Note: In order to protect academic freedom, postings are not edited for content. Authors are solely responsible for the contents of their postings.
I hate Hooters! I hate its double-entendre name and "more than a mouthful" slogan. I hate that it's a wet t-shirt contest mascarading as a pep rally. And I especially hate that so many men (boys) flock there. Nonetheless, "breastaurants," places which serve up boobs along with burgers, should have a right to exist.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, however, thinks otherwise. Since 1991, Hooters has been battling the agency which says that the company's discriminatory hiring practices have to stop. It is trying to force Hooters to start hiring male waiters and hosts.
Understandably the company has balked at this suggestion and has launched a $1 million advertising blitz to pressure the EEOC to drop its demands. The ad features a hairy, burly, mustachioed man in the Hooter's girl ensemble: tight low-cut t-shirt and tight shorts. The caption reads; What's wrong with this picture? The Government.
The company has good reason to engage in a public relations war with the government, it has a lot on the line. Hooters has masterfully marketed young sexy waitresses and the titillating lunch, which would be bust, so to speak, if patrons had a 50-50 chance of being served by a guy. There is no question that the remarkable success of the chain--now at 172 restaurants nationwide--is due to its ability to convey the wholesome-slut image of its entirely female serving staff .
When I was there, the waitresses would frequently sit down at a table and talk to the customers--a kind of P.G.-rated lap dance. And one of the girls, who had made it on a Hooters Girls poster, was busily showing off her cheesecake; signing her name over her glossy torso for fawning customers. The sex-charged atmosphere is one notch down from a strip club, yet with all the unspoken I-am-your-girl-tonight promises. All this points to one thing: Hooters business is not serving burgers, it's serving mammary glands--with fries on the side. It is undeniably entertainment to the hordes of frat boy wannabes who frequent them. Which is precisely why the EEOC should leave it alone.
Employers who seek to discriminate on the basis of sex must prove that their restrictive hiring practices are a business necessity. However, an employer does not qualify for a business necessity exemption merely because his customers prefer a certain sex of employee. Customer preference is not a legally cognizable defense to a charge of employment discrimination. For example, years ago airlines were prohibited from hiring only females as flight attendants, despite the companies' claims that travelers enjoyed having attractive female stewardesses attend to them. Because the essential value and service of the airline industry was safe commuting, not cabin service, the companies could not defend their discriminatory hiring practices.
At the other extreme, it would be absurd for the government to require a women's fashion designer to hire both male and female models. Clearly being female is a fundamental requirement of the job of modeling women's clothing; discrimination in hiring is therefore a business necessity. Similarly, when female sexuality is what is being sold, like in a strip club, the essence of the business would be destroyed without the freedom to discriminate in hiring. Hooters fits this mold; it's central attraction is more like that of a strip club, than a mere restaurant.
Even with the government crackdown, it's hard to feel sorry for Hooters. After all, it brought this scrutiny on itself. Hooters wouldn't be in this legal pickle if it didn't try to sell sex without admitting it. The company makes disingenuous claims that its allure is due to its "surfer girl" and "girl next door" waitresses, thereby maintaining a facade of sexual innocence which is integral to its marketing strategy. By simultaneously promoting school girl carnal naivete and naughtiness, it has achieved both the draw of the libidinous male and that coveted mainstream acceptability which has eluded more brazenly sexual establishments like peep shows and dance clubs. Its wink-nudge slogans are understood only by the sexually initiated (in other words, all of us). And the corporation can act--emphasis on act--horrified if its name and catch-phrases are misconstrued by the dirty minded.
Nonetheless, because all this subterfuge is exactly what has gotten them in hot water with the EEOC, it is time for Hooters to ‘fess up. The company has to decide, either its business is the sale of female sexuality and exempt from discrimination laws, or it isn't. It is time to stop being such a tease about it. At the same time, the EEOC, whose backlog of discrimination complaints has topped 100,000, should go after more important claims of inequality. Particularly now, when a Republican-controlled Congress may take every opportunity to marginalize the agency's value to the public, this kind of action only stokes claims that the agency is no longer relevant.
The EEOC still has a vital function to perform--policing the nation's employers to ensure equal employment opportunity is more than an illusory promise. Taking on a 90's style Playboy Club because it won't hire male "bunnies" isn't a government muscle that should be flexed.