Thursday, May 8, 2008
Razzoo’s discriminated against dudes, pays a $1 million price
Email
|
Print
|
Tell us your story
|
Comments (10)
|
The EEOC apparently considers this place to be a prime example of gender equity.
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.
Related stories
See more stories in:
Find...
Today
Blogs
- In favor of the “amateur”
Square Pegs - Hung Gibson West End gig rescheduled
Square Pegs - Favoriting contest: Urban Street Bazaar
Square Pegs
Latest comments
Latest reviews
- ElisabethSchmidt on II Charlies Bar & Grill: At long last there is finally an Upscale Bar & Grill in Denton!! The food is fantastic; moreover, it...
- lks97t on Raphael’s: We absolutely LOVE Raphael's! The food is fantastic and also a great value. The service is wonderful...
- wkwine on Raphael’s: We have eaten here several times now since the new ownership. Great service, food and drinks. My fav...
Things you can't miss
Latest stories
- Texas Rangers 13, Seattle Mariners 12 (10 Innings)
- Detroit Red Wings 5, Dallas Stars 2
- Photo: Weekly Dallas Cowboys Stadium construction update -May 12, week 56
- Carrollton Police investigate aggravated robbery of jewelry store
- Dallas attorney Steve Stodghill featured among top business litigators in the U.S.
Comments
Billusa99 Anonymous
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.
4 days, 19 hours ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Alex Bentley Staff
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.
4 days, 19 hours ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Pavel Lishin Verified
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.
4 days, 16 hours ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Alex Bentley Staff
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?
4 days, 16 hours ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Robert Kelly Verified
I think you all bring up good points. Are there any bloodsucking lawyers out there that can enlighten us?
4 days, 16 hours ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Billusa99 Anonymous
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.
4 days, 15 hours ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
jredallas Anonymous
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.
4 days, 13 hours ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
EdWeirdness Anonymous
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.
3 days, 18 hours ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
chriss Anonymous
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.
2 days, 11 hours ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Mike Orren Staff
Life imitates art imitating life:
17 hours, 48 minutes ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )
Post a comment
(Requires free PegasusNews.com account.)