If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Turns out Hooter's waitresses aren't supposed to have shaved heads and big scars. Clearly this isn't the Myrtle Beach Hooters   (gma.yahoo.com) divider line 59
    More: Obvious, Hooters, brain surgery, St. Louis University, owls, physical injury  
•       •       •

10324 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2013 at 5:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-09 12:08:48 PM
Scars? What scars?

img.izifunny.com
 
2013-04-09 01:09:00 PM

DeathCipris: She is suing under the ADA, which is Federal law. Even in right-to-work states, like my home state, you can't fire or refuse to hire someone if your basis for the action violates Federal labor laws.
That's why this all hinges on Hooters having to admit that they hire women just for their looks and it is part of their job qualifications.


Hooters has "admitted" that, yes.  It classifies itself as an entertainment venue, thus exempting themselves from some of the protections that (prospective) employees might have against discrimination on many bases.
 
2013-04-09 01:25:22 PM

stevarooni: DeathCipris: She is suing under the ADA, which is Federal law. Even in right-to-work states, like my home state, you can't fire or refuse to hire someone if your basis for the action violates Federal labor laws.
That's why this all hinges on Hooters having to admit that they hire women just for their looks and it is part of their job qualifications.

Hooters has "admitted" that, yes.  It classifies itself as an entertainment venue, thus exempting themselves from some of the protections that (prospective) employees might have against discrimination on many bases.


I am curious if this legal tactic actually works, how long until other companies start calling their retail employees "entertainers"? In order to see what Federal labor laws they can get away with breaking.
 
2013-04-09 02:58:17 PM
Employee handbook says "no ponytails or pigtails to be worn"

Awwww, man..
 
2013-04-09 03:14:11 PM

Lorelle: FirstNationalBastard: Bald chicks can be pretty hot, too.

Lieutenant Ilia was awesome:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 380x288]





She also had a bit of a meltdown when chopping off those locks...
 
2013-04-09 03:25:28 PM

Tsar_Bomba1: Lorelle: FirstNationalBastard: Bald chicks can be pretty hot, too.

Lieutenant Ilia was awesome:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 380x288]

She also had a bit of a meltdown when chopping off those locks...


That was kinda sad, but I mean, that was how the shamed women during WW2 who slept with the Nazis (Godwin'd!)  and it just wasn't a style.

I give her credit for not going completely nuclear with it.
 
2013-04-09 04:00:57 PM
Clearly
 
2013-04-09 06:09:04 PM
But if one of the essential functions of the job is physical beauty, then what? Look at it this way...If a movie studio is auditioning people for the role of "teenage daughter", in an upcoming movie, they are NOT required to include men, or elderly women in auditions for the part. Being a "female teenager" is a bona fide job requirement. Just like Hooters has a "don't be a hideous, scarred-up, bald sea-hag" requirement. Good thing, too. 'Cause it ain't the overcooked hot dogs and luke-warm beer that keeps 'em coming back...

This is an easy win for the waitress. Even if Hooters can prove "physical beauty" is an essential function of the job, this girl has the right under the law to a reasonable accommodation to be able to perform the essential functions of the job. Just because an accommodation involves an expense to the employer does not mean it is unreasonable. In the case of Hooters, spending $2500 on a wig that both meets the "physical beauty" requirement of the job, as well as the employee's need for comfort (as in not chafing a healing wound), is not unreasonable.

As previously said, discovery will be drawn out, Hooters will know they're wrong, and they'll settle out of court.

/prior experience as an agent with EEOC
 
2013-04-09 06:16:42 PM

a.mcleland: But if one of the essential functions of the job is physical beauty, then what? Look at it this way...If a movie studio is auditioning people for the role of "teenage daughter", in an upcoming movie, they are NOT required to include men, or elderly women in auditions for the part. Being a "female teenager" is a bona fide job requirement. Just like Hooters has a "don't be a hideous, scarred-up, bald sea-hag" requirement. Good thing, too. 'Cause it ain't the overcooked hot dogs and luke-warm beer that keeps 'em coming back...

This is an easy win for the waitress. Even if Hooters can prove "physical beauty" is an essential function of the job, this girl has the right under the law to a reasonable accommodation to be able to perform the essential functions of the job. Just because an accommodation involves an expense to the employer does not mean it is unreasonable. In the case of Hooters, spending $2500 on a wig that both meets the "physical beauty" requirement of the job, as well as the employee's need for comfort (as in not chafing a healing wound), is not unreasonable.

As previously said, discovery will be drawn out, Hooters will know they're wrong, and they'll settle out of court.

/prior experience as an agent with EEOC


Actually, they might fight that. $2500 for a "proper" wig would be a bit much for a restaurant. They could have offered PTO, and if she refused... well, they made an accommodation. Spending money for the needs of one when the many (no matter the injury) never get the same chance is also in violation to the EEOC.As long as it is universal, they have a good defense.
 
Displayed 9 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report