Court backs firing of waitress without makeup

gldstwmn · #1 12-28-2004, 09:13 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/28/co...eut/index.html

SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- A female bartender who refused to wear makeup at a Reno, Nevada, casino was not unfairly dismissed from her job, a U.S. federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Darlene Jespersen, who had worked for nearly 20 years at a Harrah's Entertainment Inc casino bar in Reno, Nevada, objected to the company's revised policy that required female bartenders, but not men, to wear makeup.

A previously much-praised employee, Jespersen was fired in 2000 after the firm instituted a "Beverage Department Image Transformation" program and she sued, alleging sex discrimination.

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling in favor of Harrah's. All three judges are males appointed by Democratic presidents.

"We have previously held that grooming and appearance standards that apply differently to women and men do not constitute discrimination on the basis of sex," Judge Wallace Tashima wrote for the majority.

He cited the precedent of a 1974 case in which the court ruled that a company can require men to have short hair but allow long hair on women.

The Lambda Legal Defense Fund, a gay rights group that backed Jespersen's suit, had argued that forcing female employees to have different standards than men was unlawful under rules, known as Title VII, against discrimination on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

The ruling found, however, that the casino's appearance standards were no more burdensome for women than for men.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Sidney Thomas backed the reasoning of the plaintiff. "Harrah's fired Jespersen because of her failure to conform to sex stereotypes, which is discrimination based on sex and is therefore impermissible under Title VII," he wrote.

"The distinction created by the majority opinion leaves men and women in services industries, who are more likely to be subject to policies like the Harrah's 'Personal Best' policy, without the protection that white-collar professionals receive," he wrote.

amber · #2 12-28-2004, 09:15 PM

Christ.

strandinthewind · #3 12-28-2004, 09:17 PM

This was a tough case. I think in the end, the court did the right thing. Thanks for posting.

sara1998 · #4 12-28-2004, 09:19 PM

What a bunch of bull****. Anyone ever heard of a I-don't-wanna-do-anything-to-myself-today day?? What bastards.

Nixxxed · #5 12-28-2004, 09:50 PM

If I were that waitress, I would've gone completely Tammy Faye with my makeup in protest. Or worse ... Michael Jackson.

I think this is pretty crappy.

½ ¡Ñ§ÅñË ® · #6 12-28-2004, 09:56 PM

[QUOTE=Nixxxed]If I were that waitress, I would've gone completely Tammy Faye with my makeup in protest. Or worse ... Michael Jackson.

QUOTE]Yeah what she said.

SuzeQuze · #7 12-28-2004, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/28/co...eut/index.html
...
The ruling found, however, that the casino's appearance standards were no more burdensome for women than for men...

How can this be true if the men do not have to wear makeup? Of course it is more burdensome for women. Do the men have to wear panty hose or bras? These things take time to put on. Do men typically need curling irons or blow dryers? This part of their finding just can't be true IMO.

Having said that, I almost never leave my house without makeup on, I'm just a girlie girl. But I don't think anyone should be required to wear it. Most bar tenders in that context just would, I wonder why she won't?

ontheEdgeof17 · #8 12-28-2004, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

How can this be true if the men do not have to wear makeup? Of course it is more burdensome for women. Do the men have to wear panty hose or bras? These things take time to put on. Do men typically need curling irons or blow dryers? This part of their finding just can't be true IMO.

Taking 5 seconds to put on a bra is far from burdensome. Try shaving....it's a major pain in the ass. And some men do blow dry their hair. My hair is longer now and it is cold out so I blow dry mine.

gldstwmn · #9 12-28-2004, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

How can this be true if the men do not have to wear makeup? Of course it is more burdensome for women. Do the men have to wear panty hose or bras?

I had this one broad complaining one time because I do not wear panty hose. I haven't worn them since I was a waitress in the 80's.

She was trying to tell the manager that I was violating the dress code because I never wore hose with my skirts.
Corporate America-not for me.

SuzeQuze · #10 12-28-2004, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

Taking 5 seconds to put on a bra is far from burdensome. Try shaving....it's a major pain in the ass. And some men do blow dry their hair. My hair is longer now and it is cold out so I blow dry mine.

LOL! The bra thing is a stretch yeah.

We shave too but not our faces which does look like a pain. Legs and 'pits also ain't no picnic.

strandinthewind · #11 12-28-2004, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ontheEdgeof17

Taking 5 seconds to put on a bra is far from burdensome. Try shaving....it's a major pain in the ass. And some men do blow dry their hair. My hair is longer now and it is cold out so I blow dry mine.

You know damn good and well this is a losing argument no matter how true it may be. The fillies just take 20 minutes to do what the guys do in five. I cite the ladies roon ritual and the hours on hours of total time I have been kept waiting as an example

ontheEdgeof17 · #12 12-28-2004, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You know damn good and well this is a losing argument no matter how true it may be. The fillies just take 20 minutes to do what the guys do in five. I cite the ladies roon ritual and the hours on hours of total time I have been kept waiting as an example

It's their own damn fault. Pee and get the hell out. How hard is that?