Hooters and the EEOC - Essay Example

Hooters and the EEOC Whether you love it or hate it, Hooters Restaurants' fame was built upon the precept of sellingsexual appeal under the guise of a restaurant. There are hundreds of restaurant chains and thousands more individual restaurants throughout the country. To gain their market share the founder of the company, devised the draw, 'The Hooter Girl' to carve their niche into the market. Make no mistake, Hooters was designed to sell sex, legally perhaps, but that has been the company's main focus since its inception in 1983 and an integral part of their business strategy.

Without the Hooter Girls as waitresses, Hooters simply would not be Hooters. As found in Leonard, Steenberg, Howard and Mullins (1998), according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, "in those certain instances wheresexis a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business" (p. C-663) a company or entity's decision to hire based upon gender is not illegal or discriminatory. The EEOC has specific criteria within which these exceptions must fall, ironically one of the examples they listed was a Playboy Bunny.

This brought to mind one questionWhat's the difference between a Playboy Bunny and a Hooter Girl The answer is simple; other than the tail and ears - nothing. Both are selling an image - that is their primary focus; food and drink, in both cases, is secondary. Perhaps the main problem was, Hooters attempted to hide behind the guise of a 'family oriented restaurant'. Several court cases defining the scope of BFOQ establish precedent for upholding Hooters right to require their front line staff to be female.

In the case of St. Cross v Playboy Club, CFS 22618-70 the court held that "in jobs where sex or vicarious sexual recreation is the primary service providedbeing female was deemed a BFOQ" (Leonard et al, 1998, p. C-664).As previously discussed there is no distinction here. Hooter Girls are hired for precisely the same reasons as are Playboy Bunnies. In another case, Dothard v Rawinson, 443 US 321 (1997), the Supreme Court found that employers may not show hiring preferences to one gender over another "unless the essence of his or her business otherwise would be undermined" (Leonard et al., 1998, p. C-664).

Personal opinions aside, the entire concept of the Hooters chain is based upon this sexually exploitive use of females in the direct customer positions of servers and bartenders. Requiring them to hire males would be detrimental to their business plan and profitability. Hooters has since their inception demonstrated that they are non-discriminatory in their hiring practices. Every other position within the company is equally open to men and women and there has been no evidence supporting anything to the contrary.

The main contention has been, in my opinion, the attempt of a few men to earn a fast buck by manipulating the system and claiming discrimination. Secondly, the concept of Hooters is distasteful to many who feel it is degrading to females. This may be true, but the principle upon which this country was founded gives the owners of Hooters the right to operate their restaurants with the primary goal of 'selling' the sexual appeal of young women. The place to decide the morality of this is not at the federal level.

We also have the right to be heard. Quite simply, if the public does not want Hooters Restaurant to operatedo not patronize them. It truly is that simple. But, now I have started thinkingmaybe I will suggest to Mom to apply for the Santa position at the mall Works CitedLeonard, Nancy H., Steenberg, Larry R., Howard, Deborah A. and Mullins, Terry W. (1998). Hooters Restaurant and the EEOC. Business Case Journal, pp. C660-666.