Attractiveness discrimination

Hiring hotties

When can an employer prefer the attractive over the homely?

See article

Readers' comments



I feel this is taking discrimination cases too far, especially if the investigation was initiated without any complaint by a worker, patron or prospective employee. Establishments like Marylou's are simply reacting to pressure from the forces of market demand. If they can get more business by hiring attractive, young women, well that's just part of their business model. Even in cases like Abercrombie and Fitch, they are merely trying to better cater to customer tastes, and as always, it's hard to blame a business or their management for just trying to do what they're supposed to do - make a profit.

The discrimination we see present in the hiring choices of such businesses apply only to "front" jobs where attractive individuals will always be preferred over "homely" individuals. Even in non customer facing jobs, attractiveness is just an additional qualification that while not necessary, is a benefit to finding employment.

This discrimination will only end if people stop preferring to look at and interact with attractive people, or white people, or whatever category that is being favored in these jobs.


Anything is ok to sell nowadays, people call it modern marketing, other kind of people hate this marketing practices, but eventually all these actions seek to attract more customers to the businesses and earn more money.
Marketing has become wild, and many companies have entered into this new war to claim the attention of possible customers. I remember several extremely polemical campaigns that have taken place in these last years:
-A campaign by Ryanair in Spain to promote domestic tourism with tickets at "bailout prices"
-Benetton-campaign (in which Obama and Chavez are kissing, also Sarkozy and Merkel ...)

As seen everything now is "good" to sell in greater quantities and due to this also promote a product or a brand.




Just to be clear, you're saying you prefer a world in which gays, blacks, jews, and the like can be actively discriminated against, because for you this world is preferable to a world in which an unattractive person might serve you coffee.

Can't imagine why anyone would mock that... in reply to Polyethylene





I think that businesses and their owners are far less racist than racist patrons. If a businesses decides to hire hot white ladies as opposed to hot black ones, it is most likely because the patrons are racist (research is needed to confirm this), and the hot white ladies bring in more money. I believe Abercrombie and Fitch does not see a white young physically-fit lady as fundamentally superior to a black young physically-fit lady. The white lady is merely superior in this business only, and only from a financial standpoint. If the patrons weren't racist, the business would have no reason to prefer white over black.
Racist patrons, on the other hand, genuinely believe certain people with certain characteristics are "better" than others. This is a far more fundamental, and pressing, problem. Solving it should be of paramount concern. I believe exposure is the best way to solve this problem. If a racist patron walks into his or her favorite store and is greeted by a black staff member, she may be upset intially. But over time, the "blackness" will become normal, and she will see that the black people could be just as nice/effective/good/etc. as white people. Such a move may reduce the business' profits initially, but profits should recover over time.
So I think we have been looking at this the wrong way. Many see the primary goal of anti-discriminatory labor laws as creating jobs for the victims of discrimination, at the expense of some profit for the businesses. I, however, think that the more important effect is that such laws prevent businesses from catering to the racism of their patrons, thereby combating such racism on a wide scale in society. The overall benefit of reduced long-term racism in society trumps the short-term financial benefit to the business, justifying such laws.
As mentioned before, this is mere speculation, and should be confirmed via research.
The case for discrimination against attractiveness somewhat different: 1) blacks cannot become white (except Michael, of course), but homely girls can learn to become more attractive; make-up, exercise, plastic surgery, and proper body language are a few ways to get there. 2) Patrons' preference for white staff (racism) degrades over time, but patrons will always enjoy looking at attractive staff more than unattractive ones.

Wrath-Kos in reply to Keyvey

You're missing one major thing here. Why would a company do this willingly? If as a company I can get money from the racist customers without losing any business from the non-racist customers, why would I want to be the one who fights their racism? As a business I don't care about combating long-term racism, I care about my profits.

I see the solution in the second prong. If you see a store catering to the racist customers then stop shopping there. Your cash is a far more powerful weapon than an anti-discrimination law.

Keyvey in reply to Wrath-Kos

That's the point: a company will NOT do away with racism willingly when the patrons desire it; this is why we need laws against discrimination. I admit that such laws eat into the profit and freedom of businesses in the short term, but in the long term, the reduced racism is best for everybody, even the businesses: if racism is not an issue, the business will have a larger pool of potential employees to pick out of. This has major advantages in terms of finding better people for the job, and having more negotiation power over them as well. It increases competition, and competition is good.


Physical appearance and intelligence are both heavily genetic.




If sexiness sells, let it.

Omricon in reply to Pa5tabear

Pretty salespeople are rewarded for selling regardless of whether they use their brains or beauty to do so which is entirely meritocratic.

Business Intelligence is praised because it leads to profit and this usually leads to pleased shareholders, managers and employees.


I firmly believe that any employer should not employ on a merit such as female or attractiveness unless it is part of the job description. Otherwise it is blatantly illegal. So if Coffee shop A advertises a position for customer service and making coffee then looks dont matter. However if you have a hooters like chain that advertises a position saying the primary role is to "be attractive to male customers" then its ok not to hire men. Its exactly like the courts said about Southwest.

There is no problem hiring women, men, midgets, blacks or white (for example if you are hiring for an actor for George Washington the candidates have to be white men). But to do this you must post a job description that specifies this bias and this bias must fall into our civil rights framework. If you post a generic job description so you can not be vetted by the law and then hire a specific group of people then you are breaking the law.

Reeko in reply to Ashatru

They are hired to make patrons happy and willing to come back to the store again, if a pretty girl does that better than a non prety girl or good looking guy over an ugly looking guy then they are meeting their job description. So would it be discrimination for a gay bar that focus on "bears" to not hire a hot gay guy but instead choose a "bear" because of the demographic of th bar? No difference. Is it discrimination for a film company to hire Leoardo Di Caprior for his looks and the market they are aiming for say than Mark Raffalo? Of course not because that is the market they are going for.

JGUvC2Hfww in reply to Ashatru

"Otherwise it is blatantly illegal." - Says who? Because if you read the article correctly, in most places in the US it is legal. The Southwest case was only about gender discrimination; Southwest may still hire only beautiful people... so long as they don't fly to SF/DC/SC.


i am a man, and i am attracted to women... hence if i go to a store, or coffe shop or restraurant, my meal (or drink) will taste better just by the mere presence of pretty faces.
i used to enjoy flying when i was kid.. the stewardesses were pretty and sexy; now, not so... the exception being KLM... i love flying KLM, they are the only airline that still has pretty, sexy stewardesses.
face it, everyone discriminates. people like a pretty woman with a nice body shape. and women know this, so when they are young and look good, they flaunt it left and right; but when age comes a knocking and gravity starts pulling, oh well... gone are the good days.
the solution ofcourse is that we all walk around with big boxes covering us from head to toe; and we have little periscopes to look through -- otherwise you'll have a bunch of boxes bumping into each other along the road.



Mr Will

I think the act of a face-to-face interview is discrimination, you act on your judgement regardless of how subconsciously discriminating you are. You may choose women in your retail outlet because your customers react better to women than men. That is considered acceptable. If you have a shop that sells mainly to old people, most of whom are white, they would most likely react better to a white woman than a black woman. You're discriminating against them because your customers would!

Surely if there is no complaint then there should be no investigation otherwise this would throw up endless possibilities for investigations.


I don't think any woman that is in reasonable shape and willing to put on a bit of makeup will have a problem getting a job at this place. I have never been to the establishment mentioned in the article. However, having visited a few Hooters, I can ensure the Economist readership that their standards aren't exactly that demanding.

Connect The Dots

The newest trend in hot coffee is Sexy Coffee.

Served by well endowed women in sexy lingerie, bikinis or sexy Halloween costumes. (i.e. Sexy French Maid, Sexy Nurse, Sexy Witch, Sexy cheerleader, Sexy CEO.)

You pick your preference for costume, and it is like optioning another double shot cappuccino, shot of chocolate syrup, and choice of milk. They make it, you anxiously watch, get served, and pay. ***There may be a lot of bending and stooping as the refrigerator is mounted low.

Apparently they get high customer loyalty and fabulous tips.
...But the coffee is nothing to brag about.

These barristas make coffee nervous.

It is the whispered Secret everyone knows but no one can mention: SEX SELLS.


This is like all of the Hooters lawsuits that have been kicked around over the years. As I recall Hooters usually argues BFOQ, and then tries to settle the case.

It is clear that the Rockettes can hire all female dancers, just like Playboy clubs and Chippendales can discriminate on the basis of gender and attractiveness. These "theme" restaurants fall in an ambiguous area in-between regular restaurant (primary purpose: feed folks) and theme club (primary purpose: entertain folks).


Santa Cruz actually does not prohibit discrimination based on attractiveness, but rather on "Physical Characteristics", defined as follows:

"Physical characteristic" shall mean a bodily condition or bodily characteristic of any person which is from birth, accident, or disease, or from any natural physical development, or any other event outside the control of that person including individual physical mannerisms.

Weight and height are also protected classes. Discrimination is prohibited in employment, housing, education, and against customers. But, and here is the rub, there is a blanket exception when "justified by a reasonable business purpose", or for "a bona fide occupational qualification [or] a bona fide physical requirement"

Thus, restaurants with beautiful servers should be safe for now.


As my ancient grandmother used to say, "You catch more flies with honey". It's not that the honeypots squeeze out the short, squat and repulsive, it's that honey's a better lure.

Swiss Reader


guest-ilmmsss in reply to Swiss Reader

Discrimination happens everywhere! You can't force companies to hire people based on a checklist just so that everyone is included in everything. Problems such as this one arise from statistics, governments do not want real life, they want a world that has been manipulated with numbers. The banking community know a lot about this!

guest-ilmmsss in reply to nGdE7t2KKT

I couldn't agree more. Quotas technically increase the discrimination because companies are forced to decline interviewees that don't fit the quota criteria. (Bordering on a whole new line of discrimination here).

mahagwa in reply to Swiss Reader

have u ever worked in corporate america? i ask this because if you had, you will realize that there already exist a ton of idiots in corporate america (especially at the management and executive levels). i've been a manager in corporate america, and found that after one year, my brain cells started dying.... they do nothing but sit in meetings (to schedule the next meeting, at which they will discuss when to schedule the next meeting to discuss what was supposed to be covered in the first meeting)... and when you have people that have been at the same level of management for 10-15 years, their brains are really dead.
so corporate america is already well endowed with idiots. i would rather work for a small to mid-size company.. or own my own business (which i now do).. that way, i can actually accomplish something.

Bill_T in reply to Swiss Reader

Comments so far apply to only parts of the story. Female barristas are in a "shop window" in the hope of meeting someone who will become an attractive marriage parter.
Previously, flight attendants (then called air hostesses), hotel receptionists, Car hire counter staff, other customer contact people and interns enjoyed a high success rate in the marriage market, and left their jobs to live with partners met in the course of their work. This is why the "young" qualification is important. They are gone by age 30, leaving space for their successors.





Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

