EEOC: “gentleman’s club” broke law by refusing to hire male barkeep

The EEOC’s 1997 dispute with the Hooters breastaurant chain over its failure to hire male Hooters Girls is among the most glorious in its history [see coverage here and here]. Now the Commission seems eager to bring back old times: it has filed a lawsuit charging that Sammy’s Gentlemen’s Club of Fort Walton Beach, Fla., violated sex discrimination law by turning away a qualified male applicant for a bartending job. “Sammy’s subsequently hired at least two females for bartending positions at that location. According to the suit, during 2015 Sammy’s employed 17 females and no males in bartender positions” at the location. [EEOC press release]


  • Is that a “D” cup in your pants or
    are you applying for a job?
    (with apologies to Mae West)

    • No. But, I’m just glad to see you.

  • What if they hired women who agreed to identify as men?

  • And if the business let its clientele express their preferences … analogous to Hollywood getting audience reaction during pre-screenings … and the clientele consistently preferred female bartenders, what then?

    • That question has been tested in court a number of times, particularly when airlines refused to hire male flight attendants. Consumer preference on its own doesn’t normally give you an exemption from anti-discrimination law.

      • … and if the clientele voted on which candidate(s) they preferred, and preferred women?

  • mx, I think this is more than consumer preference. Attractive women are fundamental to the business model. The guy lacks the entertainment value Sammy’s provides.
    To extend the argument, if prostitution were normalized, would the EEOC take this same position?