posted on January 9, 2005 04:02:43 PM new
I personally feel this is a step backward for women's rights..sexist and just plain wrong.. convince me otherwise...
January 2005
On December 28, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed the dismissal of a female bartender's termination for failing to comply with her employer's dress and grooming standards, which included a requirement that female bartenders wear makeup. Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., 9 th Cir., No. 03-15045, 12/28/04. The decision upholds the right of employers to enforce reasonable dress and grooming standards as long as they do not impose unequal burdens on either sex.
Factual Background
Jespersen was a bartender at Harrah's Casino in Reno, Nevada, for nearly 20 years. She was an outstanding employee, which was recognized by Jespersen's supervisors and the customers she served.
Throughout the 1980s and 90's Harrah's encouraged its female beverage servers to wear makeup, but wearing makeup was not a formal requirement. Although Jespersen never cared for makeup, she tried wearing it for a short period of time during the 1980s. After a few weeks, Jespersen stopped wearing makeup because she disliked the way it made her feel, including a feeling that she was being forced to be feminine.
In February 2000, Harrah's implemented its “Beverage Department Image Transformation” program at 20 Harrah's locations, including its casino in Reno. The goal of the program was to create a “brand standard of excellence” throughout Harrah's operations, with an emphasis on guest service positions. The program imposed specific “appearance standards” on employees in guest services, including heightened requirements for beverage servers (i.e., cocktail servers, bartenders, and barbacks). All beverage servers were required to be “well groomed, appealing to the eye, be firm and body toned, and be comfortable with maintaining this look while wearing the specified uniform.” In addition to these general appearance standards applicable to both sexes, there were gender-specific standards for male and female beverage servers. Female beverage servers were required to wear stockings and nail polish, and they were required to wear their hair “teased, curled, or styled.” Male beverage servers were prohibited from wearing makeup or nail polish, and they were required to maintain short haircuts and neatly trimmed fingernails. Jespersen acknowledged receipt of the policy and committed to adhere to the appearance standards in March 2000.
Shortly thereafter, the standards were modified to include a requirement that all female beverage servers wear makeup, including foundation/concealer and/or face powder, blush, mascara, and lip color. Jespersen refused to comply with the policy. She was given 30 days to apply for a new position. Jespersen refused to apply for a new position, and she was terminated. Jespersen filed suit against Harrah's alleging that the makeup requirement for female beverage servers constituted disparate treatment sex discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (“Title VII”). The district court granted Harrah's motion for summary judgment, holding that the appearance standards were not violative of Title VII because (1) they did not discriminate against Jespersen on the basis of “immutable characteristics” associated with her sex, and (2) they imposed equal burdens on both sexes.
posted on January 9, 2005 04:31:40 PM new
It's a job. You either abide by the regulations set forth or you find a different one.
Are you saying that the woman sueing or the company requiring make-up is a set back?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 9, 2005 04:53:51 PM new
OK, I missed the part that said the men CAN'T wear make-up.
So if your company suddenly said you had to wear make-up or dress a certain way or whatever, you'd have to comply or lose your job? I agree with you Maggie, it seems a step backwards.
posted on January 9, 2005 05:24:43 PM new
Sorry but I disagree. Waitresses and dealers are the public face of a casino and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the casino wanting that face to be attractive or made up. If you do not want to wear make-up then find a job that does not require it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 9, 2005 05:48:10 PM new
What's the matter with a clean, fresh face, sans make-up?
I think this is sending a terrible message to our young girls... you are judged on your looks rather than on your job performance..or your work ethics..
I understand that the casino can make and enforce a dress code and rules on hygiene.. but this woman was an exemplary employee for 21 years.. to be fired because of a new make-up rule..is just wrong.
We are offended when we read of how some Middle East Women are forced to wear the veil...isn't this a form of discrimination as well?...
I have always enjoyed wearing make-up.. but it was my personal choice.. and I believe it should be one's personal choice..not that of an employer or anyone else... JMHO.. Maggie
posted on January 9, 2005 07:32:12 PM new
Young girls aren't (or shouldn't be) buying beverages in a casino, this isn't sending them a message one way or the other..While I personally think it's sexist, that's also the way it is. The casino biz is a sexist industry. Look at the stage shows, look at the hottie waitresses. Apparently this gal didn't need a job badly enough to comply with her employer's requirements, even after acknowleging them. Now she's suing them with some bogus claim. When American men decide to sue their employers for making them wear ties, which do nothing but restrict the blood flow to their brains, this country is in big trouble...another victim...*yawns*......
____________________________________________
Dick Cheney: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..."
posted on January 9, 2005 07:48:02 PM new
Profe.. the young girls read newspapers and listen to the news on TV.. they don't have to actually go and buy a drink in the Casino...to be informed..
Okay... there are a lot of ugly looking men out there serving and tending bars.. if this make-up rule applies to women.. it should apply to men as well.. why should we women have to look at Fred Flintstone serving our drinks.. make them put on the expensive make-up and tease their hair and polish their nails and don't forget the mascara and lipstick... it's all too ridiculous..
This Jespersen woman...isn't very attractive, and make-up wouldn't help her much. I think it would do her more harm than good.... good grooming and hygiene,and a good work ethic.. that's all that should be important...she was very well liked by her peers, her bosses and the people she served...
It is sending the same old message to our young girls... "your looks are more important than your brains"...be pretty and shut up...
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Jan 9, 2005 07:48 PM ]
posted on January 9, 2005 08:05:00 PM new
What's so hard to understand about, "it's against the law to discriminate, based on sex, in the workplace" ??????????????????
Either everybody has to wear makeup or nobody does.
And Replay's attitude was part of what created the need for these laws.....too many pigs.
posted on January 9, 2005 08:07:27 PM new
::"your looks are more important than your brains"...be pretty and shut up...::
Oh come on Maggie. She is a coctail waitress for christs sake. She didn't get into it and stay there for 21 years because she was a brain surgeon. Coctail waitresses in casinos exist to serve and look pretty. She made a conscious descision to not do one of those two things. If she wants to be judged on her brains then she should be doing a job that actually requires the use of them.
Personally I would venture to guess that she choose not to do so because the potential lawsuit might just be a way to get out of the profession with a few extra bucks hoping for a settlement.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 9, 2005 08:19:40 PM new Coctail waitresses in casinos exist to serve and look pretty
Somehow, I don't think that was her modus operandi....
Now.. you tell me why this clean cut, friendly looking person should be forced to put on blush, mascara,tease her hair etc..how will it affect or is it effect her job performance?
If anything it is a health hazard.. she will get an itch on her eyes since she isn't used to the mascara, wipe her eye with her hand and then mix your drink...while doing so, will drop a hair or two into your drink because it was teased and loosened from the roots.. a definite health hazard if you ask me..
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Jan 9, 2005 08:29 PM ]
posted on January 9, 2005 08:31:40 PM new
Where is this Harrah's. I have never seen waitress in a casino not in heels. I'm going gambing with some friends for Thursday/Friday... Now we'll have a new sideline game... no more ugly carpet contests... we'll count the number of coctail waitresses we see not wearing heels.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 9, 2005 09:37:34 PM new
Yes Crow. You do seem to be having a hard time understanding that service employees are the face of a business like casinos and that most business owners prefer to have as attractive a face as possible.
You don't have to be stunning to have value but a smart person knows that there are places where pretty is more valueable than smart and visa versa. Behind a desk or a computer it does not matter how attractive you are... behind a bar or a drink tray is different matter.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on January 9, 2005 11:01:52 PM new
The opinions of the two judges who agreed with the Casino:
9th Circuit: Employer Can Force Women to Wear Makeup
Justin M. Norton
The Recorder
12-30-2004
In an opinion likely to raise the ire of civil rights and feminist groups, a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Tuesday that a woman who was fired from her job as a casino bartender for refusing to wear makeup cannot sue for sex discrimination.
The 2-1 decision rejected bartender Darlene Jespersen's argument that Harrah's Operating Co. violated her rights when it implemented "Personal Best" image standards requiring women to wear makeup and men to trim their fingernails and keep their hair short.
"Even if we were to take judicial notice of the fact that the application of makeup requires some expenditure of time and money, Jespersen would still have the burden of producing some evidence that the burdens associated with the makeup requirement are greater than the burdens the 'Personal Best' policy imposes on male bartenders," Senior Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote for the majority.
Judge Barry Silverman concurred.
Judge Sidney Thomas dissented, saying that a jury easily could have found that the makeup requirement illegally requires female employees to conform to sex stereotypes, or that it places more of a burden on women than Harrah's male grooming standards.
"Sex-differentiated appearance standards stemming from stereotypes that women are unfit for work, fulfill a different role in the workplace, or are incapable of exercising professional judgment systematically impose a burden on women, converting such stereotypes into stubborn reality," Thomas wrote.
Jespersen worked as a sports bartender at Harrah's in Reno, Nev., for nearly two decades and received exemplary performance evaluations. Harrah's encouraged female beverage servers to wear makeup, but it was not required.
Jespersen briefly tried wearing makeup but later stopped because she felt it "forced her to be feminine" and to become "dolled up" like a sex object.
[ after seeing her picture I don't think she needed to be worried about be a 'sex object'. ]
The company changed its appearance standards in 2000, announcing the goal of a "brand standard of excellence." It required female bartenders to use nail polish and wear their hair down and either "teased, curled or styled." Later the rule was amended to add makeup, which Harrah's defined as "foundation/concealer and/or face powder, as well as blush and mascara," plus lip color.
Male bartenders, meanwhile, were required to wear their hair above the collar and keep their nails clean and neatly trimmed. Makeup, ponytails and nail polish were banned for men.
Jespersen was terminated in July 2000 after refusing to comply with the makeup requirements. A district court granted summary judgment for Harrah's, ruling that its policy did not impose unequal burdens on the sexes.
The 9th Circuit agreed. Tashima wrote that there is "no evidence in the record in support of [Jespersen's] contention" that cosmetics can cost hundreds of dollars per year and that applying them requires a significant investment in time.
He further held that Harrah's policy did not run afoul of the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 229, in which a female associate who was perceived as too "macho" successfully challenged her exclusion from an accounting firm's partnership. Tashima wrote that Price Waterhouse "did not address the specific question of whether an employer can impose sex-differentiated appearance and grooming standards on its male and female employees."
In his dissent, Thomas said Jespersen should be able to bring her case to a jury, adding that the decision leaves service workers unprotected from discrimination.
"The distinction created by the majority opinion leaves men and women in service 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," Thomas said.
Jespersen's attorney, Jennifer Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles, said the court "erred in a few ways when defining an unequal burden." "There is a burden in makeup costs. And there's the burden of the message that these female employees are subordinate and unacceptable as workers unless they present an ultra-feminine appearance," Pizer said.
"Male employees must be clean and neat and look professional and women are deemed unprofessional if they are clean and neat, but don't alter their appearance," she said.
Harrah's attorney, Veronica Arechederra Hall of Littler Mendelson's Las Vegas office, referred all questions to Harrah's spokesman Gary Thompson.
Thompson said modified appearance standards requiring makeup are still in place at the casino.
"We implemented these policies in response to requests from customers accustomed to a level of service and a type of appearance," Thompson said. "This is no different from CBS requiring a female or even a male reporter to wear makeup on television."
Jespersen v. Harrah's, 04 C.D.O.S. 11332, attracted numerous amici curiae, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Employment Lawyers Association and the American Hotel & Lodging Association, among others.
•
posted on January 10, 2005 02:51:31 PM new
Thanks for posting the picture. That really says it all. Be sure to pick up her forthcoming book: "Grandma the butt-ugly ex-cocktail waitress tells all"
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web!
posted on January 10, 2005 03:44:54 PM new
I'm sure that stupid casino will lose millions of dollars if this one bartender doesn't roll over.
They probably just want her out of there before she can collect a full pension.
I don't need a stupid C&P to tell me it's wrong.....just part of the Republicans low moral ethics.
posted on January 10, 2005 03:44:55 PM new
I'm sure that stupid casino will lose millions of dollars if this one bartender doesn't roll over.
They probably just want her out of there before she can collect a full pension.
I don't need a stupid C&P to tell me it's wrong.....just part of the Republicans low moral ethics.
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Jan 9, 2005 08:29 PM ]
