employment discrimination settlement bfoq
Can one apply to be a Hooters Girl for a free settlement?
<p>As per discussion at <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4393/is-it-legal-to-let-people-search-for-professionals-by-gender/4399?noredirect=1#comment7825_4399">Is it legal to let people search for professionals by gender?</a>, it was mentioned that customer satisfaction and preferences alone do not justify a <em>Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications</em> defence to a discrimination claim.
<em>Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.</em> and
<em>Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co.</em>.</p>

<p>It's also been mentioned that Hooters BFOQ defence has never went to trial, always going for settlement.</p>

<p>Doesn't it imply that anyone can just apply to be a waiter at Hooters, and upon being turned down for obvious reasons (of not being a Hooters Girl), seek a "free" settlement?</p>

<p>Hooters's BFOQ-related legal history (from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooters#Legal_history" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia/Hooters</a>):</p>

<ul>
<li>1997: Three men from the Chicago area received $19,100. Four men from Maryland received $10,350. This was related to the <a href="http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&amp;context=djglp" rel="nofollow">often cited</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by-men-denied-jobs.html" rel="nofollow">$3.75 million settlement</a> that required the "creation of gender neutral positions for bartenders and hosts".</li>
<li>2009: Confidential settlement between a Texas man and an individual Hooters franchise</li>
</ul>

<p>Given relatively small amount (ten to twenty thousand dollars) that the individuals walked away with in the 1997 settlement, and the upfront costs associated with a law suit that Hooters can drag out until they decide to reveal their intention to settle, it isn't obvious that this route is profitable from a money or time perspective for individual plaintiffs.</p>
