Nikolai Grushevski, a man from Corpus Christi, has filed a lawsuit because Hooters wouldn’t let him work as a waiter, which we guess would be called a Hooters Boy.
“Hooters tries to circumvent the law by referring to its waiters as ‘Hooters Girls.’ Hooters is wrong,” claims the lawsuit, filed yesterday in federal court in Corpus. “Just as Southwest Airlines attempted nearly three decades ago with stewardesses, the waiter’s position addressed herein is being limited to females by an employer ‘…who merely wishes to exploit female sexuality as a marketing tool to attract customers and insure profitability.'”
Exactly. Thankfully, the lawsuit says that Grushevski isn’t trying to stop the restaurant from hiring Hooters Girls. In 1997, Hooters paid seven Chicago men $2 million after they filed a similar lawsuit. As a result of the settlement, the position of kitchen and bartender were deemed “gender neutral.”
Hair Balls couldn’t reach Grushevski or his lawyer, and a Hooters spokeswoman (no spokesman?!) hasn’t responded either. We’ll post an update as soon as we hear back from either.
I believe sporting a nice pair of Hooters should remain a prerequisite for the job.
Err, so, Fusion… Does that mean men can apply for the position of Juliet in Romeo & Juliet?
I still rather see teddy in this instead of behind the wheel of a car crossing a bridge….
Mr. Fusion,
I guess. But how does EDS get away with forcing men to wear short hair, suits and ties, and (they used to) make women wear dresses. I’m not sure they do anymore, but the suit and tie stays. No blue jeans and tank tops there.
“If they are going to partake inside society then they must follow the rules (laws) of society. As a private club they could hire only women, but not as a public restaurant.”
I love that standard. We don’t like what you are doing, so either conform to us or GTFO.
Freedom means people are free to do things you may not agree with, as long as nobody is having their rights infringed upon. Employment is not a right to be demanded of others, so there is no infringement here.
#34, Bubba,
Any business may enforce rules as to appearance. As I had posted, they may insist all men be clean shaven, wear white shirts with blazers provided that the women are similarly attired in comparable uniforms. Dress codes are nothing new. Courts will allow businesses to enforce dress codes but only up the point that those standards do not constitute sexual harassment or break the law. If a restaurant insisted all male staff wear tuxedos while female staff wear skimpy mini-skirts and see-through tops that would be discriminatory.
#35, SL,
Freedom means people are free to do things you may not agree with, as long as nobody is having their rights infringed upon.
Right. If I decided to shoot you because I don’t like the color of your skin, religion, sex, height, or racial origin, I would infringe upon your right. If I decide not to hire you because of the color of your skin or sex, I would also infringe upon your right. Both scenarios are statute law backed by Constitutional law. The right to own a business is not enshrined in law.
The Augusta National Golf Club, home to The Masters, doesn’t allow blacks as members. As a private club, the members can choose who they associate with. But, they can’t discriminate in who plays in their golf tournament because it is open to the public. They may institute a skill requirement (or qualifier) but they can’t discriminate.
Hooters is protected under BFOQ – Bons Fide Occupational Qulaification – which is an exception in title seven of the civil rights acts of 1964 that allows the company to hire only females to be Hooters Girls (This lawalso protects the Radio City Rockettes, the Dallas Cowboy Cheersleaders, Disney and many others.
#26, “If I decide not to hire you because of the color of your skin or sex, I would also infringe upon your right.”
Please explain which right that is?
erm, should be #36.
#37, Wade,
Nope. That only applies to artists, NOT common laborers. Dancers and actors are considered artists. Food servers are not considered artists simply because serving food is not an art.
#38, SL,
Look up the XIV Amendment, Sec. I
…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This was codified by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Most States also have their own Civil Rights Acts. Without delving into it, it is a long piece, no one in the public domain may discriminate against another person because of their race, national origin, sex, religion, or age. There are very few narrow exceptions to that rule.
As someone pointed out earlier, they hired a female nurse to chaperon a physician while doing exams on female patients. Another is where the discrimination is based upon an artistic requirement, such as the Rockettes or choosing who will play Superman in a movie.
We are permitted to discriminate in private. If you wish to date only nubile, young, top heavy, blonds with soft lips and black roots then so be it, no one can stop you. If you have a poker club and only want single guys to play, go for it. If you start an expensive Country Club and each new member is scrutinized and voted in then there is nothing to stop you from only allowing certain people, for example no Jews, blacks, Democrats, or poor people.
But you can’t advertise that you will only hire a nubile, young, top heavy blond to be your counter person at your dry cleaning store.
So what “right” is that? The right to be treated as a person and not for your race, skin color, national origin, sex, age, or the amount of silicone already in place.
Why should he be denied the opportunity to make good money as a waiter there? Of course any red blooded 22 year old wants to work at Hooters, beer, sports, hot women lots of customers- where else can he make good money in Corpus?
Not only that…but what else are they discriminating about, hair color, religion, where does it end???