Here she is ...
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.
I was before and now I am after.
The article has a more flattering pic of her than the previously posted ones. She looks like she'd be more at home on the range, than the cosmetics aisle at Rite-Aid :-( Ruddy complexion. I can just see this woman gamely applying BLUSH. Lipstick is trial and error, but if they could have let her slide with a natural tinted lip gloss, maybe we wouldn't be here discussing it. Btw, powder after a certain age is a disaster. It lands in lines you never knew you had. This is the first "manly woman" that I have ever defended.
There are also "grandfather clauses". I wonder if they have ordered older men to start using Grecian Formula, or lose their jobs?
Don't mean to be crabby, but I've always held on to the belief that your commitment to hard work, dedication, and loyalty should supercede the "eye candy" factor. My bad....
Haven't got enough liver for that.
I read nothing about coloring your hair, only that the employees had to be well groomed with basic standards that are normal for most people. She sounds like someone who wanted to cause an accident. She succeeded. I hope she pays every penny in court costs.
Personal best would cover coloring your gray hair. I don't think she was one to cause a fuss, because they employed her for 21 years. If you were in a situation where your employer decided to mandate changes that you weren't comfortable with (I have no examples to cite-just use your imagination), wouldn't you kick up a fuss? Me? I'm an asshole and I'd show up looking like Zsa Zsa Gabor. Hey, they told me to wear makeup.
Seriously, the fair thing would be to "grandfather" the established employees who give good service, while holding the new hires to the new standards. 21 yrs=4 yrs until retirement? Hmmmm....
LOL
I could be the after before I was the before.
...sure...she's not photogenic...but have any of you guys taken a look at your waistlines, receding hairlines,(and where the hair went) your ears lately?
The woman does not look like a heterosexual dream date. She's been a good employee for, again, 21 years...
No, personal best does not mean coloring your hair. She was a trouble maker, as evidenced by her lawsuit and refusing to take the job. She thought she was going to hold up Harrah's. I hope it costs her big time as an example to others. Everyone should brush their teeth before they show up at work.
Here she is ...
I'm a believer in the principle that an employer should be able to fire somebody for whatever they want, just like an employee can quit for any reason, or no explained reason
In this case, an attractive bartender will make more money for the place than an unattractive bartender
I saw the picture before...what's your point?? If you're drinkin' there just squint and pretend she's an ugly guy...sheesh...like you date supermodels!!!
It should be legal for an employer to set whatever criteria they see fit... but that does not make it right. Harrah's sucks.
As a bar owner, I can assure you that the same principal works for bartenders.
Only the best
You did of course check the image and see who was sponsoring it ...
I knew someone clever enough to ask my point would be smart enough to investigate that on their own ...
She should have groomed herself according to the new policies. She had a different agenda. I'm glad she, and the lawyers she rode in on, lost will receive nothing from Harrah's. I hope her court costs are significant.
Take my word for it MM, you are in a huge minority. Unfortunately I see it every day.
Of course I did...it looked too much to me like a parody pic. You couldn't FIND a better stereotype. So...she gave 21 YEARS.
I could understand if it was a new Hooters location and set the regs...this is different.
Yes, yes, yes, and John F. Kerry gave more than 21 YEARS ...
The solution is elementary.
Don't tip.
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.