bachelor’s degree in welding engineering in the United States, Jane had secured a job with General Dynamics in Pomona, California. Her salary was $18,000/year, which is roughly $164,000/year adjusted for inflation. At least on the surface, she had achieved much of what the women’s liberation movement sought to achieve: a professional job, an excellent salary, and independence.

All of that would come crashing down on Thursday, August 14, 1969.

After reading about the national braless trend in the newspaper, she suggested that the women at the Pomona plant do the same thing.

“I saw this newspaper story, and I happened to mention during a coffee break that I thought it was a practical idea. I didn’t intend to be a crusader — it was just a humorous little thing. We girls were joking about it, and I said let’s pass the word that Friday is no-bra day. One of the girls in the union heard about it, and she thought they should get behind it, so she told the union stewardesses to pass the word.”

(Sidenote: They were all members of the International Association of Machinists.)

Around noon that same day, Jane was called on the carpet. Her immediate supervisor, Joe Till, requested that she meet with him immediately. He had spoken earlier with a woman that under her, and she told him that Jane was the mastermind of Braless Friday.

He then informed her that her Braless Friday plan would cost the company a significant amount of man-hours, simply because the male workers would be unable to stop staring at the women’s chests.

“I told him men have been staring at women for centuries and they will continue to stare at women— bra-less or not,” she said.

Till then fired her on the grounds of “conduct unbecoming a member of management”

“I was shocked that something like that would happen to a professional person like me. At first, I thought he was kidding. I couldn’t believe upper management would fire someone on hearsay.”

While Jane wouldn’t be there the next day to join in, many were curious to see how take part in Braless Friday. Probably out of fear for their own jobs, few women dared to do so. A General Dynamics spokesman said, “We don’t know of anyone working without their bras.”

It didn’t take long for her story to blow up in the press, which had a field day with the headlines. Here are just a few:

“Bra Protest Gets Little Support”

“Woman’s Protest Against Bras Called a Bust”

“Flunked A-B-C.”

“Bra-less Friday is Her Undoing.”

“Bra-less Plan Leaves Her Flat.”

To make matters worse, nearly every newspaper story dutifully included Jane’s measurements—39-29-43. It also raises an interesting question: Did she volunteer those measurements? Did someone actually take them? Or did a reporter simply invent them? My guess is the last explanation is the correct one.

She told the press, “Brassieres are not reasonable garments. They’re nonfunctional and uncomfortable, so I don’t wear them.”

“I haven’t worn a bra during my nonworking hours for the past 20 years.

“I wore one to work most of the time because it’s considered part of normal dress, but I don’t wear one with dresses that are designed so you can’t tell the difference.

“I wasn’t wearing a bra the day it happened. I’m a big-boned woman, and because of the way I’m built. I just look average.

 “When more women see how good it feels to go bra-less, they’ll really let go.”

When questioned, Jack Sloan, the director of public relations for the company, confirmed that Ms. Andre had been dismissed. He explained, “She was hired as a supervisor three months ago to work, not to talk other women into doing something like this.”

Jane said, “I was told I violated no dress code, but just that society in the Pomona area would not accept the bra-less fad and that for a woman in my position, this was considered improper behavior.”

The 20^th century had seen a big change in women’s fashion. Gone were the tight corsets, garter belts, and bullet bras. Some wondered if the brassiere could be the next piece of undergarment to get the heave-ho, and members of the press sought answers. Of course, with us living 57 years in the future, we have the benefit of knowing that the brassiere is still with us.

Back in 1969, it was estimated that about 250 million brassieres were sold each year in the United States, which roughly worked out to around three for each woman.

When interviewed, Mrs. Helen Means, executive president and designer for the Bra-Fantastic Company, said, “It’s nothing but a fad. I don’t see any evidence of a great swing away from bras. Some of the younger girls, of course, are making a big thing out of it, but, as I say, they’re young — teenagers or in their early 20s.”

Yet sales were definitely falling off. Typically, sales of brassieres increased by 5% annually, but had fallen to 1% in 1969.

In a World News Service (WNS) syndicated story, the article’s author asked, “Who among us can sit, unconcerned, on the sidelines and watch a major industry like brassiere manufacturing suddenly droop like this?”

While General Dynamics was in the news for Ms. Andre’s dismissal, reporters questioned other businesses as to how they would deal with the situation:

For example, a spokesman for one of California’s largest banks said the company had no interest in hiring a woman who showed up for an interview without a bra. And if a female employee made a habit of coming to work braless, she would be fired. He said, “Appearance-wise, women look better in bras. The customers coming in, especially at the branches, would get upset if they saw their funds being handled by people (bra-less, presumably) of this type.”

A spokesman for an oil company looked at the situation differently. “Some people would turn their heads to look at the girls, but then, they do that anyway.” He added, “Miniskirts, beards, anything else — we don’t involve ourselves in it. If people are clean, observe regular working hours and conduct themselves with decorum, it wouldn’t matter.”

Then there was an unnamed insurance company that took a middle-of-the-road approach: “We would go towards the ones who would wear the bras. It’s fashionable. It’s business ethics — you know, proper business attire. It’s not improper not to wear one, but it’s more proper to do it.”

A Standard Oil of California representative told a reporter, “We don’t give a damn what they wear, so long as they are reasonably well groomed and do their own work.”

Then there was the age-old question as to whether there were any health benefits to wearing a bra. A group of women’s doctors at the University of California discussed it and concluded, “We all feel it doesn’t make any difference to physical health.”

All of the debate kept the story alive in newspapers far longer than it probably deserved. But amid all the arguments, one important fact was being overlooked: Jane Andre was still unemployed.

She had registered with an employment agency, but all the publicity surrounding her dismissal was almost certainly hurting her chances of finding another job. Few employers were likely eager to hire someone whose firing had become front-page news.

On Tuesday, September 2, 1969, Los Angeles attorney Robert K. Steinberg filed a $1.25 million (~$11.4 million today) suit against General Dynamics and three of its company officials. They were: Jack Sloan, director of public relations; Jack Mason, vice president in charge of operations; and Joe Till, Ms. Andre’s supervisor.

In the suit, Steinberg argued that the company officials, through the newspaper interviews that they gave, implied that Jane Andre was a woman of low moral standing and that she was fired because she had “committed the crime of refusing to wear a brassiere and inviting others to do the same.”

On Friday, September 5, 1969 – three days after Jane Andre filed her lawsuit – two more Braless Friday events took place in Chicago, just two blocks from one another.

The first was the brainchild of WCFL disk jockey Clark Weber, who invited women to come to the Marina City plaza and toss their brassieres into a barrel. Approximately 2,000 men showed up to watch about a dozen women to toss their bras. Since none of the bras were removed on the spot – the women did so off-site – there were no reported arrests for indecency.

Then, about two blocks away, 27-year-old Chicago architect William Baldwin staged another braless event. With 500 men looking on, three women stood on the Michigan Avenue Bridge and got ready to toss their bras into the river below.

But just as they were about to let go, Stanley Whitebloom, Chicago’s chief pollution control officer for the Metropolitan Sanitary District, warned the women not to do so. “Girls, I’m not kidding. You’re going to be in violation if you do it.”

His warnings fell on deaf ears. 20-year-old Sandy Coe let go, and her 36D brassiere fell to the river below. Barbara Stratton, also 20, did the same, stating, “It’s a real freedom feeling.”

True to his word, Whitebloom issued citations to all three of the women for polluting the river. He issued a fourth citation to William Baldwin.

Another Braless Friday event took place on September 19, 1969, in Cedar Falls, on the University of Northern Iowa campus. This event was the idea of four undergraduate women, who declined to be identified in the press.

One of them did, however, act as spokeswoman for the group, and said, “If my parents found out I was in on this, my dad would understand and laugh about it. But my mother . . . Well, you’ve heard of the generation gap.”

 She said that it originally started as a hoax and the four thought it would be fun to spread a big rumor about it around the campus.

‘‘After we thought more about it, though, we decided it would be nice to get the people on campus together for something that was fun and harmless.

“It seems like there’s so much argument on campus these days – on the Vietnam war, for instance – that there is a need to draw together for something that’s fun. We’re sick of bickering.”

About a week prior to the big event, they prepared about 2,500 fliers and passed them out in the dormitories. The message to the boys was: “Is your girl uptight and irritable? Throw your support to Bra-less Friday Relief rally. Prexy’s Sept. 19, 10 p m. paddy.” The female flier began, “Are you uptight? Bust out.”

It was reported that a significant number of women had agreed not to wear their bras for an entire day. Instead, they went to their classes wearing sweatshirts and jeans. Then, that evening, approximately 2,500 students gathered at Prexy’s Pond, as planned, to listen to music and—most likely—consume large quantities of alcohol.

In November 1969, it was announced that Jane Andre, the woman who had launched the Braless Fridays movement, had written a book about her experience. She titled it “Tempest in a C-Cup.” Although that same title was later used for a 1993 episode of NYPD Blue, I could find no evidence that Jane’s book was ever published.

Meanwhile, Jane continued to pursue her lawsuit against General Dynamics. The trial was originally scheduled for May 3, 1971, but was later postponed until May 1, 1972. On May 2, 1972, the two sides announced that they had reached a settlement.

In the end, however, Ms. Andre rejected General Dynamics’ settlement offer—a decision that turned out to be a costly mistake. The case was eventually dismissed due to “her failure timely to prosecute.” Basically, they had let too much time go by before deciding to bring the case to trial.

On September 18, 1978, Jane was hired by the Bendix Corporation in South Bend, Indiana. She earned a monthly salary of $2,920 (~$180,000 a year today) and supervised a production line staffed by 74 hourly employees.

July 13, 1979, was an especially hot and humid day, and because the Bendix plant wasn’t air-conditioned, Jane chose to wear a terrycloth tank top with double quarter-inch (6.4 mm) shoulder straps.

After two hourly employees complained about her attire, her supervisor, Dale Franz, informed her that the top violated the company’s dress code. Jane went home, changed her clothes, and returned to work.

The following day, however, she arrived wearing another tank top, this one with a round neckline and spaghetti straps. That sparked another confrontation with Franz.

Jane argued that many of the hourly employees dressed the same way she did. Franz countered that her top was unsafe and that supervisors were expected to wear collared, short-sleeved shirts. Basically, he expected her to dress like all of the male supervisors.

Later that day, Jane was fired, and two security guards escorted her off the Bendix property.

Unbeknownst to her, the company later changed her termination to a suspension while a separation committee reviewed the case. After meeting, the committee ultimately decided to end her employment, citing “due to inability to perform the duties of her position.”

Once again, Jane responded by filing a sex discrimination lawsuit.

In 1984, a United States District Court judge ruled in her favor, ordering Bendix to pay her $186,000 in back wages – roughly equivalent to a year’s salary – and to reinstate her to a comparable position.

Bendix appealed, and the case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court. In 1988, the Court ruled against Ms. Andre, concluding that there was insufficient evidence that she had been fired because of her sex.

I’ll bring this story to an end by sharing the Dear Abby advice column that was originally published on January 15, 1971:

“DEAR ABBY:

My very efficient secretary, who had been with me for 12 years, retired.

“After several weeks of interviews, our daughter sent a 26-year-old former college friend of hers to apply for the position. Tho very plain, she appeared to be personable, competent and well-groomed, so I hired her. In the past months she has shown promise of developing into a top-notch secretary. Meanwhile my wife is furious with my daughter for sending this girl over and she’s angry with me for hiring her. The reason, the girl is well endowed and she goes braless.

“Good secretaries are at a premium, and I mean to keep this one, short of breaking up my home. Her going braless doesn’t bother me, and besides, I feel it is her business and nobody else’s. By the way, our own daughter (who is equally well endowed) goes braless, too, and this doesn’t bother my wife. Now, what do you think, Abby?

“’No Hanky Panky in Portland’

“DEAR NO HANKY: Tell your wife to run the house and to let you run your office. Better a braless secretary than one who’s brainless.”

Useless? Useful? I’ll leave that for you to decide.