Stewardess wanted for northern summer New York

[Sailing2018 0]

3 month Contract mid June to mid sept.

STCW95 an advantage

90ft yacht that day sails out of Sag Harbor

Some deckhand work and cooking

All expenses paid

Please contact Cris 021405426

[MarkMT 68]

So only women should apply?? Interesting... https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm

[Black Panther 821]

You've obviously never seen me in fishnets and stilettos.

[SloopJohnB 181]

Unfortunately.  

[DanInEurope 34]

So only women should apply?? Interesting... https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm

He didn't say only women should apply. He just gave the job title as 'stewardess'. If he said 'steward' it wouldn't imply that only men could apply either.

[Sailing2018 0]

Yes any sex can apply, Thanks Cris

[MarkMT 68]

He didn't say only women should apply. He just gave the job title as 'stewardess'. If he said 'steward' it wouldn't imply that only men could apply either.

 

Not trying to wind anyone up as Cris's response effectively settles the issue. Still Dan's point is interesting... I certainly concur with your second point about 'steward' - I don't think anyone would dispute that that term is gender-neutral. But I think it would be a lot harder to find people who consider 'stewardess' to also be gender-neutral. Indeed it's not hard to find references that explicitly define it in gender-specific terms and I suspect many would take the choice of language to mean that only women should apply. But whether a US court would take that view I have no idea.

[DanInEurope 34]

Not trying to wind anyone up as Cris's response effectively settles the issue. Still Dan's point is interesting... I certainly concur with your second point about 'steward' - I don't think anyone would dispute that that term is gender-neutral. But I think it would be a lot harder to find people who consider 'stewardess' to also be gender-neutral. Indeed it's not hard to find references that explicitly define it in gender-specific terms and I suspect many would take the choice of language to mean that only women should apply. But whether a US court would take that view I have no idea.

 

It is an interesting point.  Legally speaking, the masculine also includes the feminine and vice versa - unless specified otherwise.  Hence even in the 1964 US Civil Rights Code, it universally uses 'his' to ascribe rights.  In this case I think you would have to be specific that only women apply as well as use the term stewardess.  However, in these days of over sensitivity to such matters, I'm not sure how a US tribunal would see it.

 

Interestingly the Civil Rights code does allow exceptions, such as when the gender of the applicant is essential to the job.  However in the case of airline stewardesses at least, the exception doesn't hold, so won't here either.  What is somewhat ironic is that if there was a sexual aspect to this job - ie some form of 'adult entertainment' then the employer would be justified in law in discriminating!

[Sabre 374]

What is somewhat ironic is that if there was a sexual aspect to this job - ie some form of 'adult entertainment' then the employer would be justified in law in discriminating!

Nothing ironic about that. If the law can save just one person from seeing BP in fishnets and stilettos then discriminate away!