Reference no: EM132290778

Please read following Taco Bell article and Hooters' case:

Topic-1: Taco Bell Pays $27,000 To Settle Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has announced that Family Foods, Inc., a company that operates a number of Taco Bell restaurants in North Carolina, has agreed to pay $27,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit they filed last year on behalf of an employee that was fired after refusing to cut his hair for religious reasons.

Christopher Abbey, 27, worked at a Taco Bell in Fayetteville, N.C., from 2004 until 2010, when managers asked him to cut his long hair in accordance with the restaurant’s grooming policy, Occupational Health and Safety magazine reports. But Abbey refused to comply with the policy on the grounds that getting a haircut violates the Nazirite religion, which he has been practicing since age 15.

According to the EEOC, “Nazirites base their religious beliefs on references in the Old Testament to individuals who took a special vow of abstinence. In accordance with this vow, Nazirites do not cut their hair, believing that long hair is a way of showing their devotion to God.” In July 2011, EEOC regional attorney Lynette Barnes and trial lawyer Katherine Zimmerman filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Eastern District of North Carolina alleging that Family Foods, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires companies employing 15 workers or more to “reasonably accommodate” their workers’ religious practices unless doing so results in “undue hardship” for the company.

The lawsuit demanded that Family Foods., Inc. pay a number of damages including back pay, job search costs, and compensation for “emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation.” In order to avoid a jury trial, the company agreed to pay $27,000 and adopt a formal policy regarding religious accommodation in addition to holding training sessions informing employees about Title VII. Labor law attorney Kim Ryan, who reviewed the case for 9News Denver, said that a number of cases have been filed in the past on behalf of employees who refused to comply with employers’ demands to change their appearance, and judges have ruled both for and against workers. In one recent case, a Muslim woman sued Abercrombie and Fitch for requiring her to remove her headscarf during shifts, and courts sided with the clothing chain. In 2011, a Roanoke, Va.-based moving company paid $30,000 to a settle a lawsuit filed by the EEOC on behalf of a Rastafarian who was fired after refusing to cut his dreadlocks.

Topic-2: Hooters Case: Texas man sues to become a Hooters girl

A Texas man has filed a lawsuit against Hooters restaurant for not allowing men to work as waiters in the popular restaurant chain. Nikolai Grushevski from Corpus Christi, Texas, has filed this lawsuit against Hooters seeking unspecified damages. The lawsuit filed at the Federal court in Corpus Christi claims the following:

"Hooters tries to circumvent the law by referring to its waiters as 'Hooters Girls.' Hooters is wrong...Just as Southwest Airlines attempted nearly three decades ago with stewardesses, the waiter's position addressed herein is being limited to females by an employer '...who merely wishes to exploit female sexuality as a marketing tool to attract customers and insure profitability.'"

Grushevski filed this lawsuit after he tried to apply for a “Hooters Girls” job at a local restaurant. The manager told him that Hooters doesn’t hire men as waiters. Grushevski says in the suit that he is offended by the decision and wants Hooters to give the same rights to men as a food server. A similar suit was filed against Hooters in 1997, when seven men from Chicago filed a $2-million claim against Hooters for not making the kitchen staff and bartender “gender neutral.” Hooters paid the damages and reversed their policy, but in this case they are not willing to change their stance. Hooters spokeswoman, Alexis Aleshire responded to media questions in an email, saying one must be a woman in order to be a Hooters Girl. Mike McNeil, vice president of marketing for Hooters of America, issued the following comment, which was enclosed in Aleshire’s email:

"The good news is that when this happened the last time, Hooters benefited from an avalanche of positive publicity and public support for keeping Hooters Girls, well, girls. If we lose this go around, you can next expect hairy legged guys in the Rockettes to line up and male models in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. You wonder why people just can't leave good things alone."

Required: Please discuss the following questions:

1. How are these two cases similar? Write 50 words.

2. How are they different? Write 50 words.

3. Is either company correct in their participation of discriminatory practices? Why or why not? Write 50 words.