Posted on 04/15/2006 12:12:55 PM PDT by SmithL
Employers can set different dress codes and grooming standards for women than for men, as long as the rules aren't burdensome or based on sex stereotypes, a federal appeals court decided Friday in the case of a female casino bartender who was fired for refusing to wear makeup.
"Grooming standards that appropriately discriminate between the genders are not facially discriminatory,'' the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a 7-4 ruling.
The court said some sex-differentiated workplace rules may be discriminatory -- for example, weight rules imposed only on female flight attendants, which the court struck down in 1982, or a requirement that women wear sexually provocative outfits.
But in this case, the court said, the casino's makeup rules did not reinforce any stereotypes about women, and the plaintiff offered no evidence that the overall grooming standards posed greater burdens for women than for men.
Dissenters voiced strong objections, with Judge Alex Kozinski observing that he and many of his colleagues would object to "a rule that all judges wear face powder, blush, mascara and lipstick while on the bench."
But a lawyer for the defeated plaintiff found something to applaud.
"This case confirms that dress codes can be challenged for imposing sex stereotypes," said Jennifer Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. While disagreeing with the court's conclusion that plaintiff Darlene Jespersen failed to prove discrimination, Pizer said the ruling overall was "a very significant advance in the law."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Trans-sexual men employees are going to be POd.
Where did it say "all judges"? This was about female Judges, was it not?
I think Judge Alex in drag queen make-up would be more then a little disquieting in a courtroom.
The company I work at came up with this dress code almost entirely aimed at women. Only two items on the thing applied to men. Thirty years ago, the feminists would have gone nuts. The whole thing was designed to limit the visual appeal of women.
But feminists are not about sensuality. They are now the Orwellian "No sex league," of "1984". Most feminists are so ugly and angry that not only do they want the sexes to dress alike, but the lesbians among them are attracted to women with male hairstyles, dress, and mannerisms.
Like with Clinton, the feminists are nothing but hypocrites. They wouldn't know a real gender inequality issue if it walked up and bit their ugly faces.
Wow...this from the 9th Circus? Just wow.
Are you kidding me...?
The 9th Circus comes out with another whopper. Are they discriminating or not?
The answer, of course, is they most certainly are discriminating, which is why a woman is required to wear makeup and a man is not. In a common sense legal system there would be no problem with this - makeup is part of being "well-groomed" for a woman but not for a man. But this obvious truth just doesn't cut it in a world where to use one's judgement is against the law.
I don't know what to think about the rule or the ruling. I know of women who don't need make up and others who wouldn't be helped by any amount of make up. In any case how will the determine gender in San Francisco?
...will the determine... should be ...will they determine...
My old company's dress code used to allow shorts and sandals for women but not for men. I asked why and they said because on men, that's too casual.
So a person might say they are 60-30-XYB-4. In other words, they are biologically male with a substantial female component, they will do it with anything and they are not quite as freaky as possible.
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.