Hooters Inc. is an Atlanta-based restaurant chain with more than 170 locations. The company hires only female waitresses. Hooters states that "a lot of places serve good burgers. The Hooters Girls, with their charm and all-American sex appeal, are what customers come for." The waitresses wear bright orange hot pants and tight white T-shirts or tank tops. Several waitresses brought suit against the restaurant for sexual harassment, alleging that it established a work environment in which its customers felt free to make sexual comments and advances to waitresses. Some argue that the provocative uniforms and the name of the restaurant itself should lead to liability for Hooters Inc. Others argue that waitresses should not be able to recover for conduct they clearly should have anticipated at the time they chose to work for Hooters. What effect should the Vinson decision's pronouncement on speech and dress have on such a case? What effect should management policy to immediately remove offensive patrons have on a court case? Decide.
Four Chicago men sued Hooters for its policy of hiring only female waitresses. They contend that such a policy is sex discrimination. In the sex-appeal restaurant business, does Hooters Inc. have a BFOQ defense? Hooters Inc. has taken out full-page newspaper advertisements featuring a burly man with a blond wig wearing a Hooters uniform, and holding a plate of chicken wings, in protest against an EEOC recommendation that the restaurant hire male waiters. See Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292 (N.D. Tex. 1981), in which the BFOQ defense was narrowly applied against the airline's female-only flight attendants policy under a marketing scheme based on sex appeal. Southwest is in the business of transporting passengers. What if a primary aspect of Hooters Inc. is not just to serve food and drink, but also to provide sex appeal? Should the BFOQ defense succeed? Decide the case involving the four male applicants for the wait staff positions.