# What companies have been allowed to discriminate (like Hooters)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 8, 2008, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-companies-have-been-allowed-to-discriminate-like-hooters/462603 "2008-09-08T13:43:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-companies-have-been-allowed-to-discriminate-like-hooters/462603/21 "2008-09-08T17:44:57Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > 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). I was an extra for the (last) stadium scene in _The Waterboy_ (filmed at the Citrus Bowl) and we didn’t get paid at all- we just got free t-shirts and water bottles, plus pre-screening tickets. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-companies-have-been-allowed-to-discriminate-like-hooters/462603/22 "2008-09-08T23:28:22Z")
For the record, Hooters did not win their case involving allegations of intentional discrimination. They settled with the EEOC (under terms usually described as "favorable to Hooters), and the question of whether large boobies is a BFOQ has never been decided by the court. ---
**Author:** ![Sigene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sigene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigene)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-companies-have-been-allowed-to-discriminate-like-hooters/462603/23 "2008-09-09T00:26:06Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > 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? So I’m a bit confused. I didn’t think white men were a protected class. unconfuse me if I’m wrong ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-companies-have-been-allowed-to-discriminate-like-hooters/462603/24 "2008-09-09T00:43:58Z")
> [@Sigene](#): > > So I’m a bit confused. I didn’t think white men were a protected class. > unconfuse me if I’m wrong Yup, they are. See the [Civil Rights Act](http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21): > [@](#): > > It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - > (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or > (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. and the [Equal Pay Act of 1963](http://finduslaw.com/equal_pay_act_of_1963_epa_29_u_s_code_chapter_8_206_d): > [@](#): > > No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions… Nothing in there about the rest of your “cohort” being historically disadvantaged; except for the BFOQs mentioned above, you can’t refuse to hire someone because of their race (even if they’re white), and you can’t refuse to hire someone because of their sex (even if they’re male.) The only protected class where only one “side of the fence” is unprotected is age; it is unlawful to discriminate against people over 40, but people under 40 are not afforded the same protection. This always seemed a little unfair to me, but I’m sure I’ll feel differently in about 11 years. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-companies-have-been-allowed-to-discriminate-like-hooters/462603/25 "2008-09-09T08:53:51Z")
> [@SmackFu](#): > > Ever seen a male cocktail server at a casino? Yes. Women gamblers like their eye candy too. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-companies-have-been-allowed-to-discriminate-like-hooters/462603/26 "2008-09-09T09:16:40Z")
> [@MikeS](#): > > The only protected class where only one “side of the fence” is unprotected is age; it is unlawful to discriminate against people over 40, but people under 40 are not afforded the same protection. This always seemed a little unfair to me, but I’m sure I’ll feel differently in about 11 years. Because age is a changeable characteristic (albeit only upwards, hence why you can’t discriminate against older people). Okay, so that really doesn’t answer “why it’s fair,” but it’s the rationale they give. Anyway, I thought gender was only somewhat protected, or does that only apply to the “quasi-suspect” classification the court gives it (hence allowing buildings to “segregate” restrooms based on gender, as well as giving gender reasonable basis instead of strict scrutiny). I have to admit I’m a little confused about the legal status of “protected” and court precedents that modify it to be acceptable under certain circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-companies-have-been-allowed-to-discriminate-like-hooters/462603/27 "2008-09-09T13:31:20Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > Anyway, I thought gender was only somewhat protected, or does that only apply to the “quasi-suspect” classification the court gives it (hence allowing buildings to “segregate” restrooms based on gender, as well as giving gender reasonable basis instead of strict scrutiny). I have to admit I’m a little confused about the legal status of “protected” and court precedents that modify it to be acceptable under certain circumstances. There are three levels of scrutiny that have been defined by the Supreme Court. The highest level is “strict scrutiny.” Strict scrutiny applies to such classes as race and national origin. Under strict scrutiny, the government must prove that the discriminatory law serves a “compelling” state interest, that the law is “narrowly tailored” to serve that interest and that the law is the “least restrictive” means of achieving that interest. “Intermediate scrutiny” is the second level. Intermediate scrutiny has been applied to classes such as sex and illegitimacy. Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must demonstrate an “important” interest and that the law is “substantially” related to advancing that interest. The lowest level is “rational review.” Sexual orientation has traditionally been subject to rational review. Under rational review, the government must prove that the law is advancing a “legitimate” state interest and that the law is a “rational” means for advancing that interest. ---
**Author:** ![MadTheSwine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MadTheSwine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MadTheSwine)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-companies-have-been-allowed-to-discriminate-like-hooters/462603/28 "2008-09-09T14:44:36Z")
> [@SmackFu](#): > > Ever seen a male cocktail server at a casino? Yeah,Harrah’s Laughlin had at least one when my GF worked there. ---
**Author:** ![SpecialAgentJem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f6c823/32.png) [@SpecialAgentJem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpecialAgentJem)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-companies-have-been-allowed-to-discriminate-like-hooters/462603/29 "2008-09-09T15:31:11Z")
In my first year of law school one of my classes was all about different types of discrimination. We spoke about artists being allowed to advertise for specific types of people e.g short, slim black female, etc. Also chinese restaurants can hire on the basis of authenticity. The Jimmy Chungs along the road from me does this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-companies-have-been-allowed-to-discriminate-like-hooters/462603.md?page=1)