You read in the news on a regular basis about some entrepreneur opening a topless barber shop or topless car wash or topless maid service.
I assume that most of the women who apply for these jobs self-select for attractiveness, but there have to be applicants who aren’t, shall we say, of the desired body image.
What’s the law on this? I know that some body discrimination can be legal if it can be shown to be a legitimate requirement of the job, but that doesn’t matter for cutting hair. Have there been court cases on this?
I think it’s a problem that takes care of itself.
The minimum wage for a tipped employee is practically nothing.
If you ain’t got the goods, no one’s going to tip much.
But if you’ve got it and can work it, it’s like printing money.
In Vegas, the cocktail waitresses are technically “models”, and so can be discriminated against on the basis of attractiveness, because attractiveness is a key part of the job. They only happen to serve drinks, too. I assume something similar is going on here.
Having a hot body isn’t a requirement for cutting hair, no. But it IS a requirement for working as a topless barber, because the guys who are going there (and presumably paying a premium) aren’t paying simply for a haircut; they are paying for a haircut from a good looking half-naked woman.
I find the idea of a topless barber or whatever fairly unsettling; I wouldn’t invest in one at all, nor patronize one unless I were in desperate need of a haircut and had no other option. But I can easily understand why other men (and lesbians too, I suppose) might wish to patronize one, and it’s silly to think that having a nice rack wouldn’t be a job requirement.
usually the operative word is “performers” if I recall correctly from the labor law side of things.
Performers can be selected based on the desired presentation. It sounds icky on the surface, but its a side effect of a need to protect performance type employers (like film and theater) from racial discrimination suits in selection of performers.
Wasn’t this settled in a lawsuit against Hooters already? They weren’t topless, but I thought the powers that be established you could hire for looks as a result. And where are these topless barber shops?
IIRC: the issue with Hooters is that they only hired young woman as waitstaff. Presumably this would’ve been fine if they called their waitresses “food models” or something, but at the same time some Hooters wanted to claim it was solely a restaurant in order to avoid various town zoning ordnances against stripclubs and the like, and so claimed, on paper anyways, to be just a restaurant and not a performance venue.
They solved the issue by basically abandoning the pre-text that there wasn’t a sexual component to the services being provided.
There are probably two different lawsuits you’re thinking of, and neither involved “attractiveness.”
One was a suit in 1997 by three men alleging gender discrimination in Hooters hiring practices because they only hired women as waitstaff. Hooters settled out of court, tragically depriving America of an answer to the question, “can “having boobs” be a BFOQ?”
Another suit arose in Michigan in 2010, a state where height and weight are protected classifications under state law (the only such state law in the US). There, a waitress was told she needed to lose weight in 30 days or face termination. Again, the issue was still not whether she was ugly, but whether she was (in their eyes) fat, and discriminated against in violation of a specific state law forbidding such discrimination.
It’s never been illegal to preferentially hire your relatives and friends, or relatives and friends of current employees. That’s what the only Chinese restaurant owner I’m personally aquainted with does. Although their delivery driver is of European descent, all the rest are Asian relatives and friends.
Not true, race is a fully protected class. Ethnic restaurants get away with this, because they typically employ only a few members. I am not sure what the maximum is, it’s like if you employee only five or ten people, your business is small enough to be exempt from the discrimination laws.
I don’t think race being a protected class would prevent a restaurant owner from preferentially hiring persons from his own community, though. Not only are family restaurants typically below the 25-person limit or so that would trigger the law, but they also hire more by word of mouth than ads. I doubt that it’s illegal to begin your hiring process by asking your friends & relatives if any of their kids need and job and telling said kids to come in–and if it is, it shouldn’t be.
You’re also going to see some discrepancies in who applies for which kind of restaurant job. I can think of a number of reasons why a Chinese-American employee might be more likely to apply for a job in a Chinese restaurant than a European-American.