Denied a job for being female.

[Captain Shaw]

Just need to vent.
Just before christmas i applied for a permanent warehouse job but i did not even get a interview but at the beginning of February i got some temporary work with them.
But instead of working in the warehouse i am working in a disuse office i thought it was odd that i have not been allowed near the warehouse ,Even though they are busy we have to get a man to bring and take our work away.
I found out today that they don't want women in the warehouse because they think that the men would not get any work done because they would be busy talking to us girls.
Just makes me so mad that i have been denied a job because the boss can't control his own staff.
At most places i have worked at there have been more men than women but we have some how got the job done.

 

[MollyRoger]

wow, in america, that would be grounds for legal action.

no, I'm not knocking UK, I know we've got plenty of fucked up stuff over here

but that's just... wow.

 

[RoJoHen]

I found out today that they don't want women in the warehouse because they think that the men would not get any work done because they would be busy talking to us girls.

Look on the bright side: you must be pretty hot!

Seriously, though, that sucks.

 

[Kibbin]

Wow, that does suck. I think that also makes some pretty big assumptions about the men. I know we only have a limited blood flow and all but wow.

 

[Captain Shaw]

wow, in america, that would be grounds for legal action.

no, I'm not knocking UK, I know we've got plenty of fucked up stuff over here

but that's just... wow.

Well its illegal here but their is nothing i can do because even if i tried to sue i would never work again.

 

[Count Zero]

Is that even legal in the UK? In any case, it's pretty stupid reason to give. If their myle employess are so easy to distract, maybe they should hire women instead?

ETA: serial thread killer was too fast for me. I can certainly understand that you wouldn't want to sue over this.

 

[Captain Shaw]

I found out today that they don't want women in the warehouse because they think that the men would not get any work done because they would be busy talking to us girls.

Look on the bright side: you must be pretty hot!

Seriously, though, that sucks.

I am a over weight short sighted 27 year old with spots who does not dress up to work in a warehouse and i admit i am not the smartest person on the planet i think the men could work with me with out falling head over heals in love.

 

[Kibbin]

I doubt anything could be done on the legal front, unless they have actually said to you that is the reason then they could easily pull some bs out of their ass if you make a fuss over this.

 

[Trekker4747]

I'm very likely fuzzy on how this stuff works in the US and certainly fuzzy on how it works in the UK. But I would think that this action isn't necessairly illegal.

They gave you a job, just not the job you wanted. They didn't "not hire you because you're a female" they "didn't give you a certain position because you're female."

And unless that position is one where there's benifits or pay over the one they did give you, it's hardly a case where anything illegal occured. It's for this loophole that Hooters can get away with not having male servers. They do hire men, they just don't give men any of the server positions. And the positions men do get aren't any "worse" positions than that of a server in terms of pay or benifits.

Again, I'm fuzzy on how this works in either the US or the UK, but it seems to me that they got away with it via loophole.

 

[tharpdevenport]

I found out today that they don't want women in the warehouse because they think that the men would not get any work done because they would be busy talking to us girls.

Look on the bright side: you must be pretty hot!

Seriously, though, that sucks.

Either that or there are some seriously ugly, "hard up", desperate guys in the back...

 

[Small White Car]

It's for this loophole that Hooters can get away with not having male servers. They do hire men, they just don't give men any of the server positions. And the positions men do get aren't any "worse" positions than that of a server in terms of pay or benifits.

Hooters can explain how their business depends on female waiters. It's more of a performance than a task. It's the same reason that Disney World can restrict the Mickey Mouse costume to people of the exact right height. In both of those cases they can explain why those restrictions exist.

"Because the men are horny" is not a valid legal defense. (I can't believe I actually just had to explain that.)

Now, they can easily get away with this by never, ever saying that's the reason. Who could prove it?

But can we not see the difference between "get away with" and "it's legal?" Those are really different things.

They didn't "not hire you because you're a female" they "didn't give you a certain position because you're female."

This is not correct (in the U.S. anyway). If this were even remotely true than Disney could just assign all the too-tall people to non-Mickey roles. Easy! But that's not the case. They have to specifically register those positions as performance positions to get around employment laws that would otherwise bar that sort of height discrimination. There's no way they'd go to all that trouble if they could just use this argument. It sure would be easier for them, but it wouldn't work.

 

[sojourner]

Hooters can explain how their business depends on female waiters.

Ahem....

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/01/us/hooters-settles-suit-by-men-denied-jobs.html?pagewanted=1

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I'm very likely fuzzy on how this stuff works in the US and certainly fuzzy on how it works in the UK. But I would think that this action isn't necessairly illegal.

They gave you a job, just not the job you wanted. They didn't "not hire you because you're a female" they "didn't give you a certain position because you're female."

And unless that position is one where there's benifits or pay over the one they did give you, it's hardly a case where anything illegal occured. It's for this loophole that Hooters can get away with not having male servers. They do hire men, they just don't give men any of the server positions. And the positions men do get aren't any "worse" positions than that of a server in terms of pay or benifits.se IF the rules are at all similar, she might have a case.

Again, I'm fuzzy on how this works in either the US or the UK, but it seems to me that they got away with it via loophole.

The reason Hooters can do what they do in the US is because the job is treated more like an actor or somesuch. The particular kind of exception Hooters uses is the BFOQ, or bona fide occupational qualification. Another example of a BFOQ is when a casting call for a show calls for a certain race or gender to play a particular character.

That does NOT extend to a case like this, and I still think she should consult with an attorney in her country, because IF the rules are at all similar, she might have a case.

And I do not see why she would "never work again" if she sues. If that's the case, then there is something seriously messed up over in the UK.

 

[Gil T.Azell]

wow, in america, that would be grounds for legal action.

no, I'm not knocking UK, I know we've got plenty of fucked up stuff over here

but that's just... wow.

The same here in Canada.
Some of the women I work with in the DND/naval supply warehouse are better workers than some of the men.

 

[Captain Shaw]

I'm very likely fuzzy on how this stuff works in the US and certainly fuzzy on how it works in the UK. But I would think that this action isn't necessairly illegal.

They gave you a job, just not the job you wanted. They didn't "not hire you because you're a female" they "didn't give you a certain position because you're female."

And unless that position is one where there's benifits or pay over the one they did give you, it's hardly a case where anything illegal occured. It's for this loophole that Hooters can get away with not having male servers. They do hire men, they just don't give men any of the server positions. And the positions men do get aren't any "worse" positions than that of a server in terms of pay or benifits.se IF the rules are at all similar, she might have a case.

Again, I'm fuzzy on how this works in either the US or the UK, but it seems to me that they got away with it via loophole.

The reason Hooters can do what they do in the US is because the job is treated more like an actor or somesuch. The particular kind of exception Hooters uses is the BFOQ, or bona fide occupational qualification. Another example of a BFOQ is when a casting call for a show calls for a certain race or gender to play a particular character.

That does NOT extend to a case like this, and I still think she should consult with an attorney in her country, because IF the rules are at all similar, she might have a case.

And I do not see why she would "never work again" if she sues. If that's the case, then there is something seriously messed up over in the UK.

When you go for a job you have to tell the company if you have ever taken legal action against a employer.

 

[Deckerd]

When you go for a job you have to tell the company if you have ever taken legal action against a employer.

Fairly sure that's not true. If you were given a job of equal pay to the warehouse job, you don't really have an argument. If the warehouse jobs pay better, you have an argument to either have your pay made equivalent or sue for sexual discrimination. You wouldn't do this yourself normally, your union would do it on your behalf but only if they think there is a case to answer. If you're not in a union, join one.

 

[John Picard]

even if i tried to sue i would never work again.

Also, suing is something those babies across the pond do.

So true!

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

When you go for a job you have to tell the company if you have ever taken legal action against a employer.

In the US, I believe that in itself is an illegal question.

 

[John Clark]

When you go for a job you have to tell the company if you have ever taken legal action against a employer.

I hadn't heard about that, but it has been a while since I've done interviews.

As for being denied a job for the reasons you mentioned is just bad

 

[QCzar]

even if i tried to sue i would never work again.

Also, suing is something those babies across the pond do.

So true!

We are in serious need of tort reform. It's all become an elaborate shell game where it's difficult to separate the legitimate from the loony.

And it's all very paint-by-numbers. A commercial like this:

"Are you or a loved one suffering from [-insert some grievance to sue over-]? [-insert grievance-] can cause [-insert suffering; symptoms; fear of death]. You may be entitled to [-insert damages-]. Don't let the [-insert evil doctor, corporation or government agency-] deny you what you deserve. If you or a loved one are suffering from [-insert grievance-] call the lawyers of [Some Dude & Some Other Dude]. {-Quotation from 'Some Dude': "At [Some Dude & Some Other Dude] we don't quit until you get the respect and the compensation you're owed."-}. The number is 1-888-[insert-number-]. That's 1-888-[-insert-number-]. Call 1-888-[-insert-number-] today and get the [-damages...and "respect"-] you deserve.


What are you waiting for? Call today.

[Some Dude & Some Other Dude]"

...appears on TV here about a million times every second.