act upon women, because few women would want to live without privacy among men and even fewer would have greater upper body strength than men would. If women claimed that unchanged barracks practices and physical skill requirements had a disparate impact upon them, in the context of Title VII litigation, this would be sufficient to make the prima facie case. The women would then need to show that VMI instituted these practices with the intent to exclude women. VMIs defense would be showing that these practices were necessary to its business. The outcome of this case resulted in VMI making reasonable accommodations for women. The Supreme Court effectively required VMI, which intentionally discriminated against women to alter their housing arrangements and physical skill requirements to accommodate women. Hooters Restaurant Hooters came under fire after the EEOC made allegations that it had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against men. In 1992, seven men argued that Hooters discriminated against them when they refused to hire them as wait staff. Hooters chose to hire only female servers, bartenders and hosts. As a defense, Hooters claimed that they were providing vicarious sexual recreation. Hooters attempted to use female sexuality as a BFOQ, which would have worked if they were in the entertainment business. However, Hooters markets itself as a family restaurant. In this case, the courts looked at the essential nature of the business. Hooters, portrays itself to the public as a restaurant, not a sex business, therefore Hooters BFOQ did not hold up in court. In the settling class action suit that challenged its right to hire only women in front-of-house positions, Hooters agreed to pay $2 million to the males who were denied the opportunity to serve as Hooter girls, $1.75 million in attorneys fees and to create three gender neutral positions. Wait staff, will still be Hooters Gir...
