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.
Thank god, I can hire an artist who speaks english. They can act like they know what they’re doing just like my employees do now. Brilliant.
either the guy is gay and has a TOTALLY unrealistic view of the world. a guy working for Hooters would never make the kind of money that any Hooters Girl would. in fact, he would actually COST the restaurant money in lost clients.
or
he’s working an angle and knows that, even if he got a job there, he would eventually lose it and would bring another suit against Hooters for another type of gender discrimination (say, intentionally depriving him of patronage equal to that of the girls). If it got to that, it would be easy to prove that it was the customers doing the discriminating (and rightly so), but at that point, lawmakers would have intruded into Hooters business model and ruined the company (and any future companies like it).
y’all ever hear of Bone Daddy’s? out here in Houston, we’re starting to see lots more bikini bars. this lawsuit would end all such businesses.
it would be sad to see Hooters go under if for no other reason than they excel at making hotwings. I won’t eat them anywhere else…
Years ago the same thing happened in many restaurants in the South. As soon as they were forced to allow blacks to eat, many were boycotted by whites. Shit happens.
So many people would stop going to Hooters if they also used men. Too bad for Hooters but they can’t discriminate on sex. They could require clean appearances. But I think forcing men to shave their legs and chest might cross the line into discrimination again.
Fusion–I guess you remembered that our government is composed of three branches all acting as a check and balance against one another? Good.
I remember the first time this type lawsuit came up. It makes a certain sense either way it is decided so the law is an ass either way.
So, philosophically==how “should” we design society? No all female hostitutes on airplanes but all female wait staff is ok? Hard to make sense out of that. As long as Hooters type services are less than .01% of the jobs, I guess that is ok too but I can’t express a rule that makes sense out of that.
And yet, I do think the chorus line at Carneige Hall should remain all female==or all male===gee, or mixed too depending on, on, on, oh nevermind.
Isnt there a Hooters airline too?
Yep, discrimination pure and simple.
If Hooters really wants these lawsuits to go away they should:
- hire the guy,
- give him the crappy shifts,
- require him to wear the uniform,
- pay him the below minimum wage restaurants get away with, and
- watch him quit when he gets no tips.
As it is, he wins when the restaurant has to settle due to discrimination.
Or, have the new hire model be you start as a busser for a few months before progressing to wait staff and hire no experienced hires.
Having said that, Hooters is really pretty disgusting. You couldn’t pay me to eat there.
Hooters is disgusting. An example of soft-porn exploitations resulting from a society that is sexually repressed which is even more disgusting.
Another benefit of the overflow of religious busy bodies foisting their old tired ethics on the majority too timid to tell them to STFU.
#24, bobbo,
You err by deciding that laboring is the equivalent or same as being an artist. Serving food does not require special artistic skill. Dancing does.
So, philosophically==how “should” we design society?
By shooting arrogant assholes that wave questions about “How do we design society”. You don’t design societies unless you are writing a Science Fiction story. Real societies evolve. None of them work if you use a “one size fits all”.
That does not mean you can’t have standards or rules. The rules in our society insist you can’t discriminate except under narrow rules.Those rules are to protect the minorities from abuse. That is why in the Constitution the rules may only be changed with great difficulty.
While no one forces you to eat at Hooters, or not eat there, in our society to eat there is an option. Your choice. 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.
This clown is just trying to blackmail Hooters into a big cash pay-off to go away.
#28 –Fusion==I report, you decide. I would think with your supple wit you could understand that court rulings/governmental actions are a type of design on a culture.
http://fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Hooters-of-America-Inc-Company-History.html
Now I’m not a lawyer, I’m a doctor. I’m allowed to require my nurses be female because any of them may be required at any time to chaperon a female patient. Gender is sometimes a reasonable requirement to employment. If Hooters can demonstrate that Hooter Girls are an essential requirement for their business model then I believe they can win this case. But I agree with #29 that this idiot just saw an opportunity to get a big payday without working. I’m sure his lawyer is already drafting settlement papers.
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.