Hooters doesn’t hire any men and their practice has been upheld in court.
What I’m wondering is if there are any other cases where companies have been allowed to legally discriminate against a protected class of people?
Hooters hires men all of the time. Those restaurants need bartenders, cooks and managers, you know.
In general, what you’re looking for is a provision in the law called Bona-fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ).
This affects a lot more than just Hooters, believe me.
Presumably a film company casting for a movie set in medieval England could legally exclude, say, black or Chinese actors from consideration - nobody would take a black Henry V seriously, after all.
It can come up, too, in disability law. You can make all kinds of reasonable accommodations in many jobs, but many others, especially in industry, require people not to be disabled or not to be disabled in certain ways.
Easy to understand in a second - telephone linemen, for instance, have to be able to climb the poles. And if the phone companies hire disabled people in other jobs with decent pay and advancement, this shouldn’t be an issue.
I think you’re right about the legalities, but I’ve certainly seen a number of Shakespeare productions (other than Othello) with non-white actors. It’s a bit jarring, maybe, but that’s probably the intent. It makes ya think, and so forth.
The thing to remember about Hooters is that the reason they can refuse to hire men as servers is because Hooters was able to convince the federal government that their primary “product” was the sexually titillating environment, with food and drink sales being secondary.
When this topic has come up previously, some posters have noted that Hooters has in recent years been positioning itself as more of a “family friendly” establishment and report seeing families with young children there. Given that, I wonder what would happen should some quixotic man decide to challenge Hooters again.
How about a black Don Pedro of Aragon?
Strip clubs, although their … ahem… “talent” are generally independent contractors, not employees.
Religions that don’t allow women to be priests/ministers/rabbis/whatever. There’s a Mormon church down the block from my office, and I’m constantly being witnessed to. I always tell them I will not join a religion that discriminates against women, they tell me they do not do that, and I ask them if I could be a priest.
[hijack] I’m stealing that (although I’m not a woman). [/end hijack]
It’s not discrimination per se, but a production assistant on the show “Friends” filed a lawsuit a few years ago claiming that the sexually suggestive banter that went on in the writers’ room constituted sexual harassment and had created a hostile work environment for her.
Had she been working in a normal office like a bank or an insurance company she probably would have won the case. But the California Supreme Court wound up throwing it out on the grounds that sexually explicit conversation was a necessary part of the creative process for a show with adult content.
Some examples of BFOQs, from what I understand:
-
Places of worship, at least for their clergy and monastics.
-
Businesses and organizations that deal exclusively with women in a sensitive gender-restricted environment are allowed to discriminate against men; for instance, Curves or battered women’s shelters.
-
Restroom attendants.
-
Airline crew and flight attendants of flights to Mecca.
-
Jobs requiring international travel to or residence in areas where those of a certain religion or ethnicity are not welcome in the country, or it would otherwise be dangerous to them. For instance, ARAMCO could discriminate against Jews if a job requires travel or relocation to Saudi Arabia.
There is a local college that requires its applicants to include a “statement of Christian beliefs” yet also claims to be an equal opportunity employer. I just looked at their web site to confirm. I could understand a statement of Christian beliefs for instructors in divinity classes, for example, but they require it for mathematics teachers, too. I have no idea how they are able to get away with that.
I suppose that if someone submits a statement that reads, “I have no Christian beliefs; I am a Jew,” and is otherwise fully qualified, that would fulfill their requirements and I would love to see what would come of it. From what I remember of their help-wanted advertising, they require their and administrative maintenance staff to submit the statement as well.
Ever seen a male cocktail server at a casino?
ETA: Brother Cadfael was faster and I hadn’t read it! Sorry!
This has less to do with BFOQ and more to do with First Amendment right to freedom from government interference in religion. However, there is IIRC case law that allows religious institutions to refuse to hire people outside the religion for such things as janitorial positions, but it’s been a long time since I studied this stuff in any detail.
From a business law class I took 15 years ago. Chinese restaurants can just hire ethnic Asians.
If the college is a 501(c), it gets the same exemption that non-educational religious institutions do.
This can be applied to almost any line of business as long as it’s a nonprofit with a clearly defined religious purpose…
It’s not entirely a line of bull, because the Holy Land Experience has been haemmorhaging money since its opening, although the owners (the Crouch family, who operate the Trinity Broadcasting Network) have made hundreds of millions with other tax-exempt “ministries”.
Ron Shelton talked about when filming Cobb, he needed a stadium full of people. However, to make it realistic, he could only hire whites, since very few Black men would not have been in a major league ballpark at the time portrayed. The film was shot in an area with a large Black population and high unemployment and Shelton had to explain the reasons for it. AFAIK, there was no discrimination suit (though it probably wasn’t worth anyone’s time – a day’s worth of extra wages is not going to amount to very much).