Not allowing elderly women to work at Hooters is job discrimination?

In the past, I remember food service personel on airplanes will always be young cute girls. Nowadays, it's 60+ year old ladies thanks to anti discrimination laws. According to the law you can't turn down someone based on age, race, gender, and other things. If an old lady applies to Hooters is it fair she gets turned down because she's not good looking enough? She can argue that she has kids to feed, needs the money for rent. People can agree it would be deviant to have an old lady working in a restaurant that's known for using hot young girls in short shorts. If you was the judge would you rule against the lady trying to get the job or the opposite?

I think there's a big difference between airplane attendants and hooters. Hooters is for looking at girls in booty shorts who are probably single moms and need to make a buck but haven't been degraded so far as to stripping yet. You go there expecting T&A. You go on a plane expecting to be taken from point A to point B. What Hooters sells is attractive women, so therefore it is not discriminatory to look for somebody to fit their business model. It's not discriminating to not hire people at hooters because they're old. Part of the job requirements are to be hot, that's part of their business model so it's really no different than a doctor being required to have a medical license. It is discrimination not to hire old people on planes because there is nowhere on any major airline where the objective or gimmick of the airline is T&A and hotties. It's paying 600 bucks for a point A to point B trip and a baby sized bag of crap pretzels. You don't need to be hot to do that, being hot is not part of the job. Does that make sense, or am I confusing?XilePrincess

here's a link with another restaurant only hiring young cute girls

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/texas-roadhouse-age-discrimination-eeoc_n_993894.html

Alright so you believe it's okay for a restaurant that wants to promote a good image by using hot girls to discriminate in the hiring process?

I'm not up to speed on anti-discrimination laws. I know that there are certain exemptions to discrimination based on things like race/age/sex/etc (after all, a black actor absolutely SHOULD be discriminated against if he's applying for a role as George Washington). I just don't know when those exemptions are allowed. That being said, Hooters seems like just a restaurant, and the Hooters girls seem to me to be just waitresses. Would Applebees or Red Lobster be able to get away with discriminating against qualified applicants because they are too old? If so, then the same should apply at Hooters. If not, then Hooters should modify their business model if they want to be exempt from standard anti-discrimination laws.MrGeezer

I've heard this bought up before with (strangely enough) a man wanting a job at Hooters. I believe the verdict in court was that as long as the job description and profile matches up to what the restaurant's brand and service is expected to deliver (in this case being served by scantily clad and attractive female waitresses), then they are allowed to take discretion for whom they hire. In this case, Red Lobster and Applebees would not be expected to do what Hooters does.

Well Hooters could hire her, and keep her in the back cooking, or sweeping.

here's a link with another restaurant only hiring young cute girls

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/texas-roadhouse-age-discrimination-eeoc_n_993894.html

Alright so you believe it's okay for a restaurant that wants to promote a good image by using hot girls to discriminate in the hiring process?

LegitGamer3212

I didn't say anything about a good image. I said a gimmick. If you were to go to a strip club, or perhaps a peep show, burlesque dance show, or anything else that involved scantily clad women as their 'thing' or their gimmick or their allure, would you enjoy going in and seeing Grandma Lou rubbing a pole between her butt cheeks that now, with age, look more like elephant ears? No. You're going there to see hotties.

We're not talking about Texas Roadhouse here, we were talking about hooters. If there is no gimmick at Texas Roadhouse (which I have never been to, and have actually never heard of, so I'm not sure) that involves the employees being young and hot, then it is discrimination. Their business model seems to be a texas-****steakhouse, I see nothing in their description about boobs. Therefore there is no reason why anybody cannot work there.

Hooters specifically states that its' gimmick revolves around attractive women. Therefore, if you are not an attractive woman, why apply there? If men want to see attractive ladies with their fried food, then giving them an unattractive waitress would be unsatisfactory, wouldn't it? If what is required to do the job is something you do not possess, then why would they hire you?

There's a restaurant chain called Dick's Last Resort where the waitstaff are supposed to be gigantic a-holes to you. Imagine you are the owner of a restaurant like this. Somebody who cannot be mean to the customers applies. Will you hire them? No, because they cannot do what the job requires, they are not able to perform the task that the gimmick of the restaurant requires, why would you want them to work there?

I'm all for equal rights, but an elderly woman working at Hooters is just odd. We don't have one here, but if I knew an older lady were to be dressed skanky, I'd probably stay away.metallica_fan42

It's the presence of doubt in your statement that intrigues me, specifically located around the "probably" qualification.

[QUOTE="metallica_fan42"] I'm all for equal rights, but an elderly woman working at Hooters is just odd. We don't have one here, but if I knew an older lady were to be dressed skanky, I'd probably stay away.m0zart

It's the presence of doubt in your statement that intrigues me, specifically located around the "probably" qualification.

Can I legally open a supermarket with the "gimmick" of "blacks aren't allowed on the premises"? Probably not. As said, sometimes it IS okay to discriminate on the basis of things like age/race/sex. Sometimes it isn't. I suspect that it has to do with what kind of business it is. For example, in Florida it is legal to allow smoking in bars. It is NOT legal to allow smoking in restaurants. Given the fact that many bars offer food and many restaurants sell booze, what is the difference? Last I checked, it's a simple number. If your food sales make up more than 15% of your total revenue, you're a restaurant. So it's illegal for you to allow any customers to smoke indoors. If your food sales make up less than that percentage of total revenue, then you're a bar. And it's legal for you to allow customers to smoke indoors. So...ARE "restaurants" allowed to discriminate based on age? IS Hooters a restaurant? Are there any special legal exemptions which allow a restaurant to avoid having to adhere to anti-discrimination laws? If so, what SPECIFICALLY exempts Hooters from having to adhere to any laws regarding discrimination based on age? MrGeezer

Actually, from what I've learned, the case for Hooter's defense is that their justification for discrimination comes from the bona fide occupational qualification defense from Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which reads:

"t shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to ****fy, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to ****fy its membership or to ****fy or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individualin any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise…"

As such, the "normal operation" of Hooters restaurants would be to have such young and attractive women wait tables and what not. That is what its business plan and model dictates. Conversely, having a supermarket with no "blacks" allowed on the premises would be in no way necessary for normal operation, and it would probably break a whole new set of laws involving discriminatory customer service and arbitrary hiring practices. The type of business might have something to do with this (as business type dictates business model, which can involve differentiation, commoditized, or mixed product/service strategies), but I think it has more to do with what you are reasonably expected to provide and need to run your business.

I don't think it is, since unlike other jobs, attractiveness is pretty much a requirement at hooters, and even if it WAS discriminatory I'd still support it. No offense to older people, but nobody wants to see that.

Would be if your entire business model was based on catering to customers who hate blacks. Am I mistaken, or are the Hooters girls really not simply waitresses? MrGeezer

They're waitresses whose job is to look pretty while serving your food.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Would be if your entire business model was based on catering to customers who hate blacks. Am I mistaken, or are the Hooters girls really not simply waitresses? black_cat19

They're waitresses whose job is to look pretty while serving your food.

[QUOTE="black_cat19"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Would be if your entire business model was based on catering to customers who hate blacks. Am I mistaken, or are the Hooters girls really not simply waitresses? MrGeezer

They're waitresses whose job is to look pretty while serving your food.

I don't think that's a good analogy. You wouldn't even know a waiter's sexual orientation unless you asked them, and even then they could just lie to you. Being pleasing to the eyes makes a bit more sense as a job requirement, since there's certain attributes most straight men find attractive in women which the employer can base the decision of whether to hire on.

discrimination? yes. bad? no. like most discrimination it is a good thing, and extremely good thing. discriminating against unqualified people is a great thing and i dont know why people are so for unqualified people getting jobs because if they dont they are being discriminated against.

well yes it would be. She can serve wings too but if you want a certain image for your establishment it is fineweezyfb

I'd tell her she'd look absolutely hideous in a pair of Hooters shorts and if she had any sort of brain in her head she wouldn't have applied in the first place.

Then I'd make her pay for court costs just as a lesson not to be such a moron in the future.

Yup, the world would be a much better place if Jack was running it.

I'd tell her she'd look absolutely hideous in a pair of Hooters shorts and if she had any sort of brain in her head she wouldn't have applied in the first place.

Then I'd make her pay for court costs just as a lesson not to be such a moron in the future.

Yup, the world would be a much better place if Jack was running it.

Jackc8

Yes, it is discrimination. Discrimination in all hiring is almost always a good thing.thegerg

[QUOTE="thegerg"]Yes, it is discrimination. Discrimination in all hiring is almost always a good thing.MrGeezer

maybe it is discriminating, but there's nothing wrong with it. everyone knows that Hooters only has hot waitresses, no waiters, and no ugly waitresses, so why would an old, non attractive woman try to get a job there? sounds like if someone does that, they're just looking for a reason to complain and try to get their 30 seconds of fame.

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Discrimination in hiring is almost always legal.MrGeezer

Is not allowing elderly women in the playboy magazine discrimination? mrmusicman247

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Discrimination in hiring is almost always legal.surrealnumber5

It is discriminatory but legally so. You are allowed to not hire someone because of their age if the job requires a certain age range. Are there many grannies that want to sport the red hotpants? :lol:

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Is it legal for restaurants to refuse to hire applicants because they're old?MrGeezer

It is discriminatory but legally so. You are allowed to not hire someone because of their age if the job requires a certain age range. Are there many grannies that want to sport the red hotpants? :lol:

Pirate700

It is discriminatory but legally so. You are allowed to not hire someone because of their age if the job requires a certain age range. Are there many grannies that want to sport the red hotpants? :lol:

Pirate700

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Is it legal for restaurants to refuse to hire applicants because they're old?MrGeezer

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]Is not allowing elderly women in the playboy magazine discrimination? surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

It is discriminatory but legally so. You are allowed to not hire someone because of their age if the job requires a certain age range. Are there many grannies that want to sport the red hotpants? :lol:

MrGeezer