Comments on: “Hooters Sued for Weight Discrimination”

By: Chris Hoey

Chris Hoey — Mon, 31 May 2010 17:19:40 +0000

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.

By: Jackie Chiles

Jackie Chiles — Fri, 28 May 2010 19:06:54 +0000

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.

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Fri, 28 May 2010 18:46:53 +0000

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.

By: Jack Olson

Jack Olson — Fri, 28 May 2010 14:46:14 +0000

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

By: Rliyen

Rliyen — Fri, 28 May 2010 14:12:07 +0000

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

By: Jack Wilson

Jack Wilson — Fri, 28 May 2010 14:07:18 +0000

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.

By: Frank C ostanza

Frank C ostanza — Fri, 28 May 2010 13:02:42 +0000

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.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Fri, 28 May 2010 01:00:09 +0000

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

By: BJC

BJC — Thu, 27 May 2010 22:02:22 +0000

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