Certainly Mr. Garcia was a victim of sexual discrimination. According to the bona fide occupational qualifications law, employers need to prove that their preference for certain classes of employees is necessary to the success of the business and that a certain group will be unable to perform their duties effectively and efficiently. The Hooters Restaurant did not have a clear statement or policy that it needed only very attractive waitresses. It was only part of their competitive strategy, but that did not mean waiters were excluded. Secondly, indeed they were hiring, and wanted Mr. Garcia to appear in person. However, it was only after they had seen Mr. Garcia that they said they were not hiring. In the end an attractive waitress was hired despite them saying they were not hiring. Therefore, Mr. Garcia is a victim of sex discrimination.
Ms. Cameron was not a victim of sex discrimination. LaVeille Maison only hired waiters and they had a valid argument; that five-star French restaurants traditionally hired only waiters. If the management began hiring waitresses, then perhaps it would not be considered a five-star French restaurant. It was important for the management to keep up with the tradition to ensure the success of the business. Therefore, Ms. Cameron is not a victim of sex discrimination because the management of the restaurant has a clear policy and a reasonable argument.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In conclusion, I don’t see these two cases as the same in my interpretation of legal BFOQs. The first case is also an issue of dishonesty. Mr. Garcia is informed there is no hiring but he discovers a waitress has been hired. In the second case, the management of the restaurant has a clear policy and argument; if waitresses were hired, their business could be adversely affected. Therefore, there is sex discrimination in the first case but none in the second.
