A Dialogue on a Contemporary Issue: The Hooters Case

Abstract

This entry in this issue of JIER is the first of what I hope will be a continuing feature of the journal. JIER is concerned with significant, contemporary issues bearing upon individual employment rights. I want to stimulate a discussion of such issues with outside experts and with the Journal‘s readers. My vehicle for doing so in this issue is a court decision. In the following pages is a lengthy extract from a case decided in 1999 by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I ask our readers to review this case and send me a oneto three-page analysis of the decision for possible publication in the Journal. I am looking for your thoughts on the issues raised in the case, your opinions about the decision and the reasoning, and your ideas about the implications of the case. Because this issue of JIER is concerned with sexual harassment, the case deals with that topic and with the enforceability of a predispute agreement to arbitrate sexual harassment and, by implication, other statutory issues. The case involves a hostess in a restaurant who was pinched and patted by her supervisor, complained, and quit when the company did nothing to rectify the situation. When she threatened to sue, the firm insisted on the enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate all such disputes. In the literature that deals with the arbitration of labor and employment disputes, one can find literally hundreds of articles on the arbitration of disputes that involve public policy or statutory issues. I ask that your analyses focus on the organizational, managerial, human, and ethical issues involved rather than on the technical and legal issues associated with predispute agreements to arbitrate. Please send your replies to: Charles J. Coleman, Editor Journal of Individual Employment Rights 19-21 Potter Street Haddonfield, NJ 08033