Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court Backs Firing of Waitress Without Makeup
Reuters ^ | 12/29/04

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; dieseldyke; harrahs; largemarge; makeup; notamilf; sexdiscrimation; sexdiscrimination; waitress; workplace; yikes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-181 next last
Note. Two Dems of 9th circuit said this.
1 posted on 12/29/2004 8:39:47 AM PST by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freespirited
The Lambda Legal Defense Fund, a gay rights group that backed Jespersen's suit,

Figures

2 posted on 12/29/2004 8:41:26 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Thank you for not posting her picture so close to lunch time.


3 posted on 12/29/2004 8:41:58 AM PST by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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??


4 posted on 12/29/2004 8:42:22 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Can women write off the cost of makeup if the job requires it?


5 posted on 12/29/2004 8:43:37 AM PST by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
The Lambda Legal Defense Fund, a gay rights group that backed Jespersen's suit

Now there's a real shocker.... NOT

6 posted on 12/29/2004 8:44:07 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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.


7 posted on 12/29/2004 8:44:21 AM PST by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

If I was a cocktail waitress I'd want to look my best. More TIPS!!!


8 posted on 12/29/2004 8:44:53 AM PST by cyborg (http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

lol... strange days. me thinks she should be able to work w/o make up... however, she MUST be clothed.


9 posted on 12/29/2004 8:45:14 AM PST by bedolido (I can forgive you for killing my sons, but I cannot forgive you for forcing me to kill your sons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

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.).


10 posted on 12/29/2004 8:46:30 AM PST by Conservative Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Dem-wits.

Sounds more like Harrah's wanted her out but couldn't do it on age or other discrimination tactics so their lawyers imposed a new makeup rule.
11 posted on 12/29/2004 8:46:53 AM PST by mtbopfuyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

"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.


12 posted on 12/29/2004 8:47:22 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
A ruling like this - from the 9th Circus, no less - holds out hope that the federal courts won't try to push same-sex "marriage" on the country. They seem to know the score right now.
13 posted on 12/29/2004 8:49:20 AM PST by inquest (Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

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.


14 posted on 12/29/2004 8:49:53 AM PST by cyborg (http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
I guess I'm on her side with this one. If she worked there for all those years without incident or makeup why should she be forced to wear it now?

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.

15 posted on 12/29/2004 8:50:23 AM PST by Damifino (The true measure of a man is found in what he would do if he knew no one would ever find out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

The fact that the courts think they can determine a company's ways of hiring and firing is the bottom line here.


16 posted on 12/29/2004 8:50:59 AM PST by SiliconValleyGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Was she that ugly to begin with?
17 posted on 12/29/2004 8:51:02 AM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Me
Companies should be able to hire/fire based on their preferences. That is the benefit of being privately owned.

Private ownership means squat when it comes to affirmative action.

18 posted on 12/29/2004 8:51:19 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Yes, the article states that she was a bartender........however......................check out the title. Waitress. Confusing.


19 posted on 12/29/2004 8:51:20 AM PST by EggsAckley (..............blog pimping is impolite..................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
And here she is:


20 posted on 12/29/2004 8:51:48 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

"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.


21 posted on 12/29/2004 8:51:51 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

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.


22 posted on 12/29/2004 8:51:59 AM PST by Jay777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pissant

LOL hehehe


23 posted on 12/29/2004 8:52:11 AM PST by cyborg (http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Schedule A, line 20 would seem to cover that expense.
24 posted on 12/29/2004 8:52:34 AM PST by Redcloak ("FOUR MORE BEERS! FOUR MORE BEERS! FOUR MORE BEERS!" -Teresa Heinz Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EggsAckley

"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.


25 posted on 12/29/2004 8:52:51 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
My God! Helen Thomas has kids!


26 posted on 12/29/2004 8:52:56 AM PST by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Me

They didn't have the policy for twenty years.


27 posted on 12/29/2004 8:53:00 AM PST by cyborg (http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
You all asked for it, whew,.........


28 posted on 12/29/2004 8:53:05 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

HORRAY a defeat for ugly women!


29 posted on 12/29/2004 8:53:40 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jay777

" 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.


30 posted on 12/29/2004 8:54:08 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

"And here she is"

Good f***in' grief. And a bad mullet to boot. Zoinks.


31 posted on 12/29/2004 8:54:50 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

Hah! Beat ya to it!


32 posted on 12/29/2004 8:54:51 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Personally, I like women without makeup.

In this case using make-up is like pissing in the ocean.

33 posted on 12/29/2004 8:55:13 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
San Francisco?  Isn't this the same city where you can't fire a man for coming to work in a dress and makeup?
34 posted on 12/29/2004 8:55:35 AM PST by Psycho_Bunny (I know a great deal about the Middle East because Ive been raising Arabian horses" Patrick Swazey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

"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.


35 posted on 12/29/2004 8:56:07 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
"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.

This judge would prevent employers from banning their male waiters from wearing short skirts or dresses and a stuffed bra.

36 posted on 12/29/2004 8:56:14 AM PST by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

Any relationship to the Lamba Lamba Lamba fraternity of the Revenge of the Nerds?


37 posted on 12/29/2004 8:56:15 AM PST by Kurt_D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Hah! Beat ya to it!

That's OK. The pic was bad enough to post twice.

38 posted on 12/29/2004 8:56:16 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mhking
"Was she that ugly to begin with?"

Go get the sack, go get the sack!

39 posted on 12/29/2004 8:56:58 AM PST by albee (Those who desire peace should prepare for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

MM,
I think this gal is right up your alley; no makeup, no perfume (maybe oldspice), no femininity.


40 posted on 12/29/2004 8:57:12 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
And here she is:

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.

41 posted on 12/29/2004 8:57:19 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jay777

"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?


42 posted on 12/29/2004 8:57:50 AM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad

"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.


43 posted on 12/29/2004 8:57:55 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

All the make up in the world ain't gonna help THAT!!!

BigMack


44 posted on 12/29/2004 8:58:02 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy

Can women write off the cost of makeup if the job requires it?



Yes, as a miscellaneous deduction, but only the amount (with other such deductions) that exceeds 2% (?) of their taxable income.


45 posted on 12/29/2004 8:58:05 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Love to meet the lawyer who set this one up......


46 posted on 12/29/2004 8:58:37 AM PST by DCPatriot (I don't do politically correct very well either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
That's the trouble with this kind of rule on the job. She probably looks better without makeup than with it.

The only thing that's gonna help this particular woman is wearing a Pamela Anderson mask. Permanently.

47 posted on 12/29/2004 8:59:03 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Abide by the employer's rules or get another job.

Not too complicated.


48 posted on 12/29/2004 8:59:13 AM PST by Skooz (Overtaxed host organism for the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Reading is fundamental.

Easy there. Your bio mentions courtesy...

49 posted on 12/29/2004 9:00:26 AM PST by Shryke (My Beeb-o-meter goes all the way to eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Re: Deductable makeup

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]

50 posted on 12/29/2004 9:00:27 AM PST by boojumsnark (Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-181 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson