Battleground Restaurants, Inc. and Battleground Restaurant Group, Inc., which operate Kickback Jack's restaurants, agreed to pay $1,111,300 to resolve a federal lawsuit brought by the EEOC that contained allegations of sex-based hiring discrimination.

The EEOC alleged that, from at least December 2019 through February 18, 2022, the restaurants systematically refused or failed to hire male applicants for non-managerial front-of-house jobs such as servers, bartenders, and hosts.

During this period, of the more than 2,100 individuals employed in those positions at 19 locations in North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee, only approximately three percent were male, and some locations allegedly had no male servers.

The EEOC alleges there was no legitimate business justification for excluding men from these roles and also alleged failures to comply with Title VII recordkeeping requirements.

The consent decree enjoins the company from sex-based hiring practices, prohibits steering applicants into roles on the basis of sex, and bars improper disposal of application records. It requires adoption of anti-discrimination policies, revised hiring procedures that disregard sex, interviews for all qualified applicants, inclusion of male servers in promotional materials, annual Title VII training for hiring personnel, and periodic reporting to the EEOC on hiring practices.

Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/kickback-jacks-pay-11-million-refusing-hire-men

Commentary

In the above matter, the EEOC sued to enforce Title VII's prohibition on sex-based hiring discrimination. Federal and state laws require employers to treat men and women the same in all aspects of employment, including recruiting, interviewing, selecting, and assigning people to positions.

As for federal law, Title VII does not allow employers to prefer one sex over another based on stereotypes, branding preferences, or assumptions about customer expectations, and those rules apply no matter the gender of the disfavored group.

For employers, this case underscores that workforce statistics can become powerful evidence of discriminatory hiring. It also illustrates that failures in basic HR controls, such as incomplete records of applications, interviews and selection criteria, can compound legal exposure when a pattern of exclusion is alleged.

A "women only" or "mostly women" model for visible roles may seem like a branding choice, but when it leads to systematically rejecting qualified men, it is a violation of federal and state laws.

Practical steps employers can take include:

· Audit hiring data for roles and locations with gender imbalances and investigate why

· Standardize job-related selection criteria and apply the same criteria to every applicant regardless of sex

· Train managers that hiring must be based on merit and that customer or branding preferences tied to sex can violate Title VII

· Maintain complete, accurate records of applications, interviews, decisions, and reasons for selection or non-selection as required by federal regulations

· Review job ads, social media, and marketing images to avoid signaling that only one sex is welcome to apply

· Build internal complaint channels so applicants and employees can raise concerns early.

The final takeaway is that Title VII protects men and women equally. The best defense is a disciplined, well-documented hiring process that evaluates every applicant on job-related criteria only.