Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Quirky Lurker |
The argument Hooters used when sued is that being a female, and a particular type of female at that, was a bonafide occupational qualification. Essentially, their "schtick" was to provide sexually provocative entertainment and that delivering food was only part of the job. They settled for millions and ended up agreeing to addd more men in non-server positions, so we will never know how the defense would have played out. Here, if it were a dancer, then Sammys wold be good, but a bartender is a closer call. I am in the "can't blame the guy for using the law crowd." Although the EEOC is a worthless organization in my opinion, they see hundreds of thousands of cases a year, so for them to pick one to pursue as a Plaintiff, there must be something there. . | |||
|
probably a good thing I don't have a cut |
They can hire him but I'm not tipping him. | |||
|
His diet consists of black coffee, and sarcasm. |
A job one has to sue to get wouldn't be worth having. Surely a bartender shouldn't have a problem finding work. | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |