Recently we heard from three businessmen about their plans to open a Hooters restaurant in Santa Monica. Their application has sparked considerable controversy, with many citizens voicing opposition to the plan. Indeed, the Mayor has been among the most vocal. In light of the dispute, I offer this letter, which analyzes the legal, financial, and ethical issues involved, and also explores the options open to us as we debate whether to grant the application.
The Hooters chain, which began during the 1980s in Florida, has become synonymous with spicy chicken wings and scantily clad waitresses. The company claims that its name refers to the owl that is part of its logo. But they always make that claim with a wink. We all know that the company name is actually referring to the female anatomy. The female waitresses are the main attraction, which is demonstrated by the fact that Hooters does not hire male servers.
Proof of these facts came when Hooters fought an attempt by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to force them to stop discriminating against men in hiring. Hooters argued that ôThe Hooters Girlsö are the essence of the chainÆs business (itÆs not the food?), and that forcing the chain to accept male servers would damage the company ôto the point that it would no longer be able to operateö (NationÆs Restaurant News 3). The EEOC dropped the suit in 1996, though Hooters later settled another discrimination case by agreeing to pay the male plaintiffs $3.75 million (Driscoll).
So at the outset, I think we can all agree that Hooters is a sexually oriented restaurant. The quesadillas, no matter how good, are not what brings in the customers, most of whom are male. The company admits as much by producing a magazine that celebrates the ôGirls of Hooters.ö Ultimately, Hooters is using sex to sell food and drink. As one feminist group put it, ôHooters uses womenÆs breasts to sell chicken win...