Judge: Hooters May Have to Hire Overweight Women
Details at the WSJ Law Blog.
I have never been to a Hooters, but it is my understanding that the idea is that waitresses are supposed to be buxom and beautiful. Or at least female, nonugly — and nonoverweight.
Yet a Michigan judge now says that an overweight waitress can sue for … weight discrimination.
Don’t hate me because I’m not beautiful.
For what it’s worth, it appears that it’s actually not the judge’s fault. Some idiot Michigan lawmaker wrote a provision into an anti-discrimination law that permits such a lawsuit. Who knows if he would have intended to apply the law to a business like Hooters. Hell, he probably never even read the law.
Who goes to Hooters for the waitresses?
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:30 pmI think this indeed may be the end times.
elissa (f224b1) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:32 pmThose are the most beautiful wings I can recall seeing.
JD (3dc31c) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:34 pmYou know, Hooters sauce, the kind if the grocery store, is actually pretty good if you fry your own buffalo wings.
And I guess I’m insanely bigoted, but sometimes a pretty girl is superior to an ugly one. For showcasing a product, reception, making beer drinking guys spend more money, pretty girls are superior. Society should not be able to control whether a businessman chooses help on that basis, and Barry Goldwater was right about the civil rights violation this judge and lawmaker are responsible for.
Freedom of association is important, too.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:35 pmhttp://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/sexperts/graham2.jpg
Those are the most beautiful wings I can recall seeing.
JD (3dc31c) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:36 pmWent once, and it was quite obvious that all of the guys in bowling shirts weren’t that interested in the wings. The animal kind, that is (rim shot).
Dmac (d61c0d) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:42 pmPaging “Harrison Bergeron.”
Eric Blair (28f3dc) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:49 pmYeah, seriously. It would be funnier if they just made the prettier waitresses wear clown noses… not that most of the clientele would notice, I don’t think.
They’ve already got the weights (nuther rim shot).
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:52 pmOkay, color me skeptical. never been to a hooters? ever? really patterico? i think you protest too much.
Anyway, joking aside, i wrote this when talking about that undercover boss show a while back.
> Okay let’s start by talking truth. Hooters is barely removed from a strip club. I say that with no malice whatsoever to its customers or owners, but yeah, even if their chicken is good, it’s not what draws in the customers.
http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/02/good-pr-or-deluded-mind-at-work.html
So when people talk about applying anti-discrimination laws there, i say, “could you apply it to a strip club?” Indeed, has anyone ever tried?
I believe the answer on both counts is no.
But then again they applied title vii to hiring writers on Friends. that seems wrong. i mean if they decide to exclude women and make the place a sausage factory isn’t that their prerogative, under the first amendment?
What’s next? We force the Nation of Islam to admit white people?
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:55 pmcan’t michigan just change the law to where it’s not gay?
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:56 pmI don’t like the wings all that much (the sauce is too vinegar-y for my tastes), but they do have great fried pickles, and the beer is reliably cold. I guess there were female waitresses there; I really didn’t take notice.
/Clintonian statement of the day
JVW (eccfd6) — 8/25/2010 @ 4:57 pmMy dad took me there when I was… I dunno, 14? I guess he was objectifying bimbos. He was cool that way.
You’ll have a better time at a good beach, but I thought the girls were attractive.
JVW, you’re right, vinegar-y. I like that taste, for which there is no accounting. They also have cheap crawfish sometimes (or did many, many years ago when I went), but it wasn’t very good.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:04 pmYou should try the one in downtown Phoenix. I think they’ve been way out in front of the judge on this issue for a while. Not a pretty sight, however it is the closest bar to the Herberger Theatre so waddayagunnado?
Gazzer (adbfb4) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:14 pmMy wife has always enjoyed Hooters b/c the customer service is consistently better than most bars.
Bob Neale (3eefb2) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:19 pmI’ve been to Hooters before, down on the Big Island, and yes, they fit their uniforms (without exploding out of them). If the waitresses are considered part of the entertainment staff, then a weight issue might not be a winnable case for the heavy woman.
Of course, I remember years back some deaf guy sued YMCA because they refused to hire him as a life guard. (I believe he lost his case.)
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:19 pmAnd people wonder why the economy in MI is in the dumps?
AD - RtR/OS! (01b64a) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:19 pmJust another fatal flaw in our In-Justice System.
My favorite Hooters memory was my friend’s wedding in Baltimore several years ago. We were staying in the Inner Harbor and there was (is?) a Hooters there that we stopped by a couple of times. Since it was about two blocks from the church the groom and his groomsmen — all decked out in our tuxedos — stopped in for one last pitcher of beer about an hour before the ceremony. It was great.
JVW (eccfd6) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:23 pmPaging Harrison Bergeron … paging Harrison Bergeron
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:32 pmA song by Terri Clark is very appropriate for this post.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:39 pmI would like to know Justice Kagan’s position on this.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:40 pmMy favorite Hooters memory
Heh. Because everyone has their own special Hooters memories!
I went to a Hooters one time during a layover between flights. I had my then 75 year old mom with me. She suggested it because she heard they had great wings. As we were walking out, she pointedly noticed the two waitresses on the floor and sniffed, Their wings aren’t really all *that* great. I thought I’d die laughing. One doesn’t expect their senior citizen mom to quip about that.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:40 pmDustin–
eww
elissa (f224b1) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:42 pmI think if physical characteristics cannot be taken into consideration, I would like to play in the NBA for minimum salary.
Hooters is by no means a terrible place as places go, but I would still not like it if my wife or daughter worked there and were subject to the staring and comments.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:44 pmMD
you should watch the video at the link. one of the big corporate heads there was telling us how he would like his daughters to work there, and was very very angry to discovery that a manager was disrespectful toward women.
mmmm, yeah.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:46 pmGood grief, they wear pantyhose under their little orange shorts. Talk about an ‘eww’…although I concur with elissa’s ‘eww’ at 22, too.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:47 pmA few years ago some guys were suing Hooters for sex discrimination.
In 1997, Hooters agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle a sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by a group of men. That class-action settlement allowed the chain to continue to have only Hooters Girls serve food and beverages.
Hooters also agreed to create gender-neutral positions such as bartender, host and kitchen staff.
To my mind they were on more solid ground than this woman, since sex discrimination is (allegedly) illegal while looks discrimination is not. Yet.
Subotai (c0ebf2) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:47 pmI’ve never sued anybody my whole life but I’m still technically an American citizen I think
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:54 pmI wonder if I can sue as a class all the women who’ve rejected me because I’m fat. But I wouldn’t seek monetary compensation, I’d ask for “specific performance”.
Some chump (e84e27) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:57 pm==I’ve never sued anybody my whole life==
The Trial Lawyers’ Association hates your kind. And despises you, personally.
elissa (f224b1) — 8/25/2010 @ 5:58 pmelissa #29 – you mean The American Association for Justice , don’t you ? (grin)
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:08 pmanother obama liberal/eletist/i know whats good for america/environmentalist/anti tort reform/ sexual perverts/save the bedbugs scientists/ agenda of anti business.
bostinks2 (9e7db6) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:10 pmA friend of mine runs board wargame conventions. The location he’s used for the last decade is a hotel that has a Hooter’s location across the street in Tempe Arizona near the University of Arizona campus (Imagine hundreds of 50+ year old gaming geeks )
A few years ago, a good friend of mine and I went to the game convention and after a day’s play we crossed the street to get dinner at Hooter’s.
As we ordered, we made small talk with the waitress who was young enough to be the daughter of either of us. My friend mentioned that we were in town for a convention and the waitress asked what convention. I piped up that we were there for the wargaming convention. Her eyes got real big and she said “Oh, no! Not them again.”
With that she rushed off to warn her coworkers …
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:13 pmAlasdair, thank you for the gentle reminder that they changed their name due to the unpopularity of the old one!
elissa (f224b1) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:14 pmComment by Subotai — 8/25/2010 @ 5:47 pm
Actually, her weight might be the basis for an ADA suit since she’s obviously not responsible for pigging-out, since it would be a “disability”, just as is chemical dependency.
AD - RtR/OS! (01b64a) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:19 pmThis is totally unfair! I refuse to hire overw…. Oh wait.. Nevermind.
Chris Hooten (85d146) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:20 pmLet me just wonder aloud again – what part of the US Constitution gives the government the power to tell employers who they must hire?
Subotai (c0ebf2) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:37 pm27.I’ve never sued anybody my whole life but I’m still technically an American citizen I think
Comment by happyfeet
In the “give credit where credit is due” department, that was funny.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:40 pmWith that she rushed off to warn her coworkers …
Comment by SPQR
My brother once mentioned that when he goes out with one particular fellow, he and any others feel obligated to tip the waitress especially well and apologize for having to put up with his boorish antics.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:45 pmWhat baffled me, MD in Philly, wasn’t that she’d find the lot of us unattractive, but it was how she’d consider a crowd of pudgy, middle-aged geeky men – who were likely to overtip a decent looking waitress about the age of their daughters – to be worse than the normal crowd she’d get off of UA campus …
And as for Hooters being the next thing to a strip club as someone else mentioned, this Tempe Hooters was upstairs of a place called “The Library” which had as waitstaff women much more scantily dressed than Hooters … and with more tats too. (Since out of business I’m told)
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:52 pmSo, forcing the hiring overweight Firefighters is next. Can I move to Michigan and sue the Pistons because I’m short, fat, and they won’t hire me to play basketball?
rudytbone (c922d6) — 8/25/2010 @ 6:58 pmThe Library was a thing of beauty.
JD (3dc31c) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:00 pmYou don’t show up in any of my photos from The Library do you, JD?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:02 pmColonel think this mean
ColonelHaiku (60a24c) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:12 pmWAR THIS WILL NOT STAND but full
figure ladies okay!
how she’d consider a crowd of pudgy, middle-aged geeky men – who were likely to overtip a decent looking waitress about the age of their daughters – to be worse than the normal crowd she’d get off of UA campus
Good question. I know JD will condemn me as sexist, but it could be that women who work at Hooters, who likely could get a job somewhere else (I assume), expect a certain degree of “flirtation” and may even welcome it if the customers are likewise young and attractive. Maybe they freak at the idea of being “looked at” by someone their fathers age. Next time you go there you should ask…
I played some Avalon Hill games when I was young- Blitzkrieg and Stalingrad, I think. My friend who enjoyed such games ended up going to West Point.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:16 pmSub
> To my mind they were on more solid ground than this woman, since sex discrimination is (allegedly) illegal while looks discrimination is not. Yet.
Actually i could be wrong but i think michigan makes it illegal to discriminate based on weight. which is imho unconstitutional as applied here, but oh well.
http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article612.pdf
so basically i guess strip clubs must hire chubby women. and the NBA cannot discriminate according to height, if they play in Michigan.
And yes, that is insane.
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:24 pmbtw, if they hire fat women to serve the food, will we call them “weightresses?”
Aaron Worthing (f97997) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:27 pmNo, SPQR. I avoid photos like I avoid the plague.
MD – Very sexist and patriarchal and dirty old man-ish.
JD (3dc31c) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:28 pmThat would be the Wickarded out commerce clause
Hadlowe (a7ae03) — 8/25/2010 @ 7:38 pmFWIW, this is probably less bad than it sounds. The court decision strikes down an arbitration clause in the employment agreement and doesn’t really weigh in on whether the hooters waitresses, who are generally employed as models (which leads to a greater ability to require physical characteristics,) can sue under the statute. It just says that they can have their case filed in court before arbitration because they didn’t know what they were signing.
Hadlowe (a7ae03) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:43 pmI can see the hefty waitress bringing the order of wings – Hey, you ate half of them! “Yeah, I took my tip up front, and in food…” (really, who is going to challenge some chick who is built like Jackie Slater?)
Technically – wouldn’t a morbidly obese woman have hooters all over her? front, back, up high, down low- on the knees. So management would be happy to have her, correct? She’d be Hooterific.
Californio (2da505) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:45 pmQualifications don’t matter any more.
I think I want an MD degree.
HeavenSent (e230a5) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:53 pmCassandra Marie Smith, one of the plaintiffs, alleges in her complaint that she began working at a Hooters in 2008. At the time, she weighed 145 pounds.
In a performance evaluation this earlier year, she claims in her complaint, a restaurant manager advised her “to join a gym in order to lose weight and improve her looks so that she would fit better into the extra small-sized uniform.” She alleged she was put on a 30-day “weight probation” and resigned.
The official uniform for Hooters waitresses, she claims, comes in 3 sizes: extra extra small, extra small, or small.
If the extra-small had become a bit snug, why not just go up to the small size? Why would she be required to fit one designated size if three sizes were options? And I’ll ask the question: Was the manager a male?
Dana (8ba2fb) — 8/25/2010 @ 8:53 pmI believe most strippers are independent contractors who pay the club the privilege to dance (and make money).
iconoclast (860a2c) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:08 pm9 years ago we went to the Mall of America. We were up on the 4th floor where the bars and restaurants are and we were going by all the places to decide where we wanted to eat. My then 6 almost 7-year-old son was commenting on whether a place was a bar or a restaurant as we went by each. He’d been off a couple of times so when we came by the Hooters he said: “Now that’s a bar!”, with the emphasis on the “that’s”. We still laugh ab out that one. 6 years old and he’s already a connoisseur.
kimsch (2ce939) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:10 pmHooter might just have to increase the quality of their food and lower prices. I can imagine “plumber’s cracks” and “muffins.”
Jim (844377) — 8/25/2010 @ 9:59 pmI bet the Judge was a vegan.
JD (3dc31c) — 8/25/2010 @ 10:08 pm36. Let me just wonder aloud again – what part of the US Constitution gives the government the power to tell employers who they must hire?
Comment by Subotai — 8/25/2010 @
Soronel Haetir (fadc29) — 8/25/2010 @ 11:27 pmIf this is being decided under state law (which seems to be the case from the descriptions) that is not a valid complaint. A state should be free to provide such protections, stupid and anti-growth as they are. Federal anti-discrimination law is another matter entirely.
i’ve got a weighty decision to bring up for a vote:
which is dumber:
eating chicken wings or going to Hooters?
i’ve never understood the attraction: chicken wings are all bone, skin and cartilage and Hooters is an extra 4-6 bucks per pitcher (or more), just to look at more women who aren’t gonna give you the time of day either way, even if the wife never finds out you’re there.
drink at home: at least she doesn’t want a tip. 😀
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:13 am20. I would like to know Justice Kagan’s position on this.
Comment by Dustin — 8/25/2010 @ 5:40 pm
— She likes the cute waitresses, too.
Icy Texan (2b06b5) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:24 am32. A friend of mine runs board wargame conventions. The location he’s used for the last decade is a hotel that has a Hooter’s location across the street in Tempe Arizona near the University of Arizona campus
— That would be Arizona State University, SPQR, and here is my story about that particular Hooters:
Icy Texan (2b06b5) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:40 amIn 1997 I was working as a pizza delivery driver. One night I was delivering to the “rich kids” frat house at ASU (the one with all of the brand new BMW’s & Benzes out front) and as I was walking through the house searching for my customer I walk by a couch and here’s one of those spoiled rich kids making out with a Hooters girl (in her uniform).
35. This is totally unfair! I refuse to hire overw…. Oh wait.. Nevermind.
Comment by Chris Hooten — 8/25/2010 @ 6:20 pm
— That’s right; you had it backwards. YOU should “hire” the overweight ones . . .
. . . they have a better chance of surviving being locked up in your basement.
Icy Texan (2b06b5) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:45 amCan I get a sales job at Victoria’s secret?
Horatio (e2e328) — 8/26/2010 @ 6:28 amThe decision itself appears (according to the law blog article) to be less about weight discrimination than it is about when an agreement to arbitrate is binding.
I can’t be bothered this morning to chase down the decision itself. But, according to the news report, the key point seems to be that, in Michigan, an employment agreement’s arbitration clause needs to be entered into knowingly – and there’s a presumption that you didn’t enter into it knowingly if you weren’t allowed to take the agreement to talk to a lawyer.
I think that’s a good decision (although I don’t know if it’s warranted by Michigan law; I like the outcome, but can’t comment on whether the judge’s interpretation is correct). I suspect that on average, people working in food service jobs don’t understand the language in employment contracts, and I dislike the idea that someone can unknowingly waive their right to sue.
aphrael (73ebe9) — 8/26/2010 @ 7:15 amI live in Michigan and am in no way surprised. The polticians in this state are mostly leftist and mostly dumb.
Soon as I retire I’m outta here.
VoteOutIncumbents (078434) — 8/26/2010 @ 9:30 amHow much overweight? Most women would look better if they exceeded the BMI guidelines by a few pounds.
kansas (127f2b) — 8/26/2010 @ 9:38 amAphrael, you agree that a contract isn’t knowingly entered into without a lawyer consulted? I think that leads to some huge problems (for everyone except the legal profession, anyway). Amusingly enough, the type of section being ruled out is the far less expensive (and legally lucrative) arbitration format, which is also much easier to understand than civil procedure or various other aspects of a traditional lawsuit.
Granted, they can still use arbitration if they wish. But there’s something fishy about pushing cases to the more complex resolution process in the name of ‘they didn’t understand’.
My opinion is that a law should be passed (or constitution amended, if needed) saying that employment disputes, and various other disputes, should attempt to resolve via arbitration before they are given a court date.
It’s not like they can opt out of the civil courts because they didn’t receive an explanation of them. Isn’t it strange that every aspect of this decision enriches lawyers?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 9:50 amComment by Dustin — 8/26/2010 @ 9:50 am
Well, Duh!
AD - RtR/OS! (1750fe) — 8/26/2010 @ 10:33 amIsn’t that always the case in our current system?
Dustin,
Not having an opportunity to take the contract to a lawyer is different from not actually doing so. I can certainly see reasons for a presumption against enforceability if the prospective employee is told “Here, sign this. No, you can’t take it with you and look it over.”
Remember, contract terms are to be read against the drafting party where one side is substantially responsible for the document.
Soronel Haetir (fadc29) — 8/26/2010 @ 10:37 amDustin – it depends to me on the language used in the contract and the competence of the people involved.
If employment contracts were written in simple language which the average person could understand, then I would have no problem. But they aren’t.
Note, too, that there is generally speaking no such thing as “use arbitration if they wish” and “attempt to resolve via arbitration before court” … these contracts typically have clauses which require the use of binding arbitration, and in cases where you’ve agreed to use binding arbitration, you’re basically forbidden to use the court system to resolve the dispute.
I object to such clauses unless they are entered into knowingly, and I don’t think that’s the case for the average employee of a restaurant.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/26/2010 @ 10:44 amOK, that’s a fair point, Soronel. If Hooter’s refused to let employees take the contract with them, or have access to it, before some pushy ‘take it or leave it’ moment, that’s unfair.
I checked their website just now, and the K doesn’t appear to be available. I do think arbitration is a great way to settle disputes, though. And I also think that if someone doesn’t understand a contract and signs it anyway, they should be obligated to a reasonable extent.
I believe that any reasonable person understood that the abritration clause meant they would be settling their disputes outside of court. I’m sure some people didn’t understand what that meant specifically, and more than they understood the specifics of the court process they were otherwise entitled to.
But the way you put it makes this a lot less complicated. It doesn’t sound like good faith.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 10:44 amAphrael, what if that clause was expanded a little bit to explain what arbitration is? Or perhaps a little flier was attached to the end of the contract, defining the arbitration process, and also signed?
I think arbitration clauses are very smart additions to almost any contract, and would like to see that become nearly universal.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 10:47 amDustin, you may have a different opinion after arbitrating a few cases and seeing the quality of arbitrators out there.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/26/2010 @ 10:50 amPart of my POV is because I think common sense indicates that just about zero waitresses were going to fax the contract to their attorney for a discussion.
This ruling doesn’t actually help *anybody* in the real world, except that lady lateraling from Goldman over to The Twin Peaks Chicken Ranch, and hoping to exhaust the last of her retainer with Susman Godfrey.
Let’s get real for a moment. Arbitration is a better way for poor people to deal with disputes, unless they wanted to use the high cost of litigation to extort a cheaper-than-litigation settlement. Which I realize, their lawyers often totally want. Easy 40% of a $5000 settlement? Sweet!
Seems like simply making sure all employees are well informed on what they are signing is much better than striking the clause. Letting them go to a lawyer doesn’t accomplish anything, because lawyers are too expensive to be practical for the vast majority of anyone resorting to waiting tables to make ends meet (as I have done). Civil rights matter, but this just doesn’t seem like it’s helping anyone but the attorneys.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 10:55 amSPQR, fair point. Of course, Judge Maceroni (the one in this case) is probably below par for the average arbitrator too. Google this man for an interesting career of making up law.
And I believe that when arbitration fails, such as when the arbitrator is a loser, you should be able to resort to a courtroom.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 10:56 amDustin, if you can take an unfavorable arbitration award to the courtroom, then there is no advantage to arbitration at all.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/26/2010 @ 10:58 amDustin: note also (grin) that I think that the legal industry has, in general, done the public a disservice by creating a situation in which people regularly agree (either explicitly or implicitly) to contracts which they have not read and would probably not understand if they did.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/26/2010 @ 11:01 amI didn’t mean unfavorable arbitration, but failed arbitration, as in, no result achieved or some kind of good cause to say the format wasn’t working. Exceptional cases.
I admit, there are wrinkles. These can be worked out. Even a binding court verdict can be appealed for process reasons. I’m only talking about that sort of issue.
There are other ways to handle your criticism. If arbitrators are a lot worse than judges, we should fix that with better standards.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 11:03 amIt’s ridiculous, Aphrael. I totally agree that this is a real problem. You have to sign a 50 page contract to play a video game. And the problem is indeed a result of the general legal industry, not contract law.
Makes me wish the UCC default contract was taught in high school, and deviations from it were rare and explained, so that we could expect much more understand of our obligations to one another in business. Did I mention that I’m smoking crack rock?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 11:06 amArbitration is a better way for poor people to deal with disputes
Yes and no.
I take the point about litigation costs. And yet, at the same time, there is absolutely no control over the quality of arbitrators, or over arbitrator bias. You’re basically surrendering access to the legal system and agreeing to have your disputes resolved by someone whose decision is (effectively) unchallengeable, whose competence is unpredictable, and who may very well be biased.
I’m strongly in favor of mandatory attempts at mediation before trial. But arbitration strikes me as being extremely problematic, and there should be safeguards to keep people from being shunted into it against their will and without their knowledge.
I think common sense indicates that just about zero waitresses were going to fax the contract to their attorney for a discussion.
Right. Common sense also indicates that less than 25% of the waitresses read the contract, let alone understood it.
I think clauses which permanently deny you access to the court system should not be binding unless there’s good reason to believe you read and understood them.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/26/2010 @ 11:10 amaphrael, people are very short-sighted. They often want to avoid being inconvenienced by reality and do so with elaborate illusions about circumstances.
Can’t tell you how many times people would call me up to claim that they’d been defrauded by someone and fax me a contract that had their signature on the exact same page as the term that they claimed that they hadn’t been told of or agreed to.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/26/2010 @ 11:11 amMakes me wish the UCC default contract was taught in high school
There’s something to that. There are certain basic legal concepts which don’t seem to be well understood outside the legal world which would, I think, be more useful than the stuff taught in high school ‘government’ classes.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/26/2010 @ 11:15 amYou’re right, of course. And this is getting to the larger problem. Freedom to be a jackass and be held accountable.
People who sign contracts without reading them should be able to break their contracts simply because they didn’t care what they were agreeing to. This rewards jackassery. I shouldn’t be held to a higher standard because there’s good reason to believe I read and understood my contract.
We should, instead, force this waitress into abritration. She signed a contract she either didn’t read or didn’t understand. If she tried to get help understanding it, and Hooter’s told her she was not allowed to, that’s bad faith. If she simply didn’t read it or didn’t care that she didn’t understand it, the contract either binds her or we are going to have an even more cumbersome and unpredictable business environment,.
There are no easy answers to this problem. But if someone signs a contract that doesn’t require anything criminal, it ought to be enforced unless something extreme occurred (such as Soronel’s point). Is that unfair to morons and lazy people? In the same way life is unfair to them, and for the same reason.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 11:16 amPeople who sign contracts without reading them should be able to break their contracts simply because they didn’t care what they were agreeing to.
That’s fair, but there’s more going on than that. People who sign contracts have a presumption that the contract entails certain terms – that, in general, a contract means “x”.
When someone regularly offers a contract for signature, knows that the contracts are usually not read, and inserts into those contracts something which is wildly different from what the people signing them expect, and knows that the people signing them don’t expect the provision to be there … then that provision should be invalid, as the entire exercise is in bad faith.
I don’t think most employees expect that, as a condition of employment, they are agreeing to binding arbitration. I am certain that Hooters’ corporate lawyers understand that. And so therefore, I think the provision shouldn’t be binding.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/26/2010 @ 11:22 amDifference of opinion! Thanks for the discussion, Aphrael. I gotta get back to work for once, or I will have to resort to arbitration myself.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 11:24 amDustin: you’re welcome.
For reflection later: I think this difference of opinion says a lot about why you are a conservative and I am a liberal – your concern seems to be that people who sign contracts be held responsible for their choices, and my concern is that people not be allowed to knowingly taking advantage of other people’s ignorance.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/26/2010 @ 11:34 amDidn’t they have something similar years ago… The Playboy Club… What makes that different than Hooters? BTW I don’t know who these larger women are that want to work at Hooters, but I have a feeling they won’t fit in, and I don’t mean that as a pun.
Chris Hooten (7dbd5b) — 8/26/2010 @ 11:37 am“I don’t think most employees expect that, as a condition of employment, they are agreeing to binding arbitration.”
aphrael – Arbitration clauses may be more common than you believe.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/26/2010 @ 12:07 pmThe line between fairness and equity and realistic expectations for employers is very blurred. The employer should be able to be selective in hiring choices too. boy short
Courtneyla (7ade4e) — 8/26/2010 @ 12:08 pmHere is an article from an online human resources magazine that talks about arbitration clauses and how they have been under fire by the courts and the Obama Administration.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/26/2010 @ 12:16 pmHooten, If I were a Hooters manager and you showed up, I’d have you served by the fat chick with compliments of LAPD. Maybe you’d get it then.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 8/26/2010 @ 12:23 pmWhat’s with the hate?
Chris Hooten (7dbd5b) — 8/26/2010 @ 12:32 pmWith hate comes the anger, and the anger leads to fear, which leads to the ‘dark side’ (this is the shadow cast by the waitress you got from the PCD’s fine dining establishment).
Anyway, is it really ‘hate’ to get an overweight waitress, Chris? I prefer fat waitresses because they tend to love food and have better opinions about it. I also prefer fat employees because of less drama.
I think hiring an employee relying partly on their physical appearance is every employer’s right and also quite smart in some cases.
Let go of your bigotry, Chris. I am ashamed of your insensitive hatred.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 12:56 pmI think article and the comments are a HOOT.
This is what too many LAWYERS with NOT enough to do in this country has brought us to!
PS But is discrimination in the job field. I was once an airline stewardess, and in those days we had to be cute, trim, and perky and young.
Then a lawsuit was field, and nowdays there is NO retirment age for flight attendants. I was on a flight to Hawaii last year and the flight attendantweighed 200 or more pounds, could barely get down the narrow aisle.
Betsy (674399) — 8/26/2010 @ 12:59 pmdustin
well, i will note that michigan law does appear to make it discriminatory in most cases. but see above when i talk about strip clubs and the like. you can’t force strip clubs to hire chubby women, or men for that matter.
And if chubby women think that they won’t harm the business model, then put your money where your mouth is. don’t sue to get in hooters. open your own restaurant, call it chubby chasers, where it exploits the form of fat women. if they are right, there is an untapped desire for this kind of thing and they will get rich.
that being said, reading about the case, the real problem hooters has is they are trying to pretend there is no discrimination based on weight. we know that is crap.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:01 pmVery good point.
I didn’t think Hooters was pretending they didn’t discriminate on the basis of weight. That is crap, but probably they are twisting to avoid legal problems.
Actually, I’m surprised age discrimination hasn’t been attempted. Imagine suing a strip club or a hooter’s for age discrimination.
This is why civil rights leaders, such as Barry Goldwater, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is a violation of civil rights to break freedom of association. We have to deal with racists somehow, but I always preferred the idea of individuals choosing how to deal with them, rather than the government robbing us of that crucial process.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:07 pmThat’s not what I meant, Dustin, lol. Clearly he was making a nasty comment directed at me. Did I make one at him here or something? What did I do to deserve that in this thread? I don’t even go to Hooters except maybe once a year.
Chris Hooten (7dbd5b) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:13 pmIt was a joke, chris (from him, not me, I am honestly heartbroken and weeping… quite loudly).
Why the ‘in this thread’ and ‘here’ criteria? Oh… ’cause of other stuff not in this thread, right? I bet PCD’s mom is a fat waitress and you didn’t tip her very well. Those people only earn $2.65 an hour plus free hotpants, jerk.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:20 pmBecause discourse will quickly be dragged down to the lowest possible form in all threads, otherwise. If all someone does is go into every thread, and attack people for stuff they put in other threads, that is worse than trolling, and has the same effect on the thread, causing it to devolve into childish parade of name-calling.
Chris Hooten (7dbd5b) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:30 pm** ROFL **
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:38 pmNow I hate fat people, and tip poorly based on it? Sigh. I have been served by many a large woman (and man), and it doesn’t affect me one way or the other. How did you come to that conclusion? Are you reading into my interpretation of his offering to set me up with a “fat chick” for a waitress, suggesting it would be compliments of the LAPD? I didn’t use that bigoted phrase, he did, and it is interesting that you interpreted my reaction as being disgusted by being served by a large waitress, and not at the LAPD insinuation.
Chris Hooten (7dbd5b) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:39 pm“attack people for stuff they put in other threads, that is worse than trolling,”
OK, I admit, forgiving people for being jerks is going to be better for discourse. But you know why you included those stipulations… those terms favor you greatly. You have been rude in place A while demanding people be nice to you in place B. Kinda credibility costing, IMO.
But is it worse than trolling for people to give you a hard time, based on your persona? I don’t think so.
Anyway, as a very, very fat waitress, I am offended by your intolerance for my way of life. Do you have any idea how much it’s going to cost to eat my way back to happiness?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:39 pmDamn, I snorted up that soda.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:42 pmHey, Icy Texan!? Better put away that wealth envy. It’s one of us spoiled rich kids who’s your employer now. You hate on us we may just let ya go! Cause you’ve still got that wealthy envy and guilty college hatred left in ya. Poor fu(ker. By the way, I was making out with my girlfriend, who earned $300 a night from the pudgy middle-aged guys at Hooters, and used to treat me quite right! The fact that my hard (oCk made such an impression on you what, four, five years ago, is quite impressive in and of itself.
– That would be Arizona State University, SPQR, and here is my story about that particular Hooters:
In 1997 I was working as a pizza delivery driver. One night I was delivering to the “rich kids” frat house at ASU (the one with all of the brand new BMW’s & Benzes out front) and as I was walking through the house searching for my customer I walk by a couch and here’s one of those spoiled rich kids making out with a Hooters girl (in her uniform).
Comment by Icy Texan — 8/26/2010 @ 1:40 am
Speedy (952315) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:50 pmOkay, then.
Wait, huh?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/26/2010 @ 1:53 pmSpeedy–AKA–the half minute man.
peedoffamerican (ebdae8) — 8/26/2010 @ 2:15 pmHooten
well, let me share my view.
i never discriminate based on anything but quality. and i am generally generous enough that if i short them becuase i am irritated, its still high enough that they don’t know.
but i said right at the beginning. Hooters is more like a strip club than an applebees. and if you are going there, you can bet attractiveness matters. its what is being sold, really. complaining about their attitudes about weight is like being mad about playboy’s similar attitudes on weight. its ridiculous.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 8/26/2010 @ 2:30 pmI agree, Aaron. (did I say that?)
Chris Hooten (7dbd5b) — 8/26/2010 @ 2:32 pmWho’d’a’thunkit ? Our very own Chrissy a waitress at Hooters !
(grin)
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 8/26/2010 @ 3:28 pmaphrael #85 – “… and my concern is that people not be allowed to knowingly taking advantage of other people’s ignorance.” …
So you must be all torn up about Mr Obama becoming US President while Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi remained in control of Senate and House respectively !
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 8/26/2010 @ 3:31 pmAlasdair: Huh? I don’t get it about me being a waitress. Or the other comment. Are you suggesting that people voted for Obama out of ignorance, and that the dems retained control for the same reason? Have you completely blocked out he Bush years? Prepare to be surprised yet again in November.
Chris Hooten (7dbd5b) — 8/26/2010 @ 3:44 pmAlasdair – I was speaking in the context of a contract. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/26/2010 @ 4:03 pmjust the thought of chris
ColonelHaiku (60a24c) — 8/26/2010 @ 5:44 pmhooten dressed in Hooter’s garb
make Colonel ralph wings
You can see enough fat in spandex at the local mall. Having it ruin a trip to Hooters is an unforgivable sin.
Scrapiron (4e0dda) — 8/26/2010 @ 9:58 pm“Are you suggesting that people voted for Obama out of ignorance”. What part of “I will stand with Islam” don’t you understand. A few people had the brains to read about him in his own book before the election. No fan of Lame Brain McCain but a quick look at the economy should tell you Mickey Mouse on his worst day would be better than O’Dumbo. Don’t give me the GWB BS. Democrats took over a booming economy in Jan 2007 and trashed it.
Scrapiron (4e0dda) — 8/26/2010 @ 10:02 pm103. Hey, Icy Texan!? Better put away that wealth envy.
Icy Texan (a546bd) — 8/27/2010 @ 11:37 am— I’m not envious of wealth.
It’s one of us spoiled rich kids who’s your employer now.
— A) You don’t know my employer, or their background. B) Any kid whose parents buy them a brand new European luxury car for college is spoiled; that’s a fact, not a criticism.
You hate on us we may just let ya go! Cause you’ve still got that wealthy envy and guilty college hatred left in ya.
— Whatever that means. I went to college.
Poor fu(ker. By the way, I was making out with my girlfriend, who earned $300 a night from the pudgy middle-aged guys at Hooters, and used to treat me quite right!
— Good for you.
The fact that my hard (oCk made such an impression on you what, four, five years ago, is quite impressive in and of itself.
— What impresses me now is your math skills:
“In 1997 I was working as a pizza delivery driver.”
Five years ago was 2005. This story took place EIGHT years before that.
What do you call someone who has difficulty with simple math?
AD - RtR/OS! (30fc3f) — 8/27/2010 @ 1:06 pmAn Obama Administration Economic Advisor!
I just did flights between San Diego and Manchester, NH for vacation over the last month… there was one flight with a very overweight flight attendant that could barely fit down the isle. That’s just dumb. Most of them were average size though.
There was one flight with a very pregnant FA as well, but it didn’t effect her ability to work at all.
Miguelito (f443a7) — 8/27/2010 @ 3:27 pmYou’re drunk. She’s fat. And the problem is?
Vermont Neighbor (91ed50) — 8/27/2010 @ 4:14 pmThere was a running joke at a company at which I used to work that the office manager would not hire any women better looking than herself . . . which excluded about 90% of the population. All of the women she hired were fat and ugly.
But when I think about it, it was brilliant. Because they were less than attractive, they had fewer options for other jobs, so they stayed put: the “policy” greatly reduced turnover, and thus training expenses. Further, it kept guys like me from hanging around the office sniffing after the women.
The anonymous Dana (8a8a86) — 8/28/2010 @ 9:33 amOur neighbor from Vermont wrote:
That eventually you sober up?
The Dana ducking and running for cover (8a8a86) — 8/28/2010 @ 7:40 pmI flew from Cincy to Honolulu (9 hour flight). One of the flight attendants was pushing 60, 5’6″, 160ish, perfect rectangle figure. And she did her job very professionally. As far as traversing the aisles of a jet at 35,000 feet and mach 0.8, I had some minor difficulty with my 5’8″, 135 self.
Regarding Hooters, it is not a family restaurant. It isn’t a restaurant. It’s an entertainment site with food and liquor licenses. The front people are entertainers and the food ain’t that great (especially for the cost), but I wouldn’t turn down a trip to Hooters.
OT: Glenn Beck said one of his speakers (he invited all the speakers) was an organizer for the BHO4PREZ campaign. I guess it wasn’t all that TEA Party-ish after all, like he said it wasn’t. Must’ve been something else. I wonder if the lamestream media will catch up to tha… nemind.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/28/2010 @ 8:01 pmAgain, OT, but I did a very brief write-up on 8-28 in DC, complete with 5 videos covering the prayer-and-worship gathering at the Kennedy Center prior and the Restoring Honor rally on 8-28. The 5 videos cover 9 hours of recorded live broadcast.
http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=10842
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/28/2010 @ 11:28 pmFor some reason, over the years it seems as if Hooters girls have gotten fatter and uglier. I don’t know if it’s just my going crazy, but when I was a young girl my family ate at Hooter all the time and I always thought the waitresses were so pretty and nice. Now that I’m their age, I wonder why the people hired them with ugly faces and spare tires. It just isn’t the same anymore, and I’m not speaking out of jealousy, I have been asked to work there plenty of times and I considered it, but I just don’t want to be looked at like an object. I’d rather find a real job.
Jessica (a18b3e) — 9/21/2010 @ 11:54 amI know a girl who was an AWESOME waitress whom the customers loved. . .she was bleach blonde, natural large breasts, with a very charming southern accent. But she was fired and the reason was not given. The grapevine says she was fired by upper level management because they didn’t like the way she fit the uniform. I thought that was a pretty shitty reason to be fired. Yes, the uniform is tight, constricting and uncomfortable for even the slimmest of girls. But it’s not like she suddenly gained that weight. They shouldn’t have hired her in the first place if they thought she had a weight problem. Most of the girls they have working now are extremely skinny.
Former Hooters Girl (4d9f9a) — 9/27/2010 @ 7:13 pmSpam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:23 ammilhouse
thanks for highlighting that spam. its gone.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:33 am