Monday, February 19, 2007

Continuing Today's BFOQ Discussion

At the beginning of class today, we discussed the BFOQ claim Hooters made regarding failing to hire men because the purpose of its business is sexual entertainment rather than serving food. This reminds me of Mel's January 18th post, which discussed L.A. Weight Loss Centers's failure to hire an applicant for a sales job because he was morbidly obese. Although the case was argued under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) rather than Title VII (which doesn't protect against discrimination on the basis of "weight" anyway), I wonder if the case's outcome would have been different if the case was held in Michigan and argued under state law. Michigan's Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act does protect against discrimination on the basis of "height" and "weight". Would L.A. Weight Loss Centers successfully be able to argue that being in shape is a BFOQ (i.e. reasonably necessary to the sales position)? Is "fitting the company image" necessary in fulfilling the duties of the job? What do you all think?

2 Comments:

Blogger Nick Hursh said...

I think that if the case were held in Michigan, the BFOQ would hold up against the prohibition of discrimination based on weight and height statute. LA Weight Loss chooses to hire employees with certain physiques to give customers the confidence of losing weight and also works out with the customers. The obese man would not satisfy the company's business necessity and would have trouble in defending his case. While it may appear that the company hires individuals to portray a certain image, an obese man would not be able to complete or satisfy many of the job requirements.

9:24 AM  
Blogger stevie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:19 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home