A couple of late responses came in for our question about whether Hooters’ women-only hiring policy is unlawful discrimination. Both HR professionals strongly oppose the policy and presented strong arguments against it. Since we had a lot more pro-Hooters arguments last week (see HR's Take on Hooters Hiring Policy), we wanted to include more opposing views this week.
“How would this be perceived by society if the gender role were reversed? For instance, What the women suing are overlooking is one of the qualifications of the job, and that is you do need to be a man. The clients are women going for a 'man' to wait on them. Hooters is in the right to hire only men in this case. My assumption is that society would perceive this statement to be discriminatory because it prohibits females from getting positions but when the gender roles are reversed, it's okay. Equal rights mean equal rights for both sides.” -- Anonymous.
“I think discrimination is discrimination. Furthermore, how could it be ‘reasonably necessary' for Hooters waiters to be female in order to perform their duties, unless the company is running a bordello, which is still illegal in most states? Why would serving food require being female in this day and age?” -- Anonymous