Question

The following employment scenario runs throughout the text. In each chapter numerous employment issues are raised. This is designed to present real-life issues that an employer would face. Meg Johnson and Stacy Roberts are friends who have children in the Grasmere Elementary School. They would both like to work part-time during school hours. Meg and Stacy apply to The Long and the Short of It (“L&S”), which has advertised part-time sales positions. Tom Long and Mark Short interview Meg and Stacy but decide not to hire them. Mark says to Tom, “We don’t want school moms who are looking to earn extra spending cash. They don’t fit our image.” Subsequently, Tom and Mark hire two men without experience for the positions. Two weeks later, Meg and Stacy tell Laurie, another mother with school-age children, that they were disappointed L&S did not hire them. Laurie seems surprised. She remarks that her brother-in-law, Fred, who has not worked in six months, was hired on the spot. Meg and Stacy inquire as to Fred’s experience in sales, and Laurie replies that he has none. Meg and Stacy visit four of the L&S stores, and to their astonishment they find no women working in sales. Meg and Stacy file a claim for sex discrimination against L&S. Tom Long and Mark Short, co-presidents of L&S, consult with their attorney, Susan North, Esq. They argue that hiring men exclusively to work as salespeople in a men’s clothing store is a BFOQ. Is their argument valid?

Answer 1

No, their argument cannot be considered as valid.

A company must be able to provide evidence that bonafide professional skills are a business prerequisite and that unfair standards are applicable to employment and business activities.

There is nothing a female salesperson cant do that a male salesperson can do. The apparel manager at a clothing store can not discriminate against someone based on gender, age, race or origin; because that is unconstitutional. One can not say that those attractive young workers will bring in more clients, and so they will not hire someone considered unattractive or elderly. That'd be prejudicial grounds.