quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Places like Hooters, for instance, don't hire "Servers", they hire "Models who also serve", which, IIRC, somehow legally allows them the ability to not only make hiring decisions based on gender but also on attractiveness and dictate they wear those "uniforms". I'd expect that most strip clubs operate similarly.

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. .

They can hire him but I'm not tipping him.

A job one has to sue to get wouldn't be worth having. Surely a bartender shouldn't have a problem finding work.