“Hooters Sued for Weight Discrimination”

The complainant says management proposed to place her on “weight probation” when she had trouble fitting into her uniform at the winks-and-wings eatery. She’s suing under Michigan discrimination law, which is unusual in making weight a protected category. [WSJ Law Blog]


  • The District of Columbia bans discrimination based on “personal appearance,” which I think means the same thing.

  • Isn’t a certain appearance a requirement of the job and therefore an exception in such a case?

  • In reporting this case on his tallk show, Jay Leno first showed the girl being interviewed. She, at least to my eye, she was a fine example of properly-formed feminity. Then Leno next showed the manager, who explained his complaint. The manager was an incredibly rotund man who obviously never saw an exercise class he liked.

  • We are heading toward the European model – where you can never fire anybody.

    We need to get back to the ‘at will’ principle, enough of this phony discrimination/civil rights crap.

  • But, isn’t Michigan an “At-Will” State as it is?

  • Hooter’s is afraid to show its customers what happens to you if you eat their junk food.

  • Me predicts this case isn’t about a weight issue. I’d bet money that there’s something else going on here and this lawsuit is the result of some other private dispute.

  • Mr. Costanza – If Hooters’ business model involved hiring buff male managers to attract customers, you might have a point. It doesn’t, so you don’t.

  • How many potential Hooters’ customers go there to ogle the managers? It may be a sagacious ploy on the part of management to minimize sexual harassment claims from spurned females by requiring being unappealing as a condition of eligibility for management.