"My husband is a rising executive for an international company. He does a lot of interviews for new hires. The other day he said to me that he was planning to have lunch at Hooters with a potential employee. When I voiced my concern about his choice of restaurant, he patronizingly said he met his boss at a Hooters. I doubt that, but as he was dressing to go, I reiterated my concern. He left for work without even his usual kiss goodbye."
"He said it would be embarrassing for him to change the meeting place now, but he would do it for me. He stated he did not see anything wrong with this venue, and I was making "mountains from molehills." He doesn't seem to understand that he has been conducting business at a place that holds little regard for women. Not so incidentally, the company is dealing with a discrimination action by female employees."
"It's Hooters that insists on mountains not molehills. I agree with you that your husband is jeopardizing his standing in the company by making this salacious place his satellite office. When you asked him if he would bring a female candidate to Hooters, you don't say what his response was. Maybe he didn't have one because he knows it would never happen. That doesn't mean it"
A wife is upset that her husband planned a lunch interview at Hooters with a potential employee. He dismissed her concerns and said meeting his boss at Hooters established precedent. He later texted that changing locations would embarrass him but agreed to do so while insisting the venue was acceptable. The company faces a discrimination action by female employees, making the choice more problematic. Conducting business in a sexualized environment undermines respect for women, creates poor optics, and risks professional and legal consequences. Executives should select neutral, professional venues and consider how choices affect company culture.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]