TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Court Backs Firing of Waitress Without Makeup
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Court Backs Firing of Waitress Without Makeup

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
Court Backs Firing of Waitress Without Makeup

SAN FRANCISCO (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 on 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 confirm 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.
post #2 of 11
Thread Starter 
Maybe it's petty, but this really bothers me - as long as she was well-groomed and performed her job well, what difference does it make whether or not she wore makeup?

Personally, I'd much rather see someone with no makeup and a clean, well-groomed appearance than someone wearing too much and looking like a clown. Think Tammy Faye

"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.


To me, this is not a valid comparison - they're comparing allowing a woman to choose to maintain an appearance in line with a common social norm (long hair), to requiring a woman to paint her face daily, to maintain an appearance in line with what some people consider a social norm.

Personally, I only wear makeup on special occasions. My every day face is just that - my face. It's clean and groomed (eyebrows plucked, nails filed, etc.), but I don't feel the need to paint myself every day, and no one has ever told me that my appearance isn't in line with social norms. I've held jobs dealing with the public before, and never received any negative feedback about my appearance. Though if my job rested on it, I'd probably slap on some lipstick or something, but I would still think it's a ridiculous thing to require.

What's next? Requiring pierced ears and high heels? :
post #3 of 11
No fair! She was a bartender there before the policy was instituted, right?
post #4 of 11
Thread Starter 
According to the article, she worked there for 20 years, and was a much-praised employee. Seems pretty stupid to fire a good employee just because she didn't want to wear makeup.

I also have to wonder if it wasn't also a convenient way to get rid of an older employee, to replace her with a younger & more eye-appealing one.
post #5 of 11
::censor::censor::censor::

ok fine! FINE. Next time I see a waiter who I think could look a bit better, let me tell ya, I'm whipping out my mascara and demanding he put some on!
post #6 of 11
How does wearing makeup affect job performance? What a bunch of chauvinistic hooey!
post #7 of 11


Oh sheesh, if I worked there, I would have been fired right away, as I almost never wear make up! The only makeup I wear is lip gloss and that is just to kepe my lips moisurised!!!

This is just plain ridiculous!
post #8 of 11
I wonder if they required full makeup or just any makeup? I wonder what they would have thought if an employee showed up with full goth makeup - paper white face, heavy black eyes and black lips. After all - that IS makeup!

At the same time, depending on the standard...part of me says that if you have a job, play the game to keep the job. If they would have let her stay if she had, for instance, just worn some mascara and some color on her lips, is that too difficult?

Perhaps the reason I have this opinion is because of a friend of mine (she's approaching 40 years old, too ). She's a pharmacy tech and was working in a hospital. She's...um...unique. Yeah, we'll say that. She has white blonde hair with the under side of her hair black. She wears goth-ish make up all the time (not the extreme all black and white, but it's very dramatic). She also has fingernails that are about 2" long and always painted purple or black. The hospital adopted a policy about the length of fingernails, and told her that she could either trim her nails or lose her job. No issues with other aspects of her appearance. Now, I could see the hospital's point, dealing with pills and such. She wouldn't budge and decided that she wouldn't allow them to stifle her individuality so she quit. I thought it was a fair concession to make to keep the job, but that's just me. Goodness knows, I make appearance concessions all the time! I never dyed my hair different colors when I wanted to, I have to wear clothes that I wouldn't normally wear (professional stuff), sometimes wear uncomfortable shoes to be professional, and I do wear makeup to work even though it isn't "required" because it does present a more professional appearance.
post #9 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedokitties
I also have to wonder if it wasn't also a convenient way to get rid of an older employee, to replace her with a younger & more eye-appealing one.
That was the first thought to cross my mind when I saw the article yesterday.
post #10 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb

At the same time, depending on the standard...part of me says that if you have a job, play the game to keep the job. If they would have let her stay if she had, for instance, just worn some mascara and some color on her lips, is that too difficult?
Maybe she's allergic to most make-up, maybe she's not good at applying it. Certian religions are against it - although I doubt that's her reason since she was bartending.

I worked in an all ladies gym once. I quit when the owner said I had to "curl my tendrils."
post #11 of 11
I can't wear make-up at my job, we work in a clean-room environment making medical devices and can't risk any possibility of contamination.

In fact - you can get written up for wearing it (this is not a joke) and ordered to go home and wash it all off. No make-up, especially no perfume/cologne of any kind, no hairspray. We are even encouraged to not put on moisturizers that contain silicones of any kind - they get everywhere and do not wash off easily. (and believe me just about everything these days contains: dimethicone, dimethiconol, amodimethicone, siloxane, cyclomethicone etc etc.)

Something tell me though that this Casino just wanted to get rid of an older employee.

I would be interested if this Casino lets the employees fill out expense reports for their make-up (seeing that this is a job requirement).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Court Backs Firing of Waitress Without Makeup