| “
|
Start laughing.
Back during the Clinton years the EEOC went after Hooters for its
alleged hiring bias (we all remember how hard Bill Clinton was on women
. . . uh, let me re-phrase that). Hooters refused to hire men to wear
the infamous “orange short-shorts and white tank-top” ensemble. The
EEOC spent four years pressuring them to hire male waiters, which would
have ruined the Hooters concept.
Hooters tried reasoning and logic. As one would expect when dealing
with bureaucrats, they failed miserably. So Hooters turned to anther
weapon: mockery.
They put up billboards showing what a hairy, beer-bellied guy would
actually look like in Hooters garb. They took out newspaper ads showing
a bearded guy in a blonde wig and Hooters T-shirt saying “Come on,
Washington. Get a grip.”
It worked. The EEOC stayed just as stupid — still insisting that
Hooters was doing something wrong — but it became clear that if they
kept pushing the stupidity, Congress might step up and take away some
of their power. So the EEOC “quietly ended its investigation,”
according to the Los Angeles Times.
Today, dimwit EEOC attorneys in yet another Democratic administration
are at it again — this time in Massachusetts.
[Full]
Here's
some top comments from FR
The
EEOC can pursue this kind of BS, but then turns a blind eye when
Elizabeth Warren lies about being a minority and uses her phony
“minority” status to advance her career. Perhaps if the girls at this
coffee chain described themselves as being ugly because their mother’s
told them so the EEOC wouldn’t have a problem.
MaryLou’s CEO
should offer jobs to every democrat woman in congress- that would
even-out the attractiveness factor
A plot right out of
Seinfeld
Why doesn’t
somebody bring a
case with EEOC that Harvard won’t hire them because the University is
discriminating against stupid people?
|
|
” |
Ouch, ouch, ouch, Massachusetts you say? Give them both barrels.
ReplyDeleteCasca
Couldn't be because a certain presidential nominee is from Massachusetts, could it?
ReplyDeleteYannow, dump on them, just like Arizona and Texas.
According to their website, they have 30 locations, which means they're smaller company than Hooters.
ReplyDeleteThe EEOC, since they had their ass whipped by Hooters, must be thinking they can bully a smaller operation and nobody will complain.
Congress can stop this crap by reducing the budget of the EEOC by 80%. Of course they won't because they're pussies or bullies and don't want to admit they're either.
Enter: cuteness panels.
ReplyDeleteThe only possibility that this crap can be sustained is that they declare unattractiveness as a handicap unrelated to job qualifications.
Good luck establishing the criteria, jackasses.
I don't believe there are any white women over age 55 starting in the NBA. That's ageist, racist and sexist, and I want EEOC to sue the NBA on my wife's behalf. I'll split the $6 million a year salary with them if they do. See what a patriotic taxpayer I am, offering to pay my fair share? Where are you when I need you, Dear Leader?
ReplyDeleteLt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick
I'm a 5' 9" 64 year old white guy, and they won't let me play pro football. I really want to, and I think it's just bias that keeps them from hiring me. I wonder could the EEOC help me out here? Just one season at 3 or 4 million dollars a year would really help my family!
ReplyDeleteMichigammeDave
Hey, michigammeDave, I'm just a smidge over 5'9" and also 64, do we have to split the moolah? Or can I file for my own pile cuz I'm 3/4" taller?
ReplyDeleteActually, I think there may be more of a case in the NBA as there are very few melanin challenged players, so the percentages should be better, no?
tomw
So I now must be hired as a Chippendales dancer?
ReplyDeleteCareer Change to Tip Town!!! wooH00!!
Being that I lack some of the necessary *cough* equipment -- and can't dance worth shiite -- I think my tips would stink.
e~C