NCJ Number
162448
Journal
ABA Journal Volume: 82 Dated: (February 1996) Pages: 40-41
Date Published
1996
Length
2 pages
Annotation
The authors present opposing arguments on the issue of whether Hooters, a restaurant chain, is guilty of employment discrimination based on sex in hiring only female food servers, bartenders, and hosts, with the intent of providing a sexually stimulating aura for male patrons.
Abstract
Mary Becker, professor and employment law specialist at the University of Chicago law school, argues that Hooters is guilty of sex discrimination in not hiring men, based on a decision of the U.S. District Court for Northern Texas. This court held that "sex does not become a bona fide occupational qualification merely because an employer chose to exploit female sexuality as a marketing tool, or to better ensure profitability." Although acknowledging that the hiring of males may diminish Hooters marketing strategy to attract male patrons, Becker argues that this does not necessarily undermine the business. Further, the sexual harassment of the female employees in a sexually charged environment should diminish. Patricia Casey, Hooters' attorney, argues that for Hooters' employees to be female is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business. She reasons that Hooters' employees are not just hired to serve food, which could be performed by either males or females, but to provide an entertaining environment for the patrons based on the sexiness of the Hooters girls. She argues that patrons care as much, or more, about being in the presence of the Hooters girls as they do about the burgers and beer. She affirms the right of a business to choose its own character.