Can a municipality (in the USA) legally ban Hooters?

[Horatio_Hellpop]

@Projammer

Hooters was kept out of the town I live in fro about 10 years by the simple expedient of denying the liquor license. They had tried several times but the clique of ‘moral’ city board members kept blocking the permit. The group with the franchise license finally applied for the permit under another name and got that approved before revealing that it was for a Hooters.

I would have loved to be at the meeting to see the expressions when they found out how impotent they were.

Are they still in business there? Liquor licenses are not difficult to revoke.

[Spoons]

@alphaboi867

Didn’t a Canadian province try to do that with legislation keeping chain stores closed on Sundays while letting small mom & pops open? And it ended up with big box stores dividing themselves into a college of smaller shops on Sundays and making customers pay for items at register in each [del]department[/del] shop instead all at once at the front-end?

It did. The province was Ontario (I was living in it at the time), and the legislation allowed X number of square feet to be open on Sundays, but not X+1 square feet.

So, a few markets simply divided themselves. The “JohnPete Market” might have been 2X square feet from Monday through Saturday, but on Sundays, “John’s Market” checked in at X square feet; and right next door, “Pete’s Market” was also X square feet. All within the law that stated that a business open Sunday could only be a maximum of X square feet. A wall divided the “JohnPete Market” with doors (generally, industrial garage doors) between the two that were open from Monday through Saturday, but closed on Sunday. Note that John’s side did not sell produce, and Pete’s side did not sell meat.

So, on Sundays, you went to John’s side for meat, canned goods, and bakery items. You paid for them and put your purchases in your car; and then you went to Pete’s side for deli, produce, and so on.

Yes, it was dumb. Thankfully, the Ontario government also saw how dumb it was, and did away with it.

[Darth_Panda]

@Chronos

Well, Hooters isn’t topless, so regulations aimed at topless establishments wouldn’t touch them. I imagine that a city could ban discrimination by breast size in hiring, though, which would effectively kill the Hooters concept.

There are plenty of B cups running around in Hooters. I know a handful of managers at the local Hooters - they’re more concerned with waitresses who will show up on time and have a good attitude than their actual cup size.

[Frylock]

@Mr_Downtown

To answer the OP, no.

A general principle of legislation is that it has to apply generally.

Where is that codified?

[Chronos]

There are plenty of B cups running around in Hooters. I know a handful of managers at the local Hooters

(emphasis mine)

Interesting juxtaposition, there…

And thanks for the information; I mostly only know about Hooters by reputation, not by direct experience. Still, I imagine that they apply some sort of attractiveness-based hiring criteria beyond those typical of other restaurants, and a city could surely attack those criteria as unacceptable discrimination.

[Darth_Panda]

@Chronos

(emphasis mine)

Interesting juxtaposition, there…

And thanks for the information; I mostly only know about Hooters by reputation, not by direct experience. Still, I imagine that they apply some sort of attractiveness-based hiring criteria beyond those typical of other restaurants, and a city could surely attack those criteria as unacceptable discrimination.

It would be tricky. I could easily name 5 or 10 places around here that have way better looking girls than the local Hooters - but I suppose a city could try to prevent all restaurants from hiring good looking women - they just couldn’t single out Hooters. Hooters could easily respond though by just hiring girls that already work at bars in the city after the city had passed the ordinance, and saying that if the other restaurants were in compliance, and they hired the exact same people, well then…

[Bryan_Ekers]

@alphaboi867

Didn’t a Canadian province try to do that with legislation keeping chain stores closed on Sundays while letting small mom & pops open? And it ended up with big box stores dividing themselves into a college of smaller shops on Sundays and making customers pay for items at register in each [del]department[/del] shop instead all at once at the front-end?

Quebec has a number of pro-mom&pop regulations, forcing major supermarkets to find work-arounds. One example is limiting the number of cash registers that can be manned on Friday nights and weekends, the obvious goal being to make it more inconvenient for weekend shoppers. The stores put in automated registers instead, where the customer can scan his own purchases and pay with an ATM-like interface. This is handy, I admit, for small purchases. It becomes a nuisance for general provisioning.

Friday at 5 p.m. (or whenever the cutoff is), the stores tend to announce over the loudspeaker: “In accordance with provincial law, we are now required to reduce the number of open cash registers. Thank you for shopping at Provigo.”

[Martin_Hyde]

@Frylock

I am dense, I know, but what right or other legal principle would be violated by a city passing a law that targets a specific corporation?

It’s a very general principle but with a lot of caveats laws are supposed to treat people equally, and people are entitled to “equal protection of the law.” A corporation isn’t a legal person for every purpose, but generally for issues like business licensing you could say they are.

More specifically most State governments have recognized that municipal and county officials can sometimes be prone to cronyism and such in things like business licensing, so generally there are appeals process and a court system at the State level where if Councilman Billy Bob the Bible Pounding Pastor has done stuff to specifically deny only a single business the ability to operate while allowing similar businesses to operate in most States there could be legal consequences for the municipality.

[Projammer]

@Krokodil

Are they still in business there? Liquor licenses are not difficult to revoke.

They just passed the 5 year mark. I’m sure they have been very careful to always err on the side of caution where their license is concerned.

I’ve only eaten there about three times when a group I hang with decides to go there. The eye candy doesn’t make up for the overpriced, mediocre food.

[bump]

[QUOTE=excavating (for a mind);The rumors I’ve heard is that the city forced the colors on these establishments; that their corporate marketing bowed to the city’s demands rather than fight them. [/QUOTE]

There have been rumors as to why there’s no Hooters in College Station for more than 20 years (since 1991 at least, when I started at A&M).

I tend to think Occam’s Razor applies here; the town is essentially a bunch of rednecks and Bible-thumpers who live in a relatively small town out in the sticks far from Houston, Dallas, Austin or San Antonio, and they don’t like the idea of a place like Hooters, so I suspect they resort to various marginally legal shenanigans such as classifying Hooters as a “sexually oriented business” instead of as a restaurant, and then deny the applications on that basis.

Nothing silly about colors; the city probably doesn’t give a shit. It’s more smart marketing that they’d try and Aggie things up by making things maroon instead of orange.

[Mr_Downtown]

@Frylock

Where is that codified?

Most state constitutions have a provision like this one (from Illinois):

SECTION 13. SPECIAL LEGISLATION
The General Assembly shall pass no special or local law when a general law is or can be made applicable. Whether a general law is or can be made applicable shall be a matter
for judicial determination.

[Darth_Panda]

see also:

Our cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a “class of one,” where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. See Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U.S. 441 (1923); Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty., 488 U.S. 336 (1989). In so doing, we have explained that “‘[t]he purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.’” Sioux City Bridge Co., supra, at 445 (quoting Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Township of Wakefield, 247 U.S. 350, 352 (1918)).

VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, et al., PETITIONERS v. GRACE OLECH
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1288.ZPC.html

[Acsenray]

@chrisk

Could it be considered a ‘Bill of Attainder’, which is prohibited in the US constitution?

A writ or bill of attainder declares a person guilty of a crime. That’s not applicable to denying a business a license to operate.

@Mr_Downtown

Most state constitutions have a provision like this one (from Illinois):

SECTION 13. SPECIAL LEGISLATION
The General Assembly shall pass no special or local law when a general law is or can be made applicable. Whether a general law is or can be made applicable shall be a matter
for judicial determination.

Note that this doesn’t completely bar special or local laws.

[s0meguy]

@t-bonham@scc.net

In the US, with our Constitution, it is very difficult (intentionally) to ‘ban’ a specific business like “Hooters”. Generally, the city would have to ban a whole type of business, aand define that specifically (but not too specifically – if it appears to aim at one specific business, it would be hard to defend in court).

It should also be hard to torture people according to the law, but it still happens.

[Darth_Panda]

@s0meguy

It should also be hard to torture people according to the law, but it still happens.

Not usually by resolution of a town board…

[Frylock]

Thanks for the examples, Darth Panda and Mr. Downtown

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

From a federal point of view, the bar on Hooters (or whoever) only has to survive rational basis review. In other words, the ban must be “arbitrary and capricious” - a tough burden for the challenger to meet.

The government has to come up with a “legitimate” interest which is furthered by banning Hooters, then show that its ban is “rationally related” to that interest. A ban Hooters by name is virtually guaranteed to be struck down as arbitrary; after all, there are a million similar chains (Kerr’s Winghouse, etc.) serving wings, tits and ass.

So, you find a legitimate interest on which to base your ban. Let’s say the state has a public policy of discouraging gender-based employment discrimination (it will). Hooters hires only female servers; so, you institute a blanket ban on all businesses which have a greater than 90% disparity in male-female employment in a given job description.

[Mr_Downtown]

Quickly rezoning the proposed Hooter’s location for Agriculture could also be attacked as spot zoning. That’s subject to legal challenge in most states, but it obviously requires judicial interpretation and is hard to sustain in a place like Chicago, where the zoning map already resembles a Jackson Pollock painting.

The trickier proposition is when the proposed Hooter’s needs a rezoning, or a special use permit (quite common for anyplace serving liquor). When they become aware of the proposed new restaurant’s operator, the city council suddenly discovers potential traffic or noise problems. That’s what happened with the Chick-fil-A site in Chicago. It had been marketed as a fast-food outlot, but there was a city subdivision approval still needed. When the name of the restaurant was disclosed, all sorts of new concerns suddenly appeared.

[UltraVires]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

…after all, there are a million similar chains (Kerr’s Winghouse, etc.) serving wings, tits and ass.

Are they currently running any specials?

[pulykamell]

@Frylock

I thought I remembered that some cities have banned Hooters restaurants within their jurisdictions. But I don’t see any links on a google search that would confirm this. Am I remembering wrong?

You might be thinking of the Tilted Kilt, where a couple years ago the city of Evanston, IL, rejected their liquor license due mostly to public concern over the type of establishment it was.