Cabaret Restaurant was in violation of Title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because sex can not be a permissible BFOQ for a restaurant seeking to dress female
waitresses “in alluring costumes” solely for the purpose of enhancing sales volume. Courts must distinguish between businesses selling virtually nothing but sex (“sex” businesses) and those offering titillation along with some other type of good or service (“sex-plus” businesses), as in the case of Cabaret Restaurant. Group Decision:
We agreed with the court’s ruling. As long as Plebani can prove that there was no significant positive change in the company’s volume of business, it can be concluded that hiring only female waitresses is not a business necessity even though there may be a customer preference for it. The main function of this job is to serve food, and this was proven based on the fact that the gender of the actual waiter or waitress was irrelevant when looking at sales.
Cabaret Restaurant will make the argument that having only female servers contributes to the “gentleman’s club” atmosphere. However, they will have great difficulty proving that only female servers is a business necessity since the restaurant initially started out with both male and female servers and no long-term financial benefit come from the all female switch.
I agree with the courts' and groups' decision. To prove a proper business necessity, the work must be done more efficiently and/or safely. The employment of alluring waitresses could not arguably improve the business in such terms. Therefore, Plebani's termination was a consequence of gender discrimination.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both decisions. If the company cannot provide any substantial evidence to prove that this business will thrive on only hiring female waitresses, then they ultimately have no right to discriminate.
ReplyDelete