The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Can Hooters Require Servers to be "Slim and Fit"?

by David Doorey August 27, 2010
written by David Doorey August 27, 2010

In my employment law class, students are always interested in sorting out how companies like Hooters can “get away” with only hiring women who, er, look a certain way.  Almost every class, someone asks me  whether bars can hire  only “skinny” women, or women with blond hair, and so forth.  I like those questions because in discussing them, students are challenged to think about how our human rights laws work.

hooters

Cassandra Smith: Too Heavy for Hooters?


I’ve mentioned Hooters before, when a man alleged discrimination on the basis of sex when the company wouldn’t hire him as a server.  In a new lawsuit filed in Michigan, discussed in this Wall Street Journal article, two Hooters’ servers have alleged they were discriminated against when the employer told them to “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.”  One women who weighed 132 pounds and was 5′ 8” alleges she was placed on a 30 day “weight probation”.  Here is the actual the pleading, which is an interesting read.
My employment law students may be wondering how these women have a discrimination case.  What is the prohibited ground?  Look at Section 5 of the Human Rights Code in Ontario to see the prohibited grounds.  Which ground covers a woman’s weight or body type?
Is it sex?  Could be, especially if there were male servers who were not held to the same standard of “fitness”, because the fitness standard could be a proxy for a certain female body type and only women could be held to that standard.
On the other hand, “sex” may be a harder argument if the employer requires male employees similarly to be “fit”.  Perhaps that is unlikely in the case of Hooters if all servers are female (honestly, I have never been in a Hooters, so my “field research” is lacking!) Is it disability?  Hardly.  While being obese has occasionally been found to be a disability, weighing 132 pounds at 5’8″ clearly could not be a disability.
So, what’s left?  Ethnic origin?  Perhaps, if a woman could show that in her ethnicity, women a more likely to be larger than the standard required by Hooters. Presumably, some empirical social evidence would need to be called in support of that claim.
The difficulty for these sorts of cases in which employers want women who have a certain “look”, or a certain body type, is that our human rights statutes don’t usually prohibit discrimination on the basis of physical appearance, weight, “attractiveness”, or bust size.  That means employers are free to pick and choose women according to these factors, unless the women can somehow bring themselves within a prohibited ground.  I’ve discussed this before, in this entry, picked up by the Globe and Mail (Too Ugly to Land a Job?)
The Michigan Hooters’ employees have an easier case it seems than would a Canadian Hooters’ employee.  The law there prohibits discrimination on the basis of “weight” and “height”.  Amazing.
Do you think that Canadian human rights statutes should be amended to include weight, height, or physical appearance as prohibited grounds?  
Why do you think that governments are concerned about legislating a prohibition on “appearance” discrimination?  

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
On the Enforcement of Canadian Employment Laws in Foreign Places
next post
Should Public Sector Workers Accept McGuinty's Wage Freeze?

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @CLJEHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

TheLawofWork
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
57m

It’s crazy that fast food restaurants include non-competes in employment contracts for cooks and front line staff to stop them from leaving.

Never mind whether it’s legal—in Canada, those clauses are definitely not enforceable—it’s just sleazy. Terrible ethics.

Sandeep Vaheesan @sandeepvaheesan

Nice!

Reply on Twitter 1623168822235615232 Retweet on Twitter 1623168822235615232 5 Like on Twitter 1623168822235615232 9 Twitter 1623168822235615232
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
1h

President Biden calls for passage of #PROAct

Act bans employer captive audience anti-union meetings;

Expands def of “employee” to capture essentially what we call “dependent contractors” in Canada;

Increase penalties for unfair labor practices;

Doesn’t adopt card-check.

Steven Greenhouse @greenhousenyt

President Biden: "I'm so sick and tired of companies breaking the law when workers are seeking to unionize"

Reply on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Retweet on Twitter 1623164729530191874 Like on Twitter 1623164729530191874 7 Twitter 1623164729530191874
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
5h

My fingers are just too big to play an A chord on the #guitar.

Otherwise I would be a rock star. This is the only thing holding me back.

Reply on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Retweet on Twitter 1623109078431027200 Like on Twitter 1623109078431027200 12 Twitter 1623109078431027200
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.