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.
Having a little "cranky-pants" day?
Exactly.
Then she can mix drinks at some bar in the dark shadows underneath elevated subway tracks, not at a bright, glitzy casino, where looks are everything and three-quarters of the entertainment.
Sorry, but ugly is in the eye of the beholder.
And she's got it in spades.
Not every woman must be beautiful.
If they work at a casino, they should be. If I'm going to be losing all my bread, at least give me something sweet to look at . . . so I don't feel bad about losing all my bread.
She was trying to make the bar more money by making the customers drink her pretty.
cranky pants! lol
Yes I've heard that all women look pretty after a few drinks :D
Well, IF that's true, she's fortunate.
Oh, well If you don't want to dress up, looks are everything, you are out/
Well, I could tell you a story..........about a concert in 1981......and a large bottle of Old Charter........and picking up some ladies........and waking up the next morning.........
But, I'll spare you.
Yep unfortunately it's true. Is this lady gay? I suppose if Lamba is defending her one can assume so. I know a lot of gay women who are very nice people and have become accustomed to be very individualistic as far as appearance is concerned.
I was wondering if it were a male instead, if you'd be so gun-ho about it if the requirement would have been for him to get...hair transplant or a hair piece!
So the government, not the business owner, should get to set the dress code?
In this particular instance (she's not young) attitude is everything. I'd much rather have a waitress or bartender who's 45yo, plain looking, but genuinely friendly and who truly understands service, than a 20yo bimbo with nice legs, big honkers, and a gigantic chip on her shoulder.
But I don't run Harrah's ...
True.
A genuine smile, and a better hairdo, though, would work wonders.
Define "wear make-up". Mascara makes my eyes water so lipstick and some blush is it for me. How much is "wear make-up"? I'd like to see the written policy.
I feel pretty...
That would be defined by the employer: The one who sets the rules of employment.
If the employee does not like the rules, the employee can look for another job.
Not. Did you read the article?
I tried to get my daughter to try it but she never seemed interested until she saw the commercial. I sent her the starter kit for Christmas and she called me all excited, saying she can't believe how great it is. Now she wants more for her birthday.
It does cover extremely well, it won't cover up a huge festering zit (what will?) but redness and scars practically fade away.
Go ahead and get some, you won't regret it!
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.