Court argues if employers can demand women wear makeup

AP ^ | 6/22/5 | DAVID KRAVETS

[SmithL]

San Francisco -- An appeals court heard arguments Wednesday in the case of a female casino bartender suing Harrah's Entertainment after she was fired for refusing to wear makeup.

It was the second time the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the largest in the nation, heard the closely watched sex-discrimination case. In December, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based circuit said the woman's firing was legal, because the Reno casino also demanded male employees to be equally well groomed under the hotel's "Beverage Department Image Transformation" program.

The smaller panel of judges tossed out Darlene Jespersen's case against Harrah's, ruling in December the casino company's requirement that male bartenders keep their hair short, nails trimmed and otherwise appear neatly groomed was roughly equivalent to grooming demands made of its female workers under the policy adopted in February 2000.

At the request of Jespersen, however, the appeals court agreed in May to rehear the case with 11 judges, a move that sets aside the three-judge panel's decision.

Ten of the 11 judges lobbed questions wondering whether employers could require men to wear dresses or even to wear makeup. . . .

[SmithL]

Ten of the 11 judges lobbed questions wondering whether employers could require men to wear dresses or even to wear makeup.

Coming from the 9th Circus in San Francisco, these aren't rhetorical questions.

[inquest]

Court argues if employers can demand women wear makeup

I hope they say no. Then we'll have a chance of getting Congress to ditch this whole "civil rights" legislation altogether.

OK, not a terribly humungous chance, but it's worth a shot.

[NutCrackerBoy]

For goodness' sake, what a private company can do? This is a Constitutional question??

[inquest]

This is a Constitutional question??

No, it's a question arising under the "Civil Rights" Act of 1964, or perhaps some other lame-brained piece of federal legislation that tries to dictate economic relations between people. That's why I'm hoping the court tries to extend the reach of it drastically, so that there can be some pressure brought to bear to repeal some of this nonsense, or at least scale it back.

It's a real long shot, I know, but I'll take what I can get.

[Popman]

Jennifer Pizer, Jespersen's attorney, told the judges that her client was androgynous, and it was an affront to her to wear makeup.

What's does being androgynous have to do with wearing makeup, unless she really is a butch lesbian

snip...

Judge Sidney Thomas dissented, writing that Jespersen's case should be put before a jury, because the policy "required her to conform with a feminine stereotype."

Does feminine stereotype personal grooming habits also include things like wearing deodorant or clean clothes???

[Tarkin]

9th Circus alert...

[NutCrackerBoy]

I am a little fuzzy on the question of law, but I meant to express incredulity that a court could find for this woman - that any law such as CRA1964 could possibly be interpreted to Constitutionally so restrict the freedom of a corporation.

[Lancey Howard]

The 9th Circus is nothing more than a filthy rest stop on the judicial highway where you stop only if you have to, avoid eye contact, do your business, and then get back on the road to the Supreme Court as fast as you can.

[inquest]

that any law such as CRA1964 could possibly be interpreted to Constitutionally so restrict the freedom of a corporation.

That's the whole point of CRA1964, to restrict the freedom of corporations and other businesses. They're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or sex. Taken to its most literal extreme, it would mean that they can't impose any different requirements at all on one sex from those that are imposed on the other, because that's "discrimination".

But I agree that the whole thing's unconstitutional.