MARYLOU’S COFFEE, a chain in New England, is renowned less for its coffee than for its staff. In tight pink T-shirts and short shorts, they tend to be young, pretty and female. But is that illegal? In May the press reported that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was investigating Marylou’s for hiring discrimination. (The EEOC cannot confirm any investigation at this point.) Worse, the papers said the investigation comes without anyone having complained about being turned down for a job. Op-ed writers pounced. A writer at the Boston Herald proclaimed: “Yes, Marylou’s ‘discriminates’. Every employer ‘discriminates’. If they didn’t, I’d be working as a Chippendales dancer.”
新英格兰地区有一家名为“玛丽露咖啡”的连锁店，店里的雇员比咖啡更使他们名闻遐迩。他们的雇员大多是穿着超短裙的、年轻漂亮的女性。但这合法吗？今年五月媒体报道说，政府的平等就业机会委员会正在就玛丽露的雇佣歧视问题进行调查。（该委员会目前没有确认此项调查。）更糟的是，媒体说这个调查是在没有任何人抱怨被玛丽露拒雇的情况下发起的。专栏作家们对此进行了攻击。《波士顿信使报》的一位作家写道：“没错，玛丽露‘歧视’了。任何一个雇主都会‘歧视’的。如果他们不歧视的话，我早就是男子脱衣舞队的一名演员了。”
The federal government has no law forbidding “attractiveness discrimination”. Only a few places do: Washington, DC, and Santa Cruz and San Francisco in California. Instead, lawsuits proceed on the fact that it is usually illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion, disability or national origin. Customer preference for a certain “look” cannot be the only basis for such discrimination, or else stores in racist areas could refuse to hire black employees. In 2004 the EEOC sued Abercrombie & Fitch, a clothing retailer. The company said that its staff’s looks were part of its marketing approach. But in the words of Justine Lisser, an EEOC lawyer, “That look was that you had to be white, young and physically fit. If you were young, physically fit and African-American you’d be in the stockroom.” Abercrombie & Fitch paid $50m to settle the case.
联邦政府并没有任何法律限制“相貌歧视”，只有少数地方政府有，如华盛顿特区、加州的旧金山和圣克鲁兹等。通常，有关雇佣的法律纠纷都是由于性别、种族、宗教信仰、残疾和民族方面的非法歧视而引起。顾客对某种“外貌”的偏好不能成为相貌歧视的唯一理由，不然的话，在种族歧视严重地区的店家可能会拒绝雇佣黑人雇员。2004年时，平等就业机会委员会曾对一家名为Abercrombie &Fitch的服装商店发起诉讼。这家商店说，他们的雇员的外貌是营销策略的组成部分。但是，平等就业机会委员会的律师杰斯丁.利斯尔说：“他们所说的外貌就是，你必须是白人、年轻、体格好。假如你是一个年轻、体格好的黑人，你只能在仓库工作。”这家店最后以五千万美元了断了这件官司。
As for hiring a single sex, the key is whether that sex is a “bona fide occupational qualification”. Southwest Airlines used to flaunt its hostesses in its marketing (“Spreading love all over Texas”). But in 1981 a court found that, unlike the Playboy Club, Southwest’s business was not “forthrightly to titillate and entice male customers”, but to ferry them from Dallas to Houston. Southwest was ordered to hire men as well.
说到雇佣单一性别的问题，这里的关键是：这个性别是否“职业特性所要求的”。西南航空公司曾在广告中炫耀他们的美女乘务员（“在德州遍播爱”）但在1981年法庭裁定说，与花花公子俱乐部不同，西南航空的生意是把乘客从达拉斯运送到休斯顿，而不是“专为刺激和吸引男性顾客”。因此西南航空必须也雇佣男性乘务员。
Chippendales can go on refusing to hire pasty journalists. But one day Marylou’s may have to choose between claiming its business is “forthrightly to titillate male customers”, or change its hiring practices. Perhaps a few men, or ladies of a certain age?
男子脱衣舞队可以继续拒绝雇佣外貌不佳的新闻记者，但是玛丽露可能必须做出选择：或者声称他们的生意是“专为刺激男性顾客的”，或者改变他们的雇佣习惯。说不定应该雇少量男店员，或者年龄稍大些的妇女？
|
