Skip to comments.Court Backs Firing of Waitress Without Makeup
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.
"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.
"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!
I think this gal is right up your alley; no makeup, no perfume (maybe oldspice), no femininity.