Affirmative Action:

I know the manager of the one where I live. He has told me numerous times that they only hire guys as staff in the kitchen, or manager type rolls. Sometimes they hire them as busboys, but...never as a waiter/waitress. I don't think they will hirea great looking guy as a waiter, because the place is called hooters, where guys/gals go...to see Hooters! LOL

Ewwwww thanks, my eyes hurt now. I hope that image didnt scar me for life.

I have never been to one but I did see an episode of Undercover Boss and the manager and kitchen staff were males but all the waitresses were female. I was not sure if a man could get a position there as a waitress and if one did apply and did not get the job, if he would have legal stand point to sue for not being hired because he is a male. Not really sure of your employment laws and they probably vary state to state.

Apparently, there have been people to try to sue, however in their write up, they state that they only hire females, therefore....I don't think they can be sued and it stick...

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2235747/posts

I used to cook at a Hooters here when I was going through culinary school. It was all men in the back of the house and all women in the front of the house. I'm gonna assume ,since it is a corporate chain, that they all have the same system.

I'm sure they would hire a woman to work in the back of the house if she was qualified for the job she was applying for but there weren't any in the restaurant I was working at.

And believe me that,was the hardest job I've ever had to quit.

But you gotta go where the money is.

Thanks very much for the information, I appreciate it. I think in the OP it was a question about places that hire both male and female and not meant for a place that is meant for only women to work at or a place meant for only men to work at. Like say Chip N Dales, the male strippers are not going to hire female strippers but its rare to find a place of employment that caters to only hiring men or women.

I was not sure if its a valid lawsuit in your country to sue over not being hired if you are male and do not get a job at Hooters or if you are female and do not get a job with Chip N Dales strippers.

There are jobs that have a perception that only males or females can do but there are a few, that really only hire males or females due to their customers and what they are doing.

It shouldn't come down to the gender but who the employer would feel better suited.
Ie: they may both have the same qualifications/experience but during an interview the interviewee may get the feel for their attitude/character and that should be the deciding voice.

According to the Washington Post, "looks are the last bastion of acceptable bigotry", as the The Real Revo blog Liberalism: fat, ugly models at Victoria’s Secret points out. As it goes on to say at the end of the article:

"Clearly, the Washington Post does not discriminate against writers who are addled due to lives confined in moonbat ivory towers. Good for them"

In an effort to make up for years of discrimination in areas such as education and employment a series of executive orders called Affirmative Action were implement in the United states during the 1960’s. Affirmative Action mandated admissions and hiring be done without regard to race, gender, or sexual orientation.

In order to receive government funding, a certain percentage of admissions and hires must be members of a minority, so, although quotas are not legal, to avoid the risk of losing funding, it would be prudent to give minorities’ preferential treatment.

It seems we have gone from discrimination to equal opportunity and back to discrimination.

There have been cases where people have been discriminated against, have sued, and have won.

If I was in human recourses, and I had two equally qualified candidates, I would hire the minority to avoid the possibility of costly litigation.

Since we're ostensibly no longer using quotas, you have to be able to show that you were discriminated against because of your sex, race etc. If they can, then they should be sued. But I don't think you can avoid it by just going with the minority candidate. You can be sued for reverse discrimination as well.

E: There have been cases where people have been discriminated against, have sued, and have won.

E: If I was in human recourses, and I had two equally qualified candidates, I would hire the minority to avoid the possibility of costly litigation.

----

TPT: Since we're ostensibly no longer using quotas, you have to be able to show that you were discriminated against because of your sex, race etc. If they can, then they should be sued. But I don't think you can avoid it by just going with the minority candidate. You can be sued for reverse discrimination as well.


E: yes, excellent point.


I would still hire a minority before hiring a non-minority.


First: I suspect that a discrimination suit would be more likely to be filed and won by a minority that has a history of unfair treatment.


Second: If I was receiving government funding or tax breaks because I employed minorities I would want to keep a high population of minority employees to meet the non-existent quotas.


Third: If I have a high population of minorities in my employ, civil rights groups are more likely to leave me alone.


Fourth: Minorities, in some cases, work harder and do a better job for less pay.


Fifth: I don’t have a fifth but if I did it would have gone here.

After ploughing through all that, if I had a fifth, I'd drink it.

A fifth of Tim's coffee?