Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Gender-based discounts (e.g. Ladies Night specials at bars) have been declared to be illegal forms of discrimination in California and New Jersey, and maybe some other states.
What about the discount above that I saw today at my dry cleaner in Michigan, would that be an illegal "gender-based discount?"
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
10 Comments:
A man wouldn't get a discount on a dress he brought in for cleaning? Wives and girlfriends will have to take care of their own dry cleaning. Quel domage.
Yes it would! Welcome to the Socialist States of America.
You're assuming it's illegal for men to wear dresses.
What a mish mash of politically correct conundrums this presents!
Bye Bye freedom!
@blogdog & @seadogsf
No, he correctly said gender, which allows for men wearing dresses (gender = masculine, feminine, or neuter). He didn't say sex (sex = male or female).
But as to whether it would be illegal, that depends on whether it's illegal in MI to discriminate according to gender. In most places it's merely illegal to discriminate by sex.
I think the sign refers to the hems. Fashions are getting shorter, you know.
The sign doesn't give a discount to all incoming female customers, only to a particular article of clothing, one that is is reasonable to assume has not been coming in at the volume the dry cleaner would like. Men are perfectly free to bring in the dresses of their wives, daughters, mothers, or even their own. You can't claim gender discrimination just because a certain sale item is "associated" with a particular race, gender, religion, etc.
It is not, in particular, a defense to say they would also give a discount on a man's dress. I mean, African-Americans could have voted in the post-Civil War South as long they passed their literacy tests, right?
The point is that "adverse impact" is a legally recognized form of discrimination. That a policy does not target a particular group of people does not mean that it's non-discriminatory.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_impact
Not making any conclusions, just point this out.
Anyone who would take the time to object to this ought to be put on trial, found guilty of being a busybody and be given a court-ordered hobby.
He could do macrame right next similar prisoners from the ACLU who catch the vapors every time they see a cross.
Do not most businesses just offer discounts and specials on products or services that need to move?? .....Or maybe..... the owner is a guy and he's looking for dates rather than resort to his internet porn...
Post a Comment
<< Home