Hooters: 200 waitress applicants taped while undressing for their interview

[cerebusPu]

why are we arguing over stupid stuff. the real question is...where are the videos? are they available for download?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

From the title, I thought that the undressing was part of the interview.

- M4H

 

[McCarthy]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but this is during the interview? Doesn't say interview in the article, but does say of women 'who applied for'. Thing is, why were they changing into the uniform for the interview in the first place? Keep in mind Hooters lost a lawsuit some years ago where they argued they should be allowed to only hire females, seems like an obvious lawsuit if you have someone get in the uniform for the interview and decline them because their breasts don't hang right. Kind of amazing they're not getting sued right and left if this is chain policy.

Unless it was during a training period, then it'd make sense and still fit with the 'applied for'. Nitpicky I know, but struck me as odd. It is a violation of law story, another law apect doesn't seem that out of place I trust. As for those who think this is way cool and want the vids, well...some things you can't even say on the internet.

 

[kami]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
From the title, I thought that the undressing was part of the interview.

- M4H

Ditto. And I wouldn't mind a human resources position at Hooter's either.

 

[bsmithy]

whats the difference between seeing a 17 yo's chest on screen and getting a 17 yo gf and looking at her rack?

morally i mean

also, if you lined up 30 17/18 yo's you could pick out all the 18 yo's?

 

[CrazyDe1]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
Hmm... women are surprised that they were being taped, yet they're willing to work for an employer that requires the semi-racey outfits?

Well, yes? Should they feel less outrage that they were taped, while undressing, without their consent, because they're applying for a Hooter's job? There's never an excuse for that kind of invasion of privacy.

But the patriot act is..

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: bsmithy
whats the difference between seeing a 17 yo's chest on screen and getting a 17 yo gf and looking at her rack?

morally i mean

also, if you lined up 30 17/18 yo's you could pick out all the 18 yo's?

Doesn't matter, really. Here, the law is 18.

 

[GermyBoy]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt Hmm... women are surprised that they were being taped, yet they're willing to work for an employer that requires the semi-racey outfits?

The video taping was an invasion of privacy moron.

Actually you can videotape anyone for any reason. You just cannot take their voices and you cannot make money from their movies, or distribute, etc.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: GermyBoy

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt Hmm... women are surprised that they were being taped, yet they're willing to work for an employer that requires the semi-racey outfits?

The video taping was an invasion of privacy moron.

Actually you can videotape anyone for any reason. You just cannot take their voices and you cannot make money from their movies, or distribute, etc.

Oh yeah! I forgot about that.

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: GermyBoy

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt Hmm... women are surprised that they were being taped, yet they're willing to work for an employer that requires the semi-racey outfits?

The video taping was an invasion of privacy moron.

Actually you can videotape anyone for any reason. You just cannot take their voices and you cannot make money from their movies, or distribute, etc.

Actually you ought to call the West Covina authorities and inform them of their apparent ignorance of the law.

 

[Amorphus]

Originally posted by: GermyBoy

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt Hmm... women are surprised that they were being taped, yet they're willing to work for an employer that requires the semi-racey outfits?

The video taping was an invasion of privacy moron.

Actually you can videotape anyone for any reason. You just cannot take their voices and you cannot make money from their movies, or distribute, etc.

Something strikes me as missing. Because I know the law does include various provisions for invasion of privacy and the like. Voyeurism is illegal, generally.

 

[TommyVercetti]

Originally posted by: cerebusPu
why are we arguing over stupid stuff. the real question is...where are the videos? are they available for download?

This man speaks the truf

 

[bsmithy]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: bsmithy
whats the difference between seeing a 17 yo's chest on screen and getting a 17 yo gf and looking at her rack?

morally i mean

also, if you lined up 30 17/18 yo's you could pick out all the 18 yo's?

Doesn't matter, really. Here, the law is 18.

morally....

here it's 16 for sex but 18 for the porn
what then?

 

[DaWhim]

was it mean to be hookers restaurant?

 

[SweetSweetLeroyBrown]

Originally posted by: McCarthy
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but this is during the interview? Doesn't say interview in the article, but does say of women 'who applied for'. Thing is, why were they changing into the uniform for the interview in the first place? Keep in mind Hooters lost a lawsuit some years ago where they argued they should be allowed to only hire females, seems like an obvious lawsuit if you have someone get in the uniform for the interview and decline them because their breasts don't hang right. Kind of amazing they're not getting sued right and left if this is chain policy.

Unless it was during a training period, then it'd make sense and still fit with the 'applied for'. Nitpicky I know, but struck me as odd. It is a violation of law story, another law apect doesn't seem that out of place I trust. As for those who think this is way cool and want the vids, well...some things you can't even say on the internet.

An employer can legally discrimanate against empolyee applicants FOR ANY REASON, as long as it is not an illegal reason.

Illegal reasons for discrimination include, discriminating against sex, age, religion, and race....and maybe sexual orientation.

So, yes, and employer can legally discriminate against a female employee because she is ugly.

 

[SweetSweetLeroyBrown]

Originally posted by: GermyBoy

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt Hmm... women are surprised that they were being taped, yet they're willing to work for an employer that requires the semi-racey outfits?

The video taping was an invasion of privacy moron.

Actually you can videotape anyone for any reason. You just cannot take their voices and you cannot make money from their movies, or distribute, etc.

That only applies to taping persons in PUBLIC.

It is illegal to secretly tape a person when that person is in a place where he/she has a reasonable belief of privacy (ie. bathrooms, bedrooms, changing rooms etc.)

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: SweetSweetLeroyBrown

Originally posted by: GermyBoy

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt Hmm... women are surprised that they were being taped, yet they're willing to work for an employer that requires the semi-racey outfits?

The video taping was an invasion of privacy moron.

Actually you can videotape anyone for any reason. You just cannot take their voices and you cannot make money from their movies, or distribute, etc.

That only applies to taping persons in PUBLIC.

It is illegal to secretly tape a person when that person is in a place where he/she has a reasonable belief of privacy (ie. bathrooms, bedrooms, changing rooms etc.)

yeap i was going to say something like that.

you cant tape anyone in the bathroom or such. though i do remember hearing about a court case where one of the big stores were tapeing the changing rooms.

 

[McCarthy]

Update: Arrest made in the case

WEST COVINA, California (AP) -- A man who worked for the Atlanta-based Hooters restaurant chain, known for its scantily clad waitresses, is accused of secretly videotaping job candidates while they changed into uniforms.

Juan Aponte, 32, was arrested Friday for investigation of secretly recording and photographing nearly 200 women and girls, ages 17 to 25, between November and February when they applied for work at a Hooters restaurant that was under construction, police said.

He is being held in the city jail on $500,000 bail.

Aponte is also being sued by five women who said he invaded their privacy and touched some of them while taking photographs of them as they tried on the Hooters uniform of low-cut tank tops and tight shorts.

The lawsuit, which also names the Hooters of America, as a defendant, seeks unspecified damages.

Aponte's attorney could not be reached for comment.

At the time the lawsuit was filed in March, Hooters spokesman Mike McNeil said the alleged videotaping was "one person acting outside the scope of company policy."

 

[PoPPeR]

i'd really like to see the evidence before making a decision

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Sweet. Thanks for the update McCarthy.