Introduction
In the hiring process, as well as other human resource management practices, discrimination is prohibited. However, there are cases when the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) doctrine is applied, and the focus on people’s certain differences and characteristics can be required for a specific job position (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2016). Consequently, each company is interested in developing a strategic workforce planning process that addresses its goals and allows for hiring the best employees to correspond with the corporate strategy. However, when trying to select the most appropriate employees in the context of the workforce planning approach, it is important to avoid discriminating against applicants and violating their rights. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the hiring practices of Abercrombie & Fitch and Hooters and to determine how each company organizes its strategic workforce planning process and addresses the issue of discrimination.
Court Cases Related to Abercrombie & Fitch and Hooters
Both Abercrombie & Fitch and Hooters were sued because of denying employment and discriminating against potential employees.
Abercrombie & Fitch is a U.S. chain of clothing stores that is famous for its “look policy,” prescribing a certain dress code for its employees. Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores (2005) was associated with a class-action lawsuit filed by several minority representatives, who applied for positions at Abercrombie & Fitch, but they were refused or received undesirable positions. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores (2015) was a case, according to which Samantha Elauf, a Muslim-American woman, was refused to take a position at the company. She used a headscarf, but the dress code did not allow that.
It is also important to mention the cases related to Hooters, a restaurant chain. Latuga v. Hooters Inc (1994) was the case, in which a male applicant filed a lawsuit against Hooters because of not being hired due to sex discrimination. In 2009, there was a similar lawsuit against Hooters, Grushevski v. Texas Wings, Inc (2009), as Nikolai Grushevski was not hired as a waiter. These four cases are related to discrimination in the hiring process, but the outcomes were different.
Outcomes of the Court Cases
To analyze the success of the workforce planning process at Abercrombie & Fitch and Hooters, it is necessary to discuss the outcomes of the mentioned court cases. In Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores (2005), the rejected applicants received compensation, and Abercrombie & Fitch had to develop diversity policies to hire minority representatives. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores (2015) was resolved in favor of Samantha Elauf as she was not required to request the accommodation related to the dress code in advance to have the protection against religious discrimination. In these cases, it was determined that Abercrombie & Fitch’s actions and policies were discriminatory. In Latuga v. Hooters Inc (1994), Savino Latuga received compensation, but the company was allowed to continue hiring only women as waitresses, providing additional jobs for men. In Grushevski v. Texas Wings, Inc (2009), the parties settled, but Hooters argued the BFOQ defense. In this and other similar cases, the BFOQ defense protected Hooters because their selection of employees of a certain gender was determined by the characteristics of their business.
The Companies’ Strategic Workforce Planning
Having analyzed the strategies taken by Abercrombie & Fitch and Hooters and lawsuits against them, it is possible to state that Abercrombie & Fitch did not follow a proper hiring strategy in contrast to Hooters. Abercrombie & Fitch had an ineffective strategy in recruiting employees as its policies directly and indirectly promoted discrimination. In the discussed cases, inappropriate policies and practices that led to racial and religious discrimination did not address applicants’ needs and negatively affected the company’s reputation (Richards, 2016). On the contrary, Hooters accentuated their necessity of hiring only female waiters as the component of their strategic development. As a result, although the company could not avoid discrimination-grounded lawsuits, it was able to argue the BFOQ defense.
The Strategic Workforce Planning Process for Strengthening the Company
Hooters is the company, in which its strategic workforce planning helped to strengthen its position in the market. The reason is that their selection of only female waiters is reflected in their policies and strategy, and this approach is protected according to the BFOQ doctrine. This doctrine allows discrimination on sex, race, or religion if certain employees’ characteristics are necessary for the business. In the case of Hooters, the company actively promotes the image of “Hooters Girls” which is part of their competitive advantage (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2016). Therefore, hiring only women as waiters is important for the strategic workforce planning process, and it is not discrimination against men according to the BFOQ doctrine.
Conclusion
Strategic workforce planning associated with addressing a company’s hiring needs can provoke certain issues, including discrimination ones. In the case of Abercrombie & Fitch, the company was not able to organize workforce planning effectively to meet strategic needs and avoid discrimination issues. However, in the case of Hooters, lawsuits made the company pay more attention to claiming “Hooters Girls” as part of their business strategy. This approach to strategic hiring allowed Hooters to gain a competitive advantage and avoid negative effects on reputation.
References
Cavico, F. J., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2016). The bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense in employment discrimination: A narrow and limited justification exception. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 7(4), 15-29.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, 575 U.S. 14 (2015).
Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, 03-2817 SI 19 (2005).
Grushevski v. Texas Wings, Inc, C.A. 09-cv-00002 S.D. Tex. (2009).
Latuga v. Hooters Inc, WL 113079 93 (1994).
Richards, K. (2016). EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.: Religious discrimination. Oklahoma City University Law Review, 41(1), 53-81.