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.
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.
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:
and the Equal Pay Act of 1963:
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.
Yes. Women gamblers like their eye candy too.
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.
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.
Yeah,Harrah’s Laughlin had at least one when my GF worked there.
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.