Makers' Mark lounge seeking a certain kind of bartender ...

I'll play devil's advocate for a minute. Staffing the businesses at 4th St Live can be tricky. Half of qualified applicants are either currently working at another business within the facility or have been recently let go from one. While a face to face interview might give the interviewer a decent impression of the applicant, a picture would make it possible for the rest of the management and staff to recognize problem applicants before the hiring process can go any further. The female aspect seems a little creepy but it's really just business.

I don't see what the big deal is. How is that any different than the hiring practices of say a Hooter's or Tilted Kilt? Is anyone bothered by the fact that they really don't have any men waiting tables or tending bar in tight orange shorts and tank tops there?

[Robin Garr]

Hell, the name on the application could often be used to discriminate based on sex and maybe even race/origin, should it be left off the application?

Justin, I agree with that, but again, you're arguing with the wrong guy. I'm not the judge who wrote the rule.

I'm no lawyer, but the guidelines on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website seem to rule out this kind of ad:

"It is illegal for an employer to publish a job advertisement that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

"For example, a help-wanted ad that seeks "females" or "recent college graduates" may discourage men and people over 40 from applying and may violate the law. ...

"Similarly, employers should not ask for a photograph of an applicant. If needed for identification purposes, a photograph may be obtained after an offer of employment is made and accepted."

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm

[Robin Garr]

I don't see what the big deal is. How is that any different than the hiring practices of say a Hooter's or Tilted Kilt? Is anyone bothered by the fact that they really don't have any men waiting tables or tending bar in tight orange shorts and tank tops there?

If you'll go back to the top of the thread and click the link posted there, you'll find that a guy did sue Hooter's over just that point, and apparently took away a nice (but confidential) settlement.

Yeah, I think it's a little creepy too and pretty unwise for someone to post a position using those particulars as a qualification or reference point for application. But that being said, they can still pretty much hire whomever they want as long as they can prove that they didn't discriminate during the process of screening applicants. Seems like a difficult thing to prove normally, but this seems kind of dumb on their part.

At one of the places I used to work at, which shall remain nameless, we never had any female servers for most of the time I worked there. It wasn't that women didn't apply, we never had many openings and it sort of worked out that way. Personally at the time, I thought it was great because we didn't have to deal with a lot of the "drama" that normally goes along with working at most restaurants.

Before you label me as some sort of sexist, consider this; because we were all guys, we didn't really harbor any baggage or have to deal with any sexual tension that goes along with young people of the opposite sex working together in a mostly cash business going out after work and drinking together too. Those of you in food service know exactly what I'm talking about.

Back to the EEOC- the way they posted this ad is clearly in violation and opens them to discrimination claims ( legitimately). Any HR person would tell them you never state a sex or attractiveness requirement- totally opens you to lawsuits. You state the job requirements and any sex can apply. ( What happens with hiring decision-making is a totally different issue and hard to prove). I can't believe that the corporate parent of Maker's Mark Lounge condones this- really stupid.

On the otherhand, outside the US - specifically China- they state the sex required for marketing positions right in the ad headline . ( makes me cringe everytime I see one come thru).

Deb

Back to the EEOC- the way they posted this ad is clearly in violation and opens them to discrimination claims ( legitimately). Any HR person would tell them you never state a sex or attractiveness requirement- totally opens you to lawsuits. You state the job requirements and any sex can apply. ( What happens with hiring decision-making is a totally different issue and hard to prove). I can't believe that the corporate parent of Maker's Mark Lounge condones this- really stupid.

Deb

Sent my resume in this afternoon. Once I get the rejection letter, I figure it's gonna take a couple of years for the lawsuit to make it through the legal food chain...After that ya'll can write to me in The Hampton's where I'll be hanging out with my new friends.

A restaurant can place an ad for a bartender. However, they are not permitted, under both Ky. and Federal statute, to discriminate on the basis of sex when hiring someone for such a position. Also, there is no bona fide occupation qualification (BFOQ) that inherently makes a woman (or a man, for that matter) a more able bartender. (An example of a BFOQ that would be a defense to, let's say, national origin discrimination, could possibly be a restaurant where it was imperative the servers spoke a foreign language. However, if an American, for example, wanted a job at a Mexican restaurant, and was able to speak Spanish, discriminating against the American because he was not a Mexican would not likely be a solid BFOQ defense.) So, in this instance, since being female is not a BFOQ of being a bartender, there is no defense for discriminating on the basis of sex. If they were hiring for a model, and not a bartender, there may be more of an argument for the restaurant to discriminate on the basis of sex, but that would be for a jury to decide.

Do we know for an absolute fact that it was Makers' Mark itself that posted this listing?

Could it have been placed by an over-zealous employee, for instance, trying to help find the "right woman" for this particular job, without the knowledge or consent of upper-level management?

Could it have been placed by someone totally unconnected with Markers' Mark lounge, perhaps for nefarious purposes?

Makers Mark lounge posted this ad on craigslist...

"Maker's Mark on 4th St. Live is seeking an experienced female bartender. Must be very knowledgeable about liquor and drinks. We are looking for someone that is outgoing, fast paced, energetic, and takes pride in customer service.

Hiring Immediately. Please send ALL of the following to <deleted>........ 1. Current picture 2. Resume with references 3. Facebook link"

Specifying female? Requiring a picture? A Facebook link? Any expert opinions (or even inexpert opinions) out there regarding the legality of all this?

Looking for some extra work on Craig's List?

Hmmm, what if the owner has an equal oppportunity program going where they have to employ X number of females.... then they lose too many females, have an open position, but basically need to hire a female to make their quota? Wouldn't it be then a massive waste of time to advertise for everyone if they know they're going to hire a female anyway? Or should they just go through the motions?

As for Facebook, seems clever although I have no idea of the legality. You can reasonably gauge the "classiness" (for lack of a better word) of the applicant's friends and acqaintances which might tell you how she'll interact with the clientele of the restaurant and/or whether she might actually bring in new business of the sort that fits the restaurant's profile. Or..... maybe they just want to look for bikini pics.

On edit: I don't think employers should be allowed to require FB access. But I could imagine they could suggest access would be useful and let applicants decide whetther or not to provide it.

Hmmm, what if the owner has an equal oppportunity program going where they have to employ X number of females.... then they lose too many females, have an open position, but basically need to hire a female to make their quota? Wouldn't it be then a massive waste of time to advertise for everyone if they know they're going to hire a female anyway? Or should they just go through the motions?

Actually it's illegal for an employer to have an EEOC program that requires a specific number of people from a given sex or nationality! That's just as bad or worse than posting the advertising for females only. The only time you can hire one sex or nationality is when the court orders it and even a couple of those have been overturned by the USSC!