Comments on: Hooters wouldn’t hire him as waiter

By: The EEOC: “The Fox Guarding the Henhouse” | OpenMarket.org

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:54:48 +0000

[…] The world would be a better place if the EEOC spent more time rooting out discrimination in its own ranks, and less time trying to ban offensive words protected by the First Amendment, and less time suing the Salvation Army for requiring employees to speak English (a lawsuit far more harmful than the EEOC’s silly lawsuit against Hooters). […]

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:31:13 +0000

The fun will really start after Hooters is forced to hire a male waitress, then is subsequently ordered to require tables to accept him as their server for the day.

Patrons will be able to clamor for a ‘genuine’ Hooter’s girl., but it would be illegal discrimination for the restaurant to acquiesce to their demands.

Subsequently, we can enjoy the lawsuit filed because the hooter’s dude is making less in tips for some invidious reason.

I’ll be interested to see just how female Hooter’s Girls will sue the hooter’s dude for bringing down their shared tip income, since it is easily predictable that 20-something male patrons will give lower tips to the hairy armed wait staff.

By: Jack Wilson

Jack Wilson — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:25:18 +0000

Scote, people who hire people are constantly discriminating. Have you ever seen a job application or engaged in a job interview? Then you have been a victim of ,or perpetrator of, or participant in discrimination. For some reason, liberals think there is some grievous harm done by discriminating against certain characteristics.

Under liberty, the ‘at will’ principle rules. This includes hiring or not hiring as you see fit.

By: Ryan F

Ryan F — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:39:21 +0000

In response to post #3, you are correct in that you cannot discriminate against a protected class; however, males are not a protected class.

The guy just wants attention and to be the one that took Hooters on, which is fine, but he won’t win, and he shouldn’t win the case.

By: Dirk D

Dirk D — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:34:07 +0000

“Is this some kind of legal doublespeak that we lay people are not privy to? Just wondering.”

LOL…yes and we have secret handshakes too.

By: AZFlyer

AZFlyer — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:03:04 +0000

From the complaint : “Hooter’s is a restaurant chain that operates in almost 45 states, …”

Do lawyers actually get paid to write this stuff? How does one operate in “almost” 45 states? Is this some kind of legal doublespeak that we lay people are not privy to? Just wondering.

By: dustydog

dustydog — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:07:01 +0000

There is a laboratory near Texas A&M that pays $50/visit to sperm donors. They have a rigorous screening (detailed medical history, and then the sperm samples need to meet standards for low mutation rate, high viability, high cell count). Presumably rejected men could sue under ADA? Likewise, a woman could sue for gender discrimination.

NIH in Maryland conducts a lot of clinical trials, and they pay volunteers. Should I be able to sue because I don’t meet their inclusion criteria?

By: Brat Magursky

Brat Magursky — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:07:17 +0000

so that I understand…to not hire somenone based on race, gender, skin color (ooops ethnicity), aesthetics (or lack thereof) is discrimination but as long as you announce your desire to discriminate (i.e. only bi-lingual candidates will be considered or African American females are encouraged to apply meaning that is the only “group “we will even considering hiring) is not discrimination ?? sounds like a free country to me!

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:41:58 +0000

gitarcarver: That’s why the terms ‘policeman’ and ‘fireman’ are no longer those used officially for those jobs. You are now a ‘law enforcement officer’ or ‘person who puts out fires for the fire department’ or some such.

We have ‘postal carriers’, not ‘mailmen’ these days, purely to avoid gender bias in terminology.

Kinda sux for the websters and spinsters, not to mention baxters.

By: JP

JP — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:35:25 +0000

VMS is right about the BFOQ, although it is pretty clear from the Stewardess cases in the ’70s and early ’80s that gender is not a BFOQ for a “Hooters Girl.”

Most airlines only hired female flight attendants, and Southwest in particular maintained and marketed a feminized and sexualized image of its stewardesses and ticket agents. Courts held that unless sex or sex appeal is the “dominant service provided” (e.g., a strip club), there is no BFOQ for gender.

Also, the EEOC crusade against Hooters that Walter mentions is an impressive example of a federal agency being defeated by a marketing campaign. The EEOC dropped its case after a public ad campaign featuring Vince, the Hooters Guy. (Of course, Hooters still settled with the individual claimants.)