17 Dec
2003
17 Dec
'03
11:17 p.m.
[Wildly off-topic...] Michael Froomkin wrote: ...
...And there's a lot more than skimpy outfits at issue, including a refusal to hire men for what are allegedly food service jobs (gender may only be a determination of employment if it is a bona fide occupational qualfiication, e.g. policing the showers in the gym; gender is not a BFOQ for food service jobs.)
Being a "Hooters Girl" is not a typical "allegedly food service" job. [Because it's an election-year] the EEOC dropped the case, but not before Tom Hazlett did an *excellent* piece on it in REASON. _Corporate Rakeovers_, Feb. 1996 p. 66