Thursday, May 8, 2008
Razzoo’s discriminated against dudes, pays a $1 million price
Razzoo's, a DFW-based Cajun restaurant chain, will have to pay $1 million to settle with a group of men who were discriminated against based on their gender and to enact new human resources policies, according to a press release put out by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission yesterday.
According to the release, Razzoo's would not hire or promote the vast majority of its male employees to be bartenders, preferring to keep that position filled with those of the female persuasion. That is a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination. The lead attorney for the EEOC, Suzanne M. Anderson, said, "Some may think that sex sells drinks, but gender ratios are illegal ... A hiring ratio is illegal whether it is 80-20 whites to blacks or 80-20 women to men."
I say bravo -- it's about time those women stopped hogging all those bartending jobs. Of course, it makes one wonder how places like Hooters or Twin Peaks can even exist if such a gender ratio is illegal. Not that I would, um, know that there were more women than men there -- I'm just saying.
Posted by Alex B.
Email
|
Print
|
10 Comments
|
Contribute
|
|
an event
|
a restaurant
|
|
a garage sale
|
a drink special
|
|
a movie showtime
|
local music
|
a job
|
a house
|
|
a deal
|
a pet
|
- »Favoriting contest: Radio City Music Hall’s Christmas Spectacular Starring the Rockettes
- »Favoriting contest: Classic films at Palace Theatre Arts Center
- »Favoriting contest: South Pacific at the Winspear
- »In defense of the Dallas Morning News' new GM plan
- »Free your mind, and the rest will follow
Billusa99, says:
You are missing the fundamental difference between Razzoo's and the other two.
The men were already working for Razzoo's, and thus were (illegally) discriminated against with respect to promotions. The other two have (legal) hiring conditions in place that preclude hiring men for certain jobs to begin with.
Anonymous
1 year, 7 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Alex Bentley, says:
Bill, I still don't see why one's legal and the other isn't -- any idea where I can see such a law? BTW, Razzoo's didn't just settle for not promoting men from within -- "The EEOC said that Razzoo's refused to hire or promote men to the position of bartender in its restaurants." That says they weren't doing either -- hiring men to be bartenders OR promoting them from within.
Staff
1 year, 7 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, says:
I think common sense ought to tell you why one is legal and one isn't. I don't really want to see men in short shorts when I go to a place called Hooters.
Verified
1 year, 7 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Alex Bentley, says:
Hey, no one's disputing that, Pavel -- I wholeheartedly agree with you on not wanting to see that. But I'm just failing to see the legal distinction between one restaurant not being allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender and one being famous for it. Is it because they're up front with it? "It's right there in the name!" I dunno -- just seems odd to me. According to the EEOC lawyer, "A hiring ratio is illegal (when) it is ... 80-20 women to men." Seems to me that fits Hooters and Twin Peaks to a tee, no?
Staff
1 year, 7 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Robert Kelly, says:
I think you all bring up good points. Are there any bloodsucking lawyers out there that can enlighten us?
Verified
1 year, 7 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Billusa99, says:
Sorry Alex, I can't help you out. I just recall a case here a few years ago here a guy took Hooters to court, saying he would dress like a Hooters girl, and it was either tossed out or he lost. I recall that it revolved around their right to set dress standards. Just like a Playboy Club, for example (if they still exist).
I missed the 'hire' part of your piece. It may have to do with that (illegal) demonstrable 80-20 ratio.
Anonymous
1 year, 7 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
jredallas, says:
Hooter's settled the lawsuit for a few million and created some type of gender-neutral position of a server assistant. They were able to continue hiring female-only wait staff because they argued that the sex appeal was indeed a part of what they were selling.
Anonymous
1 year, 7 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
EdWeirdness, says:
Settling for a million? The attorney's got most of that, and the nancy who brought the suit will still have to find a job, only now he'll have some contentious litigation stats to add to his resume. Oh well, he was probably tired of being in food services anyway.
Anonymous
1 year, 7 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
chriss, says:
But there are people who do want to see guys (attractive ones) in short shorts and I'm sure they could rig up something where they have both genders behind the bar. What places like Hooters, etc, really do is discriminate against less-than-beautiful people. And that discrimination will always be legal.
Anonymous
1 year, 7 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Mike Orren, says:
Life imitates art imitating life:
<object height="295" width="510"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/JFJNj2v45ApwCXWSo7Cw5Q"><embed height="295" src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/JFJNj2v45ApwCXWSo7Cw5Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="510"></object>
Staff
1 year, 7 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal