Posted on 12/29/2004 8:39:47 AM PST by freespirited
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.
Figures
Hey, any gall who has been serving cocktails in the smoky Reno casinos for 20 years probably needs more than a little makeup. Any pics available??
Can women write off the cost of makeup if the job requires it?
Now there's a real shocker.... NOT
It is absurd that this case ever made it into court. Employers cannot hire and fire other Americans as they see fit? The government must approve of it? I'm glad that the judicial system was so gracious on this occasion.
If I was a cocktail waitress I'd want to look my best. More TIPS!!!
lol... strange days. me thinks she should be able to work w/o make up... however, she MUST be clothed.
Companies should be able to hire/fire based on their preferences. That is the benefit of being privately owned. Forcing them to keep this employee on their payroll when she is not conforming to their standards would be just as bad as being forced to hire someone who did not portray the image that they wanted (ie visible piercings/tattoos/strange hair colors, etc.).
"If I was a cocktail waitress I'd want to look my best. More TIPS!!!"
Well, she was a bartender, not a cocktail waitress. Reading is fundamental.
The title said waitress. I can read, and no doubt you've NEVER EVER made a mistake right? I thought so. If a woman wants more tips she has to look good so my statement still stands.
I suppose it is the same as enforcing a dress code for employees and I think employers should be able to enforce that.
It's just too bad that a (as far as we know) good employee is lost over this.
The fact that the courts think they can determine a company's ways of hiring and firing is the bottom line here.
Private ownership means squat when it comes to affirmative action.
Yes, the article states that she was a bartender........however......................check out the title. Waitress. Confusing.
"If I was a cocktail waitress I'd want to look my best. More TIPS!!!"
unless its a dyke hangout, then she would need to highlight the cookie duster on her lip.
I gotta go out on a limb here...In my opinion...if the girl didn't want to wear make-up she shouldn't have to. They shouldn't be able to fire someone based on that. They should only be able to fire her if she didn't do her job well. She had worked there for 20 years! Maybe her religion doesn't allow her to wear make-up? Maybe she is allergic to it? Maybe she thinks she is naturally beautiful? Whatever her reason...this ruling was ridiculous in my opinion.
LOL hehehe
"Yes, the article states that she was a bartender........however......................check out the title. Waitress. Confusing."
Headlines are often confusing. That's why it's always a good idea to read at least the first sentence of the article. It can't be that hard.
They didn't have the policy for twenty years.
HORRAY a defeat for ugly women!
" gotta go out on a limb here...In my opinion...if the girl didn't want to wear make-up she shouldn't have to. "
I'd agree with you, but I suppose Harrah's can impose such rules if they want. Personally, I like women without makeup. But that's just my preference.
"And here she is"
Good f***in' grief. And a bad mullet to boot. Zoinks.
Hah! Beat ya to it!
In this case using make-up is like pissing in the ocean.
"And a bad mullet to boot. Zoinks.
"
It occurs to me that makeup is not going to do a lot of good here. That's the trouble with this kind of rule on the job. She probably looks better without makeup than with it. Oh, well.
This judge would prevent employers from banning their male waiters from wearing short skirts or dresses and a stuffed bra.
Any relationship to the Lamba Lamba Lamba fraternity of the Revenge of the Nerds?
That's OK. The pic was bad enough to post twice.
Go get the sack, go get the sack!
MM,
I think this gal is right up your alley; no makeup, no perfume (maybe oldspice), no femininity.
YOW. You couldn't get more lesbo wearing Birkenstocks and Alan Alda shorts that show off your hairy legs at an Indigo Girls concert while waving a well-worn copy of Our Bodies, Ourselves.
"Maybe her religion doesn't allow her to wear make-up?"
Her religion allows her to work in a bar but doesn't allow makeup?
"In this case using make-up is like pissing in the ocean."
Well, you know, she looks to be in her 50s and has been working at this job for a long time. For all I know, she's a very nice person. Looks aren't everything.
All the make up in the world ain't gonna help THAT!!!
BigMack
Can women write off the cost of makeup if the job requires it?
Love to meet the lawyer who set this one up......
The only thing that's gonna help this particular woman is wearing a Pamela Anderson mask. Permanently.
Abide by the employer's rules or get another job.
Not too complicated.
Easy there. Your bio mentions courtesy...
Nope. Not if she can wear same makeup in her everyday, non-work life. Same thing with "uniforms."
. . . denied a deduction for loud and flashy clothing worn on stage by a member of Rod Stewart's band, stating the clothing was suitable for personal wear."
[Techner, TC Memo 1997-498]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.