Final answer:
Hooter's hiring practices, which involve only hiring female wait staff with a particular dress code, raises questions of legality and ethics in light of the Civil Rights Act. While Hooters claims a 'bona fide occupational qualification', there have been out-of-court settlements regarding discrimination charges. Applying legal tests may yield varying conclusions on both the ethical and legal standpoints of their practices.
Step-by-step explanation:
The matter of Hooters restaurant's hiring practices and their ethical implications falls within both business ethics and legal considerations. Hooters defends that their hiring practices, which involve exclusively hiring female wait staff and requiring a sexually provocative dress code, are justifiable as the waitresses constitute an intrinsic part of their business that markets through sex appeal. This concept, known as 'bona fide occupational qualification' (BFOQ), allows businesses to hire employees based on certain attributes if they are considered essential for the job's performance.
However, this practice has led to legal challenges under the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination. Men have filed discrimination charges claiming that not hiring them based on gender is illegal. Although Hooters has settled these out of court, the question remains whether their actions constitute discrimination and whether they are ethical. When evaluating the case against three court tests - the BFOQ, the four-fifths rule, and the McDonnell Douglas test - different outcomes may emerge, challenging the legality and ethicality of Hooter's hiring practices.