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

Being from not round your parts I confess I don't know much about Hooters, although I understand/assume Hooters chicks are one of the main draws. In that regard you could say it's a themed restaurant, and those who unable to comply with said theme irrespective of how efficient they may be at waitering unfortunately wouldn't be eligible for the position. Age yes probably is a factor, although that's probably packaged as asthetics as the 2 are of course linked. The key thing here is protecting a culture both internally and the ethos which the brand projects to the public. In that regard it's unlikely a 60 year would fit the bill at all. A judge with a little common sense would chuck it out before it got anywhere near court.poptart

I don't know. Make no mistake...I really don't know ANYTHING about law. But I did some research and found that, at least in the case of GENDER based discrimination, that sex appeal is usually not held up as reasonable grounds for BFOQ. Does the same apply for age-based discrimination? I don't know. I'm not going to pretend that I know. But I don't see what's so different when it comes to age.

There have been cases of men suing Hooters for gender discrimination. Like I said, I know nothing about the law. And I'm not going to pretend like I've studied this topic extensively (I'm lazy and just don't have the interest). But from what I've seen, these suits ended up with Hooters and the plaintiffs coming to a settlement. The guys suing Hooters got paid off and dropped the lawsuits. The result is that (from the little that I saw), it was never determined that Hooters' policy of gender discrimination DIDN'T stand up as a valid BFOQ. I am ABSOLUTELY not going to state that Hooters ended up reaching a settlement because they knew that their claims of "chicks only" wouldn't stand up in court. I am absolutely not going to state that part of their settlements including promising to include more positions for men to fill (job-related, not a sex joke). But...it does make one wonder.

In any case restaurants manage to function perfectly fine while hiring men and old people as servers. If Hooters is indeed a restaurant, and if restaurants seem to get by doing just fine while adhering to anti-discrimination laws regarding age, then what is Hooters' excuse? What makes that particular restaurant chain totally reliant on hiring young women for those positions when other restaurants manage to do just fine while still managing to follow anti-discrimination laws? Is the quality of Hooters' food and service just so shoddy that the only way they can survive as a restaurant is by only hiring young pretty women to fill certain roles? Does that mean that Hooters should be exempt from anti-age discrimination laws on the grounds of young age being a BFOQ, or does it just mean that they should stop being such a crappy restaurant and start following a business model which allows them to be profittable without denying employment to anyone who isn't a young attractive woman?

I don't know. But the answer seems VERY far from obvious.

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

between trying to charge me 25 dollars to check a bag (honestly who the hell travels somewhere without a bag, especially difficult in winter when peoples clothes are understandably thicker and take up more space or if youre going somewhere for longer than a weekend.), and a tiny bag of pretzels that wouldnt satiate an infant on a 4hr long flight (im doing that tomorrow btw). i can honestly say that i would care less if the people doing this atleast had a smile on their face and looked good doing it.

(should hire good looking male stewards as well, ladies like to look too)

[QUOTE="I"]

You have to be somewhat hot to justify anyone going to Hooters and paying for their s***ty food.

Pirate700

Their OVERPRICED crap food. The whole deal with Hooters is stupid. The only people that eat there are the demographic of guys that are too scared to go to a strip club.

True words, Pirate. I hate the goddamn place. I've been there like, three times in college, and two of those were because I was dating a chick working there (which is not as cool as it sounds). The drinks are overpriced with s*** selection, and the food sucks. There is no reason to go there. Go to a steak place, go to a real bar, then go to a strip joint (or a party where chicks take their clothes off). Do not go to Hooters.

RE MR GEEZER

(Apologies - it would let me quote for some darn reason)

You may see the same thing accross many restaurants - Indian restaurants may only hire indian waiters as employing a local may impact the perception of authenticity; the same applies to any number of foreign cuisine establishments. I don't know anythig about employment law in the US - I know a little here in Australia being in recruitment, but only what I need to know.

Nor do I know about any previous cases re: Hooters nor the quality of their food, however I assume their success isn't atributable to the quality of their food. Thus an argument in their support is upholding what makes them successful, and by forcing them to change it may well have a direct impact on their bottom line and thus cause immense damage. So the arguemnt is a commercial one, and that's a pretty strong one assuming they employ many staff who would be affected by dampening of their brand.

In the broader world this can be applied to any industry including large corporates hiring individuals who fit their corporate message and brand. Equally you may not get a 60 year old receptionist sitting on the front desk of Deloittes for the same reason she isn't going to be waiting at Hooters.

Is it right? Well that depends on how much weight you put on the importance of protecting a culture and/or corporate image, and how integral that is to the success of said business. I would say a culture is almost the very definition of a business and is one of the main factors that differentiates business a from business b; it provides the foundation for success and a clearly defined culture can garner great loyalty and stability in its workforce, which again is integral to its performance.

In my own circumstance, today is my last day in my current position, and working in recruitment I know of many places who wouldn't take me on because I'm too old at 37. That's just the way it is.

2 last points re: this hypothetical situation, firstly a 60 year old lady is highly unlikely to be able to assimilate with expecatations placed upon them by a culture defined by young girls - I know of several young, dynamic corporates whose culture is basically a strong social backdrop where they all go and get smashed every night. Would a 60 year old lady fit in there? Porbably not, and even if she's keen there would be a question mark on 'why'. The last and obvious point is a little bit of research from this imaginary lady it would strikingly apparent that she probably wouldn't be right and she'd target establishments more beitting a person of her maturity.

EDIT: APOLOGIES FOR MY GARRULOUS RAMBLING

...and yes I just fancied using the word garrulous

At that age, no old woman should be thinking about working at Hooters...and shouldn't be hired either unless it's for some other position that doesn't involve short shorts.

Nor do I know about any previous cases re: Hooters nor the quality of their food, however I assume their success isn't atributable to the quality of their food. Thus an argument in their support is upholding what makes them successful, and by forcing them to change it may well have a direct impact on their bottom line and thus cause immense damage. poptart

It IS discrimination, but it is legal discrimination and is perfectly acceptable as it is a Bona fide occupational qualifocations, meaning that Hooters discrination against old women is justified as being an old woman goes against the prurpsoe of the restaraunt, which is being an attractive woman with a nice rack, something not very likely with elderly women. Hooters is also discriminating against men as well, since they are not women, obviously.

Same thing with how a religious place would probably only want to hire people that are of the organization's faith. Or how a chinese resteraunt would only want to hire chinese people.

It IS discrimination, but it is legal discrimination and is perfectly acceptable as it is a Bona fide occupational qualifocations, meaning that Hooters discrination against old women is justified as being an old woman goes against the prurpsoe of the restaraunt, which is being an attractive woman with a nice rack, something not very likely with elderly women. Hooters is also discriminating against men as well, since they are not women, obviously.

Same thing with how a religious place would probably only want to hire people that are of the organization's faith. Or how a chinese resteraunt would only want to hire chinese people.

DJ-Lafleur

[QUOTE="poptart"]Nor do I know about any previous cases re: Hooters nor the quality of their food, however I assume their success isn't atributable to the quality of their food. Thus an argument in their support is upholding what makes them successful, and by forcing them to change it may well have a direct impact on their bottom line and thus cause immense damage. MrGeezer

My view is that if you're caopable, there's generally a home for you. A lady of more mature years may not be befitting of Hooters, however likewise a young 20-something wanting a good social backdrop may not fit the requirements of an establishment catering for the more discering and more mature waitress. It's swings and roundabouts in many ways.

As for the legality of it all, well following the letter of the law down to a tee then there may be a case, however the commecial reality of forcing a company to adjudge potential employees solely on the capoacity of ability to do the job would probably prove detrimental to business performance. Sure certain businesses function quite effectively with an eclectic workforce, however employing someone who doesn't ascribe to a defined culture will quickly change the dynamics of a culture and that's a fast route to losing staff.

I don't know about emplyment law in the US, however if it's like here then it tends to favour the employee or applicant and does little to protect busineses from unscrupulous employees. In the case of out of court settlements, I imagine going through a protracted court process would be castly irrespective of the outcome and so decision to pay off the complaintant would be logical.

As for Hooters operating outside legal hiring practices, then I would think it's no different to any industry or company you can think of, albeit in the case of Hooters the requirements for employment are a little more apparent and therefore open to a lot more scrutiny. Regardless of commercial reasons though, is it right that a company can dictate the asthetics of a person representing them to the public? I think logically they should, and the law would to a point support that I'm sure.

And Hooters business model I'm sure works just fine. Their success is only borne out of the natural instincts we blokes have and if people are prepared to pay through their teeth to get a glimse of a tight pair of buttocks then they've hit on a pretty successful idea. They should be applauded for that - it's the sad f**** who go there who should be the focal point of any scorn. But hey in the end everyone comes out a winner.

EDIT: Apologies for my spelling. I'm typing into a laptop the sizre of a weasel and can't see for s***

You may see the same thing accross many restaurants - Indian restaurants may only hire indian waiters as employing a local may impact the perception of authenticity; the same applies to any number of foreign cuisine establishments. I don't know anythig about employment law in the US - I know a little here in Australia being in recruitment, but only what I need to know.poptart

I've seen things like this a lot, specific to international cuisine. After Fogo De Chao opened in Houston more than ten years ago and proved to be popular, a number of Brazillian meathouses opened up all over the city. One thing that always strikes me is how they universally seem to hire only Brazillians. I've yet to see even another variety of South American, or a native of Portugal, hired at one of these places, let alone the other varieties of skin color and ethnicity available from the American workforce.

[QUOTE="poptart"]You may see the same thing accross many restaurants - Indian restaurants may only hire indian waiters as employing a local may impact the perception of authenticity; the same applies to any number of foreign cuisine establishments. I don't know anythig about employment law in the US - I know a little here in Australia being in recruitment, but only what I need to know.m0zart

I've seen things like this a lot, specific to international cuisine. After Fogo De Chao opened in Houston more than ten years ago and proved to be popular, a number of Brazillian meathouses opened up all over the city. One thing that always strikes me is how they universally seem to hire only Brazillians. I've yet to see even another variety of South American, or a native of Portugal, hired at one of these places, let alone the other varieties of skin color and ethnicity available from the American workforce.

It's true, and I'm guilty of judging a place like that - there's an indian up the road from where I recently moved to which has tried to Westernise itself and my first thoughts are 'well it's probably rubbish then'. Bad? Maybe, but from experience understated indian restaurants that appeal to Indians and whose patronage is largely of Indian descent, I'd more likely go there.

[QUOTE="poptart"]You may see the same thing accross many restaurants - Indian restaurants may only hire indian waiters as employing a local may impact the perception of authenticity; the same applies to any number of foreign cuisine establishments. I don't know anythig about employment law in the US - I know a little here in Australia being in recruitment, but only what I need to know.m0zart

I've seen things like this a lot, specific to international cuisine. After Fogo De Chao opened in Houston more than ten years ago and proved to be popular, a number of Brazillian meathouses opened up all over the city. One thing that always strikes me is how they universally seem to hire only Brazillians. I've yet to see even another variety of South American, or a native of Portugal, hired at one of these places, let alone the other varieties of skin color and ethnicity available from the American workforce.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="poptart"]You may see the same thing accross many restaurants - Indian restaurants may only hire indian waiters as employing a local may impact the perception of authenticity; the same applies to any number of foreign cuisine establishments. I don't know anythig about employment law in the US - I know a little here in Australia being in recruitment, but only what I need to know.MrGeezer

I've seen things like this a lot, specific to international cuisine. After Fogo De Chao opened in Houston more than ten years ago and proved to be popular, a number of Brazillian meathouses opened up all over the city. One thing that always strikes me is how they universally seem to hire only Brazillians. I've yet to see even another variety of South American, or a native of Portugal, hired at one of these places, let alone the other varieties of skin color and ethnicity available from the American workforce.

I'm not stating that they are, though I'm just curious why these practices are so universal and yet don't seem to inspire many successful lawsuits. In just about any other field, there are numerous legal challenges made. Yet in situations like these restaurants, it's very rare.

Personally I'd like to say that whether they are legal or not, I think they probably should be. If I did choose to go to Hooters for anything other than their fried pickles ( :oops: ), I'd like to think I wouldn't be greeted by a grannie showing off her midriff. Or Dale from King of the Hill!

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="poptart"]You may see the same thing accross many restaurants - Indian restaurants may only hire indian waiters as employing a local may impact the perception of authenticity; the same applies to any number of foreign cuisine establishments. I don't know anythig about employment law in the US - I know a little here in Australia being in recruitment, but only what I need to know.MrGeezer

I've seen things like this a lot, specific to international cuisine. After Fogo De Chao opened in Houston more than ten years ago and proved to be popular, a number of Brazillian meathouses opened up all over the city. One thing that always strikes me is how they universally seem to hire only Brazillians. I've yet to see even another variety of South American, or a native of Portugal, hired at one of these places, let alone the other varieties of skin color and ethnicity available from the American workforce.

Personally I don't think laws are black and white and they're open to interpretation and application of common sense. Speaking on the topical subject of employment for example you look at employment contracts in the modern age and they're thick documents, full of conditions ultimately to protect the employer from every eventuality. Reading such documents many conditions sound unreasonable if unconditionally applied to a tee, however most people aren't sacked if they're a worthy employee and have cheekily taken a sick day when in reality they smashed it the night before. The 'laws' stipulated in the contract are merely a protective measure against those who go too far - the same applies to the legal system.

'm not stating that they are, though I'm just curious why these practices are so universal and yet don't seem to inspire many successful lawsuits. In just about any other field, there are numerous legal challenges made. Yet in situations like these restaurants, it's very rare.Personally I'd like to say that whether they are legal or not, I think they probably should be. If I did choose to go to Hooters for anything other than their fried pickles ( :oops: ), I'd like to think I wouldn't be greeted by a grannie showing off her midriff. Or Dale from King of the Hill!m0zart

[QUOTE="m0zart"]'m not stating that they are, though I'm just curious why these practices are so universal and yet don't seem to inspire many successful lawsuits. In just about any other field, there are numerous legal challenges made. Yet in situations like these restaurants, it's very rare.Personally I'd like to say that whether they are legal or not, I think they probably should be. If I did choose to go to Hooters for anything other than their fried pickles ( :oops: ), I'd like to think I wouldn't be greeted by a grannie showing off her midriff. Or Dale from King of the Hill!MrGeezer

Speculation borne out of reasoning, and the law probably sits within the realms of common sense too. Do you personally think it's right or would you side with the rights of the 60 year old? Any argument against centre around the very existence of such an erstablishment catering for lusting males, and the implications of which are far broader than merely Hooters. Hell it would change the whole dynamics of society and business in general. I doubt very much any OT'er would be able to stipulate the definitive legal standing on the matter - in the meantime us mere laymen can just freestyloe a little, which TBH makes it a little more interesting anyway...

EDIT: And 'authenticity' could equally be applied to Hooters respective to what they or an Indian cuisine establishment want to present. Is it really any different?

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.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

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.

Victorious_Fize

Discrimination is not illegal :? ...it is just not allowed in certain instances using specific criteria An employer is allowed to discriminate based on numerous factors (like GPA, work experience, references, personality, etc). In addition, Hooters is allowed to discriminate based on both sex and looksrawsavon

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Discrimination is not illegal :? ...it is just not allowed in certain instances using specific criteria An employer is allowed to discriminate based on numerous factors (like GPA, work experience, references, personality, etc). In addition, Hooters is allowed to discriminate based on both sex and lookssurrealnumber5

Discrimination is not illegal :? ...it is just not allowed in certain instances using specific criteria An employer is allowed to discriminate based on numerous factors (like GPA, work experience, references, personality, etc). In addition, Hooters is allowed to discriminate based on both sex and looksrawsavon

Well said,

When attempting to find the best job appliant among many one is forced to discriminate, as time is limited. A smart job appliant keeps this in mind and uses this to his advantage.

In the case of the elderly women, she should have known better. It's common sense that Hooters uses appearance as a marketing tool.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="rawsavon"]Discrimination is not illegal :? ...it is just not allowed in certain instances using specific criteria An employer is allowed to discriminate based on numerous factors (like GPA, work experience, references, personality, etc). In addition, Hooters is allowed to discriminate based on both sex and looksrawsavon

Discrimination is not illegal :? ...it is just not allowed in certain instances using specific criteria An employer is allowed to discriminate based on numerous factors (like GPA, work experience, references, personality, etc).rawsavon

Damn Bigots.

Discrimination is not illegal :? ...it is just not allowed in certain instances using specific criteria An employer is allowed to discriminate based on numerous factors (like GPA, work experience, references, personality, etc). In addition, Hooters is allowed to discriminate based on both sex and looksrawsavon

^^

This guy has his s*** together.

It is only certain types of discrimination under certain circumstances which is legally prohibited - think racial discrimination. The rest is legally acceptable and quite often frankly essential - job qualifications. Why the term "discrimination" is in and of itself a four-letter word is beyond me.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Discrimination is not illegal :? ...it is just not allowed in certain instances using specific criteria An employer is allowed to discriminate based on numerous factors (like GPA, work experience, references, personality, etc). In addition, Hooters is allowed to discriminate based on both sex and lookscoolbeans90

^^

This guy has his s*** together.

It is only certain types of discrimination under certain circumstances which is legally prohibited - think racial discrimination. The rest is legally acceptable and quite often frankly essential - job qualifications. Why the term "discrimination" is in and of itself a four-letter word is beyond me.

Sure if you take in the literal sense, however the term discrimination in the context of employment is one that denotes decision making based on factors beyond capability and suitability, i.e as you said such as race. Interviews, references et al are not regarded as such as they attempt to measure a persons suitability. Discrimination is a derogatary term and is generally used in a manner to suggest unfairness and inequality.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Discrimination is not illegal :? ...it is just not allowed in certain instances using specific criteria An employer is allowed to discriminate based on numerous factors (like GPA, work experience, references, personality, etc). In addition, Hooters is allowed to discriminate based on both sex and lookspoptart

^^

This guy has his s*** together.

It is only certain types of discrimination under certain circumstances which is legally prohibited - think racial discrimination. The rest is legally acceptable and quite often frankly essential - job qualifications. Why the term "discrimination" is in and of itself a four-letter word is beyond me.

Sure if you take in the literal sense, however the term discrimination in the context of employment is one that denotes decision making based on factors beyond capability and suitability, i.e as you said such as race. Interviews, references et al are not regarded as such as they attempt to measure a persons suitability. Discrimination is a derogatary term and is generally used in a manner to suggest unfairness and inequality.

While somewhat true, an issue arises when some factor is used as a basis to not employ someone and then someone states "that is discrimination". It is on the basis of said trait, so one can't rightly say that it isn't discrimination - which is why the use of the word solely to denote some sort of unfairness in said situations is, frankly, less than facilitative in conversation in the oft-used colloquial respect of the term.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

^^

This guy has his s*** together.

It is only certain types of discrimination under certain circumstances which is legally prohibited - think racial discrimination. The rest is legally acceptable and quite often frankly essential - job qualifications. Why the term "discrimination" is in and of itself a four-letter word is beyond me.

coolbeans90

Sure if you take in the literal sense, however the term discrimination in the context of employment is one that denotes decision making based on factors beyond capability and suitability, i.e as you said such as race. Interviews, references et al are not regarded as such as they attempt to measure a persons suitability. Discrimination is a derogatary term and is generally used in a manner to suggest unfairness and inequality.

While somewhat true, an issue arises when some factor is used as a basis to not employ someone and then someone states "that is discrimination". It is on the basis of said trait, so one can't rightly say that it isn't discrimination - which is why the use of the word solely to denote some sort of unfairness in said situations is, frankly, less than facilitative in conversation in the oft-used colloquial respect of the term.

If the decision is based on whether or not a persons possess's a particular trait, possession of which deemed of integral importance to a position, then contextually speaking it's not deemed discriminatory regardless of whether or not someone feels discriminated against. As for the 2nd part of your post, I'm not sure I understand it. Maybe it's just me I dunno.