Because Men Go To Hooters For The Food
From the WSJ Law Blog, Ashby Jones writes:
Hooters remains potentially on the hook for alleged weight discrimination.A Michigan judge today ruled that two former waitresses who filed a weight discrimination case against the restaurant chain could proceed with their cases.
Hooters had said the defendants signed agreements to arbitrate any discrimination claims rather than take them to court. The company has said it does not impose weight requirements on employees.
...Cassandra Marie Smith, one of the plaintiffs, alleges in her complaint that she began working at a Hooters in 2008. At the time, she weighed 145 pounds.
In a performance evaluation this earlier year, she claims in her complaint, a restaurant manager advised her "to join a gym in order to lose weight and improve her looks so that she would fit better into the extra small-sized uniform." She alleged she was put on a 30-day "weight probation" and resigned.
The official uniform for Hooters waitresses, she claims, comes in 3 sizes: extra extra small, extra small, or small.
According to this story from the Grand Rapids Press, the suit cites Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by employers based on a number of factors. Height and weight discrimination were added in a 1976 amendment by then-state Rep. Thomas Mathieu.
Hooters' response from a UPI story:
Mike McNeil, Hooters of America Inc. vice president for marketing, said at a news conference outside the Roseville restaurant that waitresses at the chain are entertainers and must keep up their "image," The Detroit News reported. But he said Cassandra Smith, 20, of Roseville said in her complaint that weight loss was not explicitly demanded of her....Leanne Convery, 23, of Harrison, who also worked at the Roseville restaurant, filed her own suit Wednesday.
The chain is known for its waitresses, who wear short shorts and low-cut tops. Both Smith and Convery said the manager put them on "weight probation."
Convery told the newspaper in a phone interview she used diet pills after she had a baby last year and exercised so hard she would come close to losing consciousness. She said many of the waitresses take pills to keep their weight down.
"I was bound and determined I wasn't going to lose my job," she said.
You know, all jobs should not be open to all people, and that's perfectly okay -- or should be.
@Amy: You know, all jobs should not be open to all people, and that's perfectly okay -- or should be.
________
I agree with you.
But, even those who disagree must, or should, see that those suing Hooters didn't mind the hiring practices when it helped them beat others out for the job.
Trust at August 27, 2010 5:00 AM
If the company says it does not put weight requirements on employees, maybe they should stop saying that.
NicoleK at August 27, 2010 5:06 AM
The hiring practices at Hooters are similar to those used in the Disney/Muslim head scarf situation. Disney must have an appearance clause in its employment contract, and I would imagine Hooters does, too. Is there anyone making comments on this blog know anything about Hooters' employment contracts ?
Nick at August 27, 2010 5:16 AM
OT, Hooters' wings are pretty good.
MarkD at August 27, 2010 5:33 AM
I agree that all jobs shouldn't be open to all people. But it seems unethical to hire someone for a job and THEN drop the bomb that they don't qualify, which is what it sounds like happened in Smith's case. If the expectation is that waitresses needs to fit into an extra-small uniform, then Hooters should have been explicit about that upfront so she could decide whether or not to take the job based on that information. It's the bait-and-switch I have a problem with, not the weight requirements themselves. (Similar to the post about salons charging more for overweight customers-fine, but let your customers know BEFORE they receive the services).
Shannon at August 27, 2010 6:01 AM
Those girls couldn't possibly have known they were being hired because of their physical attractiveness. C'mon! I believe them.
Also time for the National Organization for Women to become involved. We know this organization is all about "Equality" so I'm sure they will be speaking up and asking why there are no male severs at Hooters.
ACLU- You should be all over this one.
I think I will go apply. If they don't hire me a 47 year old white mail I will sue them and force them to settle out of court. This should bea nice pay off for me. Now I see how the system works.
I'm feeling particularly sarcastic today. It must be Friday.
David M. at August 27, 2010 6:41 AM
Maybe they'll change the name to "Ye Olde Porkers" and only hire women over 40 with a BMI of 30 or more.
Yeah, that'll work.
parabarbarian at August 27, 2010 7:17 AM
Maybe Convery and Smith try to go for a manicure at Natural Nails. If they get hit with the $5 surcharge, Hooters wins. If not, they win.
Wasn't there already a guy who tried that a few years back?
Conan the Grammarian at August 27, 2010 9:05 AM
What's funny to me is that anyone (read: men) actually wants to go to Hooters. Yes, the women are typically attractive (the women on Florida's gulf coast extremely so), but they are so de-hotted by those uniforms, the vibe is creepy (budget male fantasy devoid of imagination or originality) and the beer (miller, bud, yawn) sucks.
But I agree, it's discrimination (which has drifted from it's true meaning: choosing based on criteria) as it should be. Would Hollywood hire a short fat white guy to play Michael Jordan?
PS The movie has a hilarious scene where Katherine Heigl's character is told she should lose weight(!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvP7cnmxlLM
DaveG at August 27, 2010 9:47 AM
Maybe they'll change the name to "Ye Olde Porkers" and only hire women over 40 with a BMI of 30 or more.
Yeah, that'll work.
Posted by: parabarbarian at August 27, 2010 7:17 AM
Ha ha ha ha! Well, I guess I'm out of luck because I wouldn't be hired at either place. ;)
Thag Jones at August 27, 2010 10:53 AM
"Maybe they'll change the name to "Ye Olde Porkers" and only hire women over 40 with a BMI of 30 or more." What, the 99 changed it's name now?
vlad at August 27, 2010 11:06 AM
Hooters wings suck.
Also just as a question of legality - the article says one of the ladies "resigned".
So how, exaclty, is Hooters to blame for the loss of employment of someone who voletarily quit?
lujlp at August 27, 2010 12:00 PM
"PS The movie has a hilarious scene where Katherine Heigl's character is told she should lose weight(!)"
The last film in which Katherine Heigl wasn't a tubb was Under Siege 2 back in 1995.
Jay J. Hector at August 27, 2010 12:30 PM
The ironic thing is that, by today's standards, the Hooters uniforms are almost quaint. You see far more skin exposed on TV and in movies every day.
I sometimes drop into a Hooters when I'm on the road, the main reason being that they nearly always have chatty bartenders. When you're staying in a non-tourist-area hotel on business, it's kind of relaxing to go somewhere where you are guaranteed some light, frothy conversation. And Hooters' wings aren't bad. I will agree, though, that the beer selection is usually poor.
Cousin Dave at August 27, 2010 2:25 PM
If Miss Tender Feelings thinks that Hooters management is harshing her buzz, wait 'til she gets to work there and a half-dozen frat boys call out, "Hey, Fat Girl! C'mere! Suuu-eee!" - or pull out a Sharpie and start drawing cuts of meat on her uniform.
It'll happen.
Radwaste at August 27, 2010 3:42 PM
Segue fix: Knocked Up has a scene...
JJH: Kate Heigl fat??? Tho' I thought she was at her smokinest in that goofy Disney Channel Freaky Friday ripoff about 15ya (may have been jailbait then).
In college many girls were considered corpulent so we put a "hog filter" (narrow maze) in the basement of our fraternity house.
DaveG at August 27, 2010 6:28 PM
@"The movie has a hilarious scene where Katherine Heigl's character is told she should lose weight"
__________
Are you talking about the Katherine Heigl movie that came out this year... where she had a choice between a nice dependable man and a less dependable rebel, and picked the rebel?
Or do you mean the Katherine Heigl movie that came out last year... where she had a choice between a nice dependable man and a less dependable rebel, and picked the rebel?
Or was it the Katherine Heigl movie that came out a couple years ago... where she had a choice between a nice dependable man and a less dependable rebel, and picked the rebel?
LOL. okay, i'm being facetious, but it seems all her movies are different twists on the same general story and same predictable choice at the end.
Trust at August 28, 2010 10:14 AM
Trust, the thing is, that describes pretty much ever rom-com made in the last two decades.
Cousin Dave at August 28, 2010 11:56 AM
DaveG what a charming bunch of boys you must have been. How have y'all fared with the ladies since?
Sam at August 28, 2010 6:18 PM
ummmm.....sorry, but Hooters has an image of no fat chicks. Too bad. If they did allow fat chicks men would not go there. If you don't like the clothing policies, don't eat there and don't try to get a job there. I have a feeling these two women looked around for someone to sue to cash in, and picked hooters. We have all seen the same thing thousands of times. So, Hooters is stupid for hiring them in the first place.
I've been to Hooters. The food there is terrible and the women wear those stupid hose with the uniforms. Absolutely ugly. You can see more skin at a coffee shop any saturday or sunday afternoon.
Ridiculous.
mike at August 29, 2010 12:37 PM
I don't believe most of the people commenting have taken the time to look at the picture of the girl. One can be found here (follow the links for the other girl)
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/hooters-weight-lawsuits-to-move-forward-20100825-mr
Point being, neither of them is fat. 5'9" at 145 lbs with some muscle tone is pretty good shape. The lawsuit has merit.
Not to mention going by weight alone is far too simplistic. Marius Pudzianowski, the polish strongman champion, is probably around 300+ pounds walking around - and no one would call him fat, at least to his face.
I am all for private employers choosing who they wish to hire, but comparing these two ladies to the disney girl wanting to wear a head scarf, when she was supposed to dress in the Disney uniform, is doing them a disservice.
Alex at September 3, 2010 8:10 AM
Leave a comment