Is Hooters Liable?

Question

In a recent case a Hooters resturant manager asked 15 potential applicants to go try on hooters outfits. He sent them to a trailer where they undressed and put on the outfits. It was later discovered that the changing was being video taped by the manager and police seized 150 digital photos. Hooters denies any role and claims that the manager acted on his own. Can the women succeed in a lawsuit against the Hooters company? If So what can they claim?

Answer 1

This happened in 2004. The guy conducting the "interviews" got 5 years in prison.

Answer 2

Hooters may very well be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. From Wikipedia:

"Respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") is a legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment.[1] This rule is also called the "Master-Servant Rule". It is recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.[2] (It is also sometimes written as respondent superior, the plural form.)

In common law:
When applied to physical torts an employer/employee relationship must be established and the act must be committed within the scope of employment (i.e. substantially within time and geographical limits, job description and at least with partial intent to further employer's business).

Historically, this doctrine was applied in master/servant or employer/employee relationships. If the employee or servant committed a civil wrong against a third party, the master or employer could be liable for the acts of their servant or employee when those acts were committed within the scope of the relationship. The third party could proceed against both the servant/employee and master/employer. The action against the servant/employee would be based upon the direct responsibility of the servant/employee for his conduct. The action against the master/employer is based upon the theory of vicarious liability, by which one party can be held liable for the acts of another.

Employer/employee relationships are the most common area wherein respondeat superior is applied, but often the doctrine is used in the agency relationship. In this, the principal becomes liable for the actions of the agent, even if the principal did not directly commit the act. There are three considerations generally:

Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the agency?
Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the agent is authorized to perform? and
was the agent motivated to any degree to benefit the principal by committing the act?
The degree to which these are answered in the affirmative will dictate the degree to which the doctrine can be applied.

Common law distinguishes between civil and criminal forms of respondeat superior.

Answer 3

If Hooters knew or had any reason to know of the manager's propensity to commit such an act (placing the camera) then Hooters can be held liable for negligence.

If Hooters ordered the manager to place the camera, then the applicants can sue Hooters or the manager for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Other than that, the manager is on the hook all by himself.

Answer 4

In this country, anything is possible when it comes to suing. The man acted alone. If it can be proven that Hooters said to do it then,yes. Other than that, I doubt it'll make it that far.