James Sharp applied for a bartending gig in 2015 at Sammy's Gentlemen's Club, blocks from the Gulf of Mexico on Florida's panhandle. He said he was turned away.

Sammy's subsequently hired at least two female bartenders at the club's Fort Walton Beach location, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The EEOC last week sued Sammy's, under the ownership of Gold Inc., in Pensacola, Florida, federal district court. The complaint alleged gender discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, and it also claimed Sammy's failed to preserve certain employment records—including employment applications—as required by federal law. Sammy's, according to the EEOC, employed 17 female bartenders and no men between Jan. 1, 2015 and Dec. 31, 2015.

“Although sex-based discrimination against women may be more common than against men, employers must realize that no person, male or female, can be denied employment based on sex, except in the rare instances when gender is a bona fide occupational qualification,” Marsha Rucker, the EEOC regional attorney in Alabama, said in a statement. “When hiring decisions are made based on an applicant's sex, the EEOC will act to enforce the federal laws that were enacted to prohibit such discrimination.”

A representative of Gold Inc. wasn't immediately reached for comment Monday.

The EEOC said it tried to give Sammy's a chance to “remedy the discrimination practices” before filing the lawsuit. The commission in March told Sammy's that the agency was “unable to secure from the defendant a conciliation agreement acceptable to the commission.”

Gender discrimination cases brought by men are rare. In 2014, the beauty products wholesaler Ventura Corp., agreed to pay $454,350 to settle EEOC claims that the company, based in Puerto Rico, refused to hire men and retaliated against a male employee, Erick Zayas, who spoke out about alleged discrimination.

“This case is another reminder that federal law protects both men and women from gender discrimination,” Robert Weisberg, regional attorney for the EEOC's Miami District Office, said in a statement then. “We are pleased that we have been able to secure relief not only for Mr. Zayas, but also for the many qualified applicants who were not considered by Ventura for employment simply because they were male.”

The restaurant chain Ruby Tuesday Inc. two years ago paid $100,000 to resolve claims that managers denied two male employees the chance to work as servers in Park City, Utah. The agency said it filed suit in Oregon federal district court after failing to reach resolution through a conciliation process.

In the case against Sammy's, the EEOC wants a federal judge to force the club to stop engaging in alleged discriminatory hiring practices. The agency also said it wants Sammy's to compensate Sharp for back pay and interest.

Erin Mulvaney in Washington contributed to this report.

James Sharp applied for a bartending gig in 2015 at Sammy's Gentlemen's Club, blocks from the Gulf of Mexico on Florida's panhandle. He said he was turned away.

Sammy's subsequently hired at least two female bartenders at the club's Fort Walton Beach location, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The EEOC last week sued Sammy's, under the ownership of Gold Inc., in Pensacola, Florida, federal district court. The complaint alleged gender discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, and it also claimed Sammy's failed to preserve certain employment records—including employment applications—as required by federal law. Sammy's, according to the EEOC, employed 17 female bartenders and no men between Jan. 1, 2015 and Dec. 31, 2015.

“Although sex-based discrimination against women may be more common than against men, employers must realize that no person, male or female, can be denied employment based on sex, except in the rare instances when gender is a bona fide occupational qualification,” Marsha Rucker, the EEOC regional attorney in Alabama, said in a statement. “When hiring decisions are made based on an applicant's sex, the EEOC will act to enforce the federal laws that were enacted to prohibit such discrimination.”

A representative of Gold Inc. wasn't immediately reached for comment Monday.

The EEOC said it tried to give Sammy's a chance to “remedy the discrimination practices” before filing the lawsuit. The commission in March told Sammy's that the agency was “unable to secure from the defendant a conciliation agreement acceptable to the commission.”

Gender discrimination cases brought by men are rare. In 2014, the beauty products wholesaler Ventura Corp., agreed to pay $454,350 to settle EEOC claims that the company, based in Puerto Rico, refused to hire men and retaliated against a male employee, Erick Zayas, who spoke out about alleged discrimination.

“This case is another reminder that federal law protects both men and women from gender discrimination,” Robert Weisberg, regional attorney for the EEOC's Miami District Office, said in a statement then. “We are pleased that we have been able to secure relief not only for Mr. Zayas, but also for the many qualified applicants who were not considered by Ventura for employment simply because they were male.”

The restaurant chain Ruby Tuesday Inc. two years ago paid $100,000 to resolve claims that managers denied two male employees the chance to work as servers in Park City, Utah. The agency said it filed suit in Oregon federal district court after failing to reach resolution through a conciliation process.

In the case against Sammy's, the EEOC wants a federal judge to force the club to stop engaging in alleged discriminatory hiring practices. The agency also said it wants Sammy's to compensate Sharp for back pay and interest.

Erin Mulvaney in Washington contributed to this report.