The complainant says management proposed to place her on “weight probation” when she had trouble fitting into her uniform at the winks-and-wings eatery. She’s suing under Michigan discrimination law, which is unusual in making weight a protected category. [WSJ Law Blog]
9 Comments
The District of Columbia bans discrimination based on “personal appearance,” which I think means the same thing.
Isn’t a certain appearance a requirement of the job and therefore an exception in such a case?
In reporting this case on his tallk show, Jay Leno first showed the girl being interviewed. She, at least to my eye, she was a fine example of properly-formed feminity. Then Leno next showed the manager, who explained his complaint. The manager was an incredibly rotund man who obviously never saw an exercise class he liked.
We are heading toward the European model – where you can never fire anybody.
We need to get back to the ‘at will’ principle, enough of this phony discrimination/civil rights crap.
But, isn’t Michigan an “At-Will” State as it is?
Hooter’s is afraid to show its customers what happens to you if you eat their junk food.
Me predicts this case isn’t about a weight issue. I’d bet money that there’s something else going on here and this lawsuit is the result of some other private dispute.
Mr. Costanza – If Hooters’ business model involved hiring buff male managers to attract customers, you might have a point. It doesn’t, so you don’t.
How many potential Hooters’ customers go there to ogle the managers? It may be a sagacious ploy on the part of management to minimize sexual harassment claims from spurned females by requiring being unappealing as a condition of eligibility for management.