Why would a man want to be a Hooter's girl? Today's article in the Houston Chronicle attempts to answer this question- but we say the bigger issue is not the wings, but the potential for dangerous class action reform.
Martin Shellist, an employment lawyer with Shellist Lazarz, is representing a 22-year-old college student who applied to be a server at Hooters in Corpus Christi but was rejected because he’s a man, according to the lawsuit.
“He doesn’t want to be a Hooters Girl. He just wants to be a waiter,” said Shellist, referring to the women in orange shorts and tight shirts who serve food and drinks to customers, occasionally breaking to twirl hula hoops.
From all appearances, Hooters is gunning for the fight.
“This move, of course, begs the question, ‘Why would a man want to be a Hooters Girl?’ ” according to a written statement from Mike McNeil, vice president of marketing for Hooters of America. “In our opinion, he doesn’t, and he is simply looking for an opportunity to be the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit so he can try and make some money without working for it.”
If Hooters loses, he argued, America loses.
“If we lose this go-around, you can next expect hairy-legged guys in the Rockettes lineup and male models in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue,” according to McNeil. “You wonder why people just can’t leave good things alone.”
Brilliant PR strategy on Hooter’s part- but they are missing the big angle- its not about hairy legged waiters in hot pants- its about the public perception of class action abuse. If people can sue representing plaintiffs who ordinarily wouldn’t be caught dead doing the job they are supposedly upset about being discriminated against- then it sends a chilling effect that often results in much the same way as tort reform. A lot of anti-class action warriors will be hoping this goes through because then they’ll have an excuse to do something legislatively about what they call class action abuse. Bad news for plaintiff attorneys.
It is important here to spin the message the right way before the plaintiff becomes a burned McDonald’s coffee drinker example of abuse.
It just didn’t seem right, Grushevski said. What if Hooters’ clientele only liked young blond women? Would that mean that it wouldn’t hire black or Hispanic servers or those over age 40?
“I know it’s not a gentleman’s club. It’s a family restaurant,” said Grushevski, who hasn’t been back since he was denied a job.
Previous attempts
This isn’t the first time a man has tried to break into the food servers’ ranks at Hooters.
Back in 1991, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission launched an investigation claiming the chain’s hiring practices discriminate against men, according to Hooters.
The chain sponsored a Hooters Girl march on Washington, D.C., blasted the inquiry as an example of government waste and elicited support from its customers. Twenty-three members of Congress ended up asking the EEOC to drop the investigation, according to Hooters, and since then, the chain assumed the matter was dead.
In 1997, a group of men turned down for employment in Chicago reached a $3.8 million settlement with Hooters, which agreed to open some restaurant jobs evenly to males but kept its servers all-female.
No comments:
Post a Comment