# Court: It's OK To Fire Woman Who Wouldn't Wear Makeup



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2004)

* Court: It's OK To Fire Woman Who Wouldn't Wear Makeup *





*Author: *Reuters    *Source: *USA Today 




*Title: *COURT: IT'S OK TO FIRE WOMAN WHO WOULDN'T WEAR MAKEUP COURT: IT'S OK TO FIRE WOMAN WHO WOULDN'T WEAR MAKEUP

 A female bartender who refused to wear makeup at a Reno casino was not unfairly dismissed from her job, a U.S. federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

 Darlene Jespersen, who had worked for nearly 20 years at a Harrah's Entertainment casino bar in Reno, objected to the company's revised policy that required female bartenders, but not male ones, 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 men appointed by Democratic presidents. *
 Options:*   [*Read Full Story*] 
 Original Thread: http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=11889


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 28, 2004)

Ummm.  At first glance at the title, I wondered how that would turn out if a female happened to be allergic to make up?  The decision doesn't sound rational to me.  I need to read this further before I can comment more and check on the arguments.

- Ceicei


----------



## Ceicei (Dec 28, 2004)

Is there more information somewhere else?  The article in the link doesn't present enough arguments to be convincing for either side.

- Ceicei


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 28, 2004)

I found a few more references. 

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2004_3rd/Jul04_HarrahsPolicies.html

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2004/jun/07/060710862.html

http://www.nevadalabor.com/barbwire/barb00/barb10-8-00.html

Also, see Google Search http://www.google.com/search?q=reno+bartender+fire+makeup+harrah


----------



## Shidan (Dec 28, 2004)

On the surface, it seems ridiculous!   However, it is a bar environement and not a small town corner bar, (its an entertaining bar).  Image sells!  It is the type of business where the staff is the 'silent sales tool' for the company. (*).

The women has worked there 20 years, so she likely fits the golden handcuffed syndrome that plagues many people who work for companies. (**)

Because she has been working there for 20 years and was likely 18 or 20ish when she started - she isn't likely the 'eye candy' she once was thereby not being able to an effective sales tool (on the surface).  The majority of her working life has likely been here, and faced with the thought of going elsewhere is a bit scary.  At the same time, the business is entitled to uphold it's desired image by maintaining their marketed look/image.

They (the company) could offer her another position within the organization.  However, the woman (probably like many of us), may feel as if they were forcing her out by sticking her in a position she is unfamiliar with (even if they provided training).  The company would be trying to avoid losing a valued employee, but just not have her 'face' in the public view.  Instead, they fired her, and they should have this right!  Now the woman is faced with the same situtation - needed to work at a different job she is unfamiliar with.  She is unhappy and SUES (ah... the American way).

Unless there is a contract for employment or the State of Nevada has specific laws in place - the company or the employee should be allowed to terminate their employment agreement.   "AT WILL" employment should be as simple as either the employee OR employer is allowed to terminated the employment/position as they see fit - no sueing allowed.

Anyway, I feel for both sides, but I'd say it is up to the company to maintain whatever image they want.  The employer could offer to assist with job relocation/cross-training to be nice - but it isn't necessary.  No job is permanent.  Jobs are tasks.  There are beginnings and there are endings.



(*)silent sales tool - like signage is for retail stores, they sell the product by their mere presence.
(**)golden handcuff syndrome - when an employee has worked for a company for so long and feels endebted to the company, fears leaving, hates staying.


Being female, I personally wouldn't take a position based upon my appearance, nor would I force a company to 'give' me a position because I am a woman.  If I am what you are looking for, and I can do the job well - then hire me! If I am not what you are looking for, but I can do the job, I'll continue looking.  I want to be somewhere where the people around me want me there too (unless its a security cleanup situation -then the only person who needs to like my work is the guy signing my check  )


----------



## auxprix (Dec 29, 2004)

I'm going to agree with shidan. This woman is in direct contact with the customers. The business can set their own standards for this sort of position. I also think that shidan had another good point with the offering of a new position. It would have been a much better way of dealing with the issue than a swift termination. The casino wouldn't have to worry about all of of the court expenses, not to mention the extra attention they're getting in the government and public (I don't think of casinos as often being of good repute. I'd imagine the less attention into their dealings, the better). Conclusion: I'm simpathetic to the concerns this raises, but sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and do what your job requires. I wouldn't wear a tie die and cutoffs to work if I was an accountant for GM.

I hope my feminist ex doesn't read this :uhoh:


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 29, 2004)

Well, if Disney Corp could do it ....

I am curious, though, if males with bad or pale skin were required to tan or to wear a tinted foundation or powder?  Who wants a pasty white male bartender?

I'm on the fence on this one, though I do think image has several faces - service is one of them.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 29, 2004)

The whole thing sounds pretty stupid. Like a homeowner who, for 15 years allowed kids to cross through his yard and then suddenly decides they can't do that anymore. 
The woman worked there for 20 years and they just NOW decided she and any other woman they hire henceforth was too ugly to work there? What was her nightly till count before? Do they think it will change if she "dolls up" ? A lot of bartending (sales) is personality.  These folks should know that. If the woman is ... "okay" looking but is chrismatic enough to make customers feel good and buy more drinks to feel even better... then what's the problem? And like the old joke goes the more alcohol a customer consumes the better looking the patrons and employees get. 
If they said that the male bartenders need to make sure their facial hair was trimmed and hairstyles neat and so forth, then okay, at least they're not "discriminating" against her, because the appearance rules apply to the males as well, just not the "make-up" part ... unless the guy has a real "pizza-face". 

This crazy world of ours.


----------



## Shidan (Dec 29, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> ......
> The woman worked there for 20 years and they just NOW decided she and any other woman they hire henceforth was too ugly to work there? What was her nightly till count before? Do they think it will change if she "dolls up" ? A lot of bartending (sales) is personality. .......


I agree personality is a lot of what counts in ANY service industry.  However, this is very similar to the grossly-obese receptionist who is smart and efficient in her tasks vs. the one that is easy on the eyes.   "WHAT image does a company want to put forth?" Usually, clean, healthy, happy images.  

It really doesn't seem 'nice', but it is fair.  Problem is our culture (USA - and possibly others but I cannot speak for them), doens't want to hear that they don't look 'pretty' as someone else.  I am not as 'cute' as a 20 year old, but I am much older and have had children.  I also wouldn't try to obtain a position where I'd need to be 'eye-candy'.  For starters, it doesn't fit my personality   Plus, I am more comfortable and skilled in helping create, engineer and execute tasks -not be 'sweet' to people coming through the door.  I am professional, but I'm not the one to sit there greeting people with a fake smile.

A good working employment happens when both parties are satisfied with the results.  As of late, the employer seems to be the one usually getting the RAW Deal.  Employers are expected to keep low performing employees.  If they decide after 5 years Joe or Jane are not as productive as they once were - and it is probably true-  They (the employer) has a heck of a time reassigning or firing that employee.

If your employee was eyecandy when hired and gained 60 pounds AND also needs a cane or oxygen to get around, he or she, may not be the person gretting clients.  Part of it will come down to how he/she looks.  But perhaps the area where the employee works doesn't have enough room to manuver a can/oxygen tank without the person stumbling around.  

What stinks is the Employer will be forced to make that are usable for said employee.  IF the employer tried to reassign the employee to a job area that was more fitting, the employee would likely SUE.

Employees need to take responsibilities for their actions (including aging) and accept that life happens and move on or adapt.  Employers have the right to operate a business to their liking without the fear of being sued over personal preference on EVERY little thing.  Pay a big severence, help the employee train to find new work, and move on.


----------



## Deuce (Dec 29, 2004)

This may sound harsh being a man and all, but come on! Put on the stupid make-up if you want to keep your job. If not, take a walk. I would say the same thing to a guy who is required to be clean shaven every day. We have to face the facts that certain jobs have an appearance standard. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's how it is. To say it's sexual discrimination is ridiculous. The men had certain appearance standards to maintain also. In the business world, appearance can be an important element, and people need to accept this fact. 

As far as the appearance of women verses the appearence of men goes, generally the apperance of women is a more important factor when selling something to a man than the appearance of a man selling something to a woman. Ya, you can call us pigs, but it's true. As the saying goes "sex sells". I see a lot more women being utilized in this marketing stategy then men, and until this changes, there will always be different standards and expectations of women in certain occupations. 

Even with years of waitering experience, do think a man will get a server job at hooters? Is that sexual discrimination?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 29, 2004)

Yes, Las Vegas is all about image.  And yes, our culture worships youth and beauty.

However.

I have friends who don't wear any make-up at all - except lipstick occasionally - and don't need it in spite of being *over the hill* - i.e., 50+, as I am.

They don't need it.  They're pretty ladies.

I wear minimal make-up and work with women who don't wear any (not the director, but she's 80+ and that's a whole other discussion.)

Should it be required?  Not usually.  Would this woman get fewer tips and sell less alcohol because she's not done up?  Probably -- it's Las Vegas.

I think offering her another position would be okay, usually, except for the fact that she's been doing her job - one assumes well - for over 20 years.  Now they think she needs make-up?  Give me a break.


----------



## TonyM. (Dec 29, 2004)

Unbelievable! How about frequent beatings for federal judges. These kinds of decisions make us look like fools and hypocrits to the rest of the world. Personally I've lost respect for the whole judicial branch of our government years ago. This kind of behavior is not unlike the falacious reasoning that gave us the Dred Scott decision.


----------



## Shidan (Dec 29, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> ......I have friends who don't wear any make-up at all - except lipstick occasionally - and don't need it in spite of being *over the hill* - i.e., 50+, as I am. ...........
> 
> I wear minimal make-up and work with women who don't wear any (not the director, but she's 80+ and that's a whole other discussion.)
> 
> ...


I don't wear make-up either.  It was a decision I made years ago.  

However, if make-up is part of the uniform or has recently become a required part of the uniform.  The employer has the right to make this change, and the employees can either accept it or leave.

Probably most people have worked places (or attended schools) that required specifics in attire (colors, type of shoes, hairstyle, shirt tucked it, ties, color of tie, etc) you either do it or you don't work there.  This case wasn't even about the woman being too old, it was about refusal to wear make-up.  Make-up was part of the uniform.

This should NEVER have been allowed to go to trial.  The woman should have been fired with no recourse.  I agree it is a STUPID detail, but the EMPLOYER and other Employers MUST be allowed to establish policy without the fear of being sued.

Remember when men used to stand in line for a job to build a bridge (like the Golden Gate) and hope someone fell off or quit so they could take the spot?  Coal mines had similar situations.

When work is in short supply, the employees will agree to work for the money - any money.  When work is at a surplus....Well, we have what we have today!

All this woman needs to do is pickup another job.  Certainly in Vegas, there are a few places hiring waitresses.  Heck even Trump is opening a place out there.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 29, 2004)

I have NO tolerance for this kind of bull****. She did her job very well for 20 years. Now the company has booted her out - not offered her another position, not negotiated. Over MAKEUP?!? Come on, people, being "healthy-looking" and "presentable" does not necessarily mean wearing makeup. Some of the sickliest-looking womenI know look that way BECAUSE of their pancake makeup.

I am SO TIRED of the worship of almost-illegal youth and beauty. TIRED OF IT! Great message, court.

And I'm sorry, but who cares if the bartender is "pretty" or "hot" or whatever (male or female). It is far more important for them to be able to talk to people, deal with drunks, etc.

Stupid rule, stupid decision. So much for company loyalty, and treating long-time, hard-working employees well.

ETA: Oh yes, I forgot how easy it is to find a good job today, with health insurance and the like.  People are tripping over them in the streets.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 29, 2004)

It's too bad that American corporations aren't willing to take more socially aware decisions than this, but this is the corporate reality these days.

I'm not saying that I condone the policy - I don't and I think it's reprehensible.  This kind of policy does little more than whore employees out so the company can rake in the dough.

Like I said - Disney does it and gets away with it.  Pennzoil corporation has strict appearance rules as well.  The tale is well-known amongst Pennzoil employees (at least the ones I used to work with) of the new female employee who wore a skirt one day that hung three inches above her knees and was very tight, though she wore a tasteful blouse and blazer.  She was in the elevator when the president of the company (whom she did not recognize) got on.  He got off, told his assistant to find out who she was and fire her because her skirt was too short.

One must wonder - was this woman's talent as a businesswoman worth three inches?  Pennzoil will never know, now will they?  

As we continue to corroborate the necessity of physical attraction to get the job done, we fail to value a person's true worth - that of their talents, abilities and character.  How much, indeed, are we missing here?


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 29, 2004)

An employer sets their "dresscode". An Employee follows it or does not work there.

Apparently its ok and acceptable for my Job to say a man cannot have an Earring, because its unprofessional, but a woman *can* wear earrings?

Why Do I have to wear a neck tie, but a woman does not?

Why can a woman wear eyeliner to work, and I cannot? 

Why can a woman wear a skirt to the office and I cannot? 

Short Answer: Becuase the company says so.

As much of a social rebel as I am, one thing I understand is that A buisness is a buisness, and they are in buisness for one purpose... to make money.

The Company can decide what they think will make them money and what wont.  Granted, Most of the time it's stupid... but thats life.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 29, 2004)

Specifically requiring makeup is silly. I think it's reasonable to expect 'well-groomed' ie: hair & face clean, beards trimmed, shurts tucked in, etc. But as someone else mentioned, what if the woman was allergic to make up? And there is considerable expense involved in regularly wearing a bunch of makeup. Is the company going to start paying for it? Are they going to teach women how to apply it? Seriously. I don't wear much makeup and if I was suddenly required to wear a certain amount of it, I wouldn't know what I was doing and I'd look WORSE than I do with only mascara (my usual).


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 29, 2004)

Have you ever met a woman who looked prettier without makeup than with?  I have - plenty, in fact.

So, who wants a watery drink with their cheeseburger that one has to pull a long, wavy hair out of because the hot babe who just served it has less training and experience as Ms. Attractive-But-No-Longer-A-Young-Hottie and who has to wear her hair and blouse down and her face and skirt up?  Oh, that's right - the customer won't notice the poor and cheap quality of the food, drink and service when their blood is no longer flowing to their cranial cavity.

This is called using sex as a weapon.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 29, 2004)

Ya know... Thinking about it...

PERSONALLY...

I wouldnt have refused, and then been Fired...

Depending on how the "Dress code" was specified, I would have worn REALLY REALLY tacky "Mimi" makeup, or maybe Clown makeup... 

But again... I have been known to push the limits of what is required of me.


----------



## auxprix (Dec 29, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I have NO tolerance for this kind of bull****. She did her job very well for 20 years. Now the company has booted her out - not offered her another position, not negotiated. Over MAKEUP?!? Come on, people, being "healthy-looking" and "presentable" does not necessarily mean wearing makeup. Some of the sickliest-looking womenI know look that way BECAUSE of their pancake makeup.
> 
> I am SO TIRED of the worship of almost-illegal youth and beauty. TIRED OF IT! Great message, court.
> 
> ...



Well...

The federal court ruled that this kind of descrimination (yes, I will call it discrimination) is constitutional. I'm going to paste one part of the article:



> In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 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.



This isn't a gender specific dresscode change; it's the details that are. Like it or not, we all are expected to conform to our niche in society. It's not just the retail/restraunt occupations, it's everywhere. 

It seems like this bar was working on going for a more youthful and clean-cut appearance. Good for them. They have every right to change their standards, and the employee is expected to conform  to these changes to the best of their ability. I'm sure this woman signed an employment contract  promising that she will change her habits in the event of new company policies,  so she already agreed to it. 

Did she have to get fired? no. Did the casino handle this properly? Probably not. But do they have the right to fire employees who do not Cooperate with company policy? definately. And it's not just me who thinks so, I have the Court of Appeals on my side.

Now I'm going to go into hiding. I fear bodily harm from MT women!:erg:

-aux


----------



## Deuce (Dec 29, 2004)

Maybe she should drop off an application at "hooters". The customers there rarely even look at the faces of the waitresses!


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 29, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> PERSONALLY...
> 
> Depending on how the "Dress code" was specified, I would have worn REALLY REALLY tacky "Mimi" makeup, or maybe Clown makeup...



Now you're talking! 
 :ultracool


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 29, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Ya know... Thinking about it...
> 
> PERSONALLY...
> 
> ...


What a concept.  Couldn't fire you for conforming to the 'rules' that way, could they?

I agree with Feisty.  From personal experience, the older you get, the fewer the better job opportunities become.  Add to that the fact that you've always done what you do, and it narrows the field further.

There's a lot of talk about how the next generation isn't at all loyal to their employers.  Used to be, you'd go to work for a company for 30+ years, retire with the gold watch and a pension, and that was it -- happily ever after.  Many employers these days do not value their employees enough to inspire such loyalty.  It's all about making $$ - on all fronts.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 29, 2004)

Deuce said:
			
		

> Maybe she should drop off an application at "hooters". The customers there rarely even look at the faces of the waitresses!


Aside from the fact that all women aspire to such greatness as to be oogled at Hooters... do you think a possibly 40+ year old woman would be hired there, or want to be?

But please, let's shunt all the women deemed "facially unattractive" into jobs where other parts of them are stared at.  That's all we're good for, right?  *insert vapid giggle here*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 29, 2004)

There are things I would love to do appearence wise, but don't.

I live in a conservative county.  I like to eat, and enjoy warmth during the winter.

That means, I can't "go goth", dye my hair neon blue, shave it to a mohawk, wear eyeliner, nailpolish or have steel balls implanted just above my eyebrows.  

It means shaving prior to meeting with clients, making sure my hair is in place, and wearing shoes when I'm a 'sneakers kinda guy'.

You want total control over how you appear, run your own business, and accept the fact that certain groups will not deal with you if you do not conform to -their- ideals of 'proper appearence'.  They do not need to conform to you.

This goes both ways.

I walk into Hot Topic (goth store) in a polo shirt and slacks, and the girl with the 55 earings in her head just looks at me with contempt, because I'm 'normal'.  I walk into an attorneys office, and he looks at me like I'm wearing rags.  I visit my local karate school, and everythings cool.  Business casual works there.  It's all in where you target, and what is expected of you.

Now, with this woman, they changed the rules midstream.  I don't like that.  It's happened to me.  I once got fired for refusing to shave the goatee I had at the interview a week after I started the job. It was there when they interviewed me, twice.   She was there 20? years, and was well respected... There were options available that neither party seemed to want to see.


----------



## Deuce (Dec 29, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Aside from the fact that all women aspire to such greatness as to be oogled at Hooters... do you think a possibly 40+ year old woman would be hired there, or want to be?
> 
> But please, let's shunt all the women deemed "facially unattractive" into jobs where other parts of them are stared at. That's all we're good for, right? *insert vapid giggle here*


No, she wouldn't be working there, and that's the point I was trying to make. The waitresses/bartenders at hooters are doing the same job as she was, yet she's not young enough or attractive enough to be hired. It seems to me that this is the way that other establishments are going in order to increase business. Is it right? No, I don't think so. Does it work? Yes it does. I know some guys who go to certain pubs or bars because of the "hot" and "young" ladies that work there. 

I think the lady in question should have been happy that she didn't get fired because of her age, but only because she didn't conform to the standards of her employer. She disobeyed the dress code or whatever you want to call it, and that's the reason for termination. Employers want employees who do their best to get the job done, without causing unnessesary disturbances or trouble. I agree that some emplyment requirements sound ridiculous, but that's the employers choice. If you don't agree with it then find another job. It's a harsh world out there and sometimes you just gotta put up with other people's crap.

I didn't mean to offend anyone with my previous Hooters post, obviously I was joking, and wanted to get people thinking about how apperence plays a significant role in some situations of employment and seems to be spreading to other occupations.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 29, 2004)

Good point about the "mid-stream" change, Bob - you articulated a point I just waved my hands about.  

It sounds like a new job requirement so they could legally boot a previously valued employee, and change the job from "competent bartender" to "pretty young eye-candy".

I am so sick of this.


----------



## Shidan (Dec 29, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I have NO tolerance for this kind of bull****. She did her job very well for 20 years. Now the company has booted her out - not offered her another position, not negotiated. Over MAKEUP?!? Come on, people, being "healthy-looking" and "presentable" does not necessarily mean wearing makeup. Some of the sickliest-looking womenI know look that way BECAUSE of their pancake makeup.
> 
> I am SO TIRED of the worship of almost-illegal youth and beauty. TIRED OF IT! Great message, court.
> 
> ...


*(before I begin, I am not looking to argue with you.  I merely wish to pose the other side, the side that rarely seems to get looked at).*

Well, we DON'T know that she did a good job for 20 years, we only know she was there.

While on a personal level, I agree that looks should not matter - the fact is they do.  If not by the owner/manager of a business, by the patrons.  A bar atmosphere is targeting men as a majority, and MEN spend money on women in bars.  If not with the members in their party, they'll tip the waitresses.  Waitresses either need to split up the tips at the end of the night or continue to provide good service for the business as they received good tips and had positive reinforcement.  The business wins, the patrons win, the employees win.  This being said.  The decision for a dress code lies with the employer.  If the employer knew this woman would NOT wear makeup and forced the policy change - that is simply their CHOICE.  For the woman, WHY work someplace where the people you work for DO NOT want you there?  They likely did her a favor in the long run.

It is very EASY to find a GOOD JOB.  First, remember not all jobs require a pay of $20 or more per hour.  

Second, some jobs exist as a mere convenience to the patrons.  For example: A carry-out boy at a grocery store.  This isn't a necessity nor is it a job that requires $5.00 an hour (speaking USA's min wage).  However, the company is forced to offer this position and offer it at $7 or more per hour to even fill it as high school kids think they need to earn College Graduate wages.

Third, Employer are not required to offer insurance or other benefits such as paid vacation.  These are luxuries.  Companies can offer time off (un-paid).  If one doesn't like it, go elsewhere.  If there is no where else to go, then decide if some money is better than no money.

Fourth, when jobs in ones particular discipline are limited, such as factory, or IT, consider another profession and start the training.  Medical jobs are going to be seriously short staffed by the year 2006-7.  This doesn't mean a line worker needs to take the MCAT's, but they can certainly obtain training to become an x-ray technician, a insurance coder for a medical office, etc..   Even the trucking industry is looking for more GOOD people to haul freight.  Agriculture in the US is heavily hiring migrant workers because NO Citizens will do the work (I have a number of years of experiencing this problem.  And happy to say I'll work with any migrant worker.  Treat them well, and receive 10 times the work ethic of most Americans).

So, there is work out there.  It may not be in the neighborhood one currently resides in. It may not be exactly what one had, but there is work!  The education process is a 'process' (goes forever).  Work is a task - it comes to an end.  Sometimes it means to move on.


----------



## Shidan (Dec 29, 2004)

Deuce said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to offend anyone with my previous Hooters post, obviously I was joking, and wanted to get people thinking about how apperence plays a significant role in some situations of employment and seems to be spreading to other occupations.


No offense.  It was a good comment.

I won't go to Hooter's, but I know many who do (and it 'cause of the wings).  My choice.  But there are people who are willing to dress in little clothing, have men make comments or druel and are really pleased with themselves at the end of the night.

My hat (if I wore one) is off to them for keeping the scum away from me


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 29, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> * Court: It's OK To Fire Woman Who Wouldn't Wear Makeup *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think if she was much-praised, she must have been doing something right.

Why is it that when employers decide that all their employees must be a certain way (under 30, for example, a la Children of the Corn), we must automatically say "I can understand, it is their perogative, OK"?  For some requirements - a dress code, perhaps, or certain levels of cleanliness, such as washing, trimmed nails, whatever - OK.

But MAKEUP?  That just is ridiculous.

Sure, sure it's the company's perogative.  But it's stupid, it undermines any employee/company loyalty, and no, good jobs AREN'T just lying around.  If you think health insurance is a "bonus", and not something everyone needs, you may be coming from another planet as I am.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 29, 2004)

Deuce said:
			
		

> No, she wouldn't be working there, and that's the point I was trying to make. The waitresses/bartenders at hooters are doing the same job as she was, yet she's not young enough or attractive enough to be hired. It seems to me that this is the way that other establishments are going in order to increase business. Is it right? No, I don't think so. Does it work? Yes it does. I know some guys who go to certain pubs or bars because of the "hot" and "young" ladies that work there.
> 
> I think the lady in question should have been happy that she didn't get fired because of her age, but only because she didn't conform to the standards of her employer. She disobeyed the dress code or whatever you want to call it, and that's the reason for termination. Employers want employees who do their best to get the job done, without causing unnessesary disturbances or trouble. I agree that some emplyment requirements sound ridiculous, but that's the employers choice. If you don't agree with it then find another job. It's a harsh world out there and sometimes you just gotta put up with other people's crap.
> 
> I didn't mean to offend anyone with my previous Hooters post, obviously I was joking, and wanted to get people thinking about how apperence plays a significant role in some situations of employment and seems to be spreading to other occupations.


I'm not offended, but surely you can see that as this "requirement" is spreading to other occupations, we'll soon have a national corporate policy of "no fat chicks" or something equally abhorrent.

Wearing makeup is one of the dumbest job requirements I've heard of, period. It doesn't mean you'll look better, or younger, or anything. 

And, as a woman, I am always *delighted* when I hear of others being allowed to keep a job or not based on their appearance, whether or not it is a clever marketing ploy. 

Please, let's make sure all our librarians are coyly chewing on the ends of their glasses, with their blouses unbuttoned half-way down. Then more people will support local libraries!

I'm just tired of it.

ETA: Why should she be happy not to be fired because of her age?  Why be delighted in being told you are no longer a competent bartender because you don't look right?


----------



## Deuce (Dec 29, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> ETA: Why should she be happy not to be fired because of her age? Why be delighted in being told you are no longer a competent bartender because you don't look right?


I'm just saying that it sounds like the reason she got fired was because of her objection to the policy, and not her age or appearence. If she would have complied with the new rules, she would still be employed. Some employers have absolutely no tolerence for insubordination. 

It is crap that her employer told her initially that she wouldn't have to wear make-up, and then change the policy on her.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 29, 2004)

Now Now Bob...

 I managed a Hot Topic for 6 years...

 It's not "Goth" its "MtV Influenced Fashions and Accessories"  and I never looked down on people who didnt look the part when they came in.

 I looked down on people who came in in general.  

 As far as the "How do we know she did a good job" types comments...

 She worked there 20 years... Dunno about you, but an employee under me who doesnt do a good job doesnt last 20 days, let alone 20 years.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 29, 2004)

Deuce said:
			
		

> I'm just saying that it sounds like the reason she got fired was because of her objection to the policy, and not her age or appearence. If she would have complied with the new rules, she would still be employed. Some employers have absolutely no tolerence for insubordination.
> 
> It is crap that her employer told her initially that she wouldn't have to wear make-up, and then change the policy on her.


True, and true.

*sigh* (not at you, Deuce, but at the situation)

I can't wait until this becomes even more of a problem where I work now, in academics.  All about what you know, how you teach, right?  Grrr - so many times, I get - or hear of other teachers - getting comments on the year-end evaluations on appearance.  It makes me crazy.  And we all dress professionally (I guess "business casual", pretty much), etc.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 29, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Now, with this woman, they changed the rules midstream.  I don't like that.  ........   She was there 20? years, and was well respected... There were options available that neither party seemed to want to see.



The article says she was transferred for a month, then fired.  They transferred her because they thought they would lose in court (too bad they didn't) if they out-and-out fired her.  So instead they shuffled her somewhere else where the code was still in effect and where she still bucked the system.  Given that she then had a new title in a new department, she was then under the scrutiny of the new rules and they then had grounds to fire her.  Happens all the time.


----------



## Shidan (Dec 29, 2004)

What I don't understand is why people will FIGHT to stay at a place of employement where they are disliked?  If your co-workers hate you and your boss appreciate you that is one thing.  When Management hate you but your co-workers like you.... you're days are numbered.


Here is where I see a problem with our work culture.  When an employee is disgruntled because they were disciplined for being tardy, out of dress code, used inappropriate behavior, etc..  the employee many times gets angry and quits.  When an employer no longer approves of an employee, performance, atitude or performance, they MUST PROVE a history.

Marriages fail all the time.  People who are married for 20 or more years suddenly one spouse wants a divorce.  WHY?  Was the marriage good for almost 20 years and suddenly went bad?  Not likely.  More likely each party was too chicken to make a tough decision early on.  Finally, one day on spouse makes the decision and the other is 'surprised'.

Employers have employees who are marginal.  The employee doesn't violate any policy and can get the job done, but isn't a star.  No REASON to fire them, but after enough time, management gets the courage to do so.

Business partners do this too.  Go into business all excited.  One partner isn't pulling their weight, the other is doing everything and too busy to disolve the partnership.  Time passes, the busy partner finds the time to disolve the partnership and the other parnter is angry.

Many people dislike conflict.  When feelings and conduct are not addressed early - 20 years later it seems like a mean, personal attack.  It was likely bad management decision 20 years ago.  Even more likely, someone else hired this woman -and management changed.  

Another point we don't know:  What pressure was HER boss under?  Was business suffering?  Had this waitress mixed drink orders on a big client?  Was she in fact not an 'attractive' waitress in relation to the rest of the staff? Were sales down or soft when she worked in relation to her peers?

Both sides definately have good points.  Being a female doesn't give me 'special' rights over male conterparts.  If I am qualified for a job - I am offered it, if I am not, then someone else is offered it.  IT overall is a sad case, but certainly not one that should have made it to the court system.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 29, 2004)

Of course employers must demonstrate why they are firing employees - because they do not want to be sued for discrimination, for being chauvinistic, etc. Employees have rights, actually, assuming that they are doing their job well and dealing with co-workers well.

You don't have to like your employees (or boss), but you can't fire someone just because you don't like them personally, or want your young girlfriend to be your secretary instead, or someone decided to squeeze out a good employee for trivial reasons. 

Otherwise, people could lose their jobs at the drop of a hat, for no reason, and have no legal recourse. Then workers would have 0% of the rights, and power, and personal dignity, and employers would have 100%.


----------



## Shidan (Dec 29, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> ......Otherwise, people could lose their jobs at the drop of a hat, for no reason, and have no legal recourse. Then workers would have 0% of the rights, and power, and personal dignity, and employers would have 100%.


 
True.  Except there is an unfair burden placed upon employers today.  There are far to many under motivated, under qualified employees holding positions and because they were hired in good faith, they cannot be fired now that they have shown themselves to be marginal or completely useless.

Certainly, there may be some employers with an ego trip and fire people just because.  Many more won't do that.  Jobs like education are priviledges NOT RIGHTS as too many people think.  If it was better understood how precisious an education is - kids wouldn't drink and cheat in college.  Employees would show gratitude toward the company they work for and show up on time, not abuse breaks and generally be productive during the day (no personal e-mails, no internet games, no web surfing, no coffee pot gossiping during non-breaks, no leaving early (regularly), no tardiness (regularly).

The problem with the documentation burden on the employer is that say an employee is tardy 5 minutes on day.  The company policy clearly states that all employees must report no less than 10 minutes prior to the start of their shift and anytime after the start of their shift is tardy.  The employee has never shown up late in the past so her immediate supervisor overlooks the infraction.  Two weeks later it happens again, then again a week later.  

Had the supervisor disciplined the employee, most people would likely say the guy was a jerk.  Unfortunately, in almost a months time, he now has an employee who is showing signs of violating company policy (AND THERE ISN"T A HISTROY IN PRINT).

As an employee and a female, I am tired of people/employees making things to be other peoples responsibility.   

It seems to be forgotten that companies/businesses don't exist for people to earn livings.  Businesses exist because one person had an idea, took a chance, had some success and grew his dream.  After growing his dream/vision, he needed some help, so he hired some people to carry out his dream.  

There is too much attitude of people believeing that a company is 'bad' if they move overseas or fire/layoff workers.  There is this misconception that ALL businesses are run like Enron.  They are not.  Businesses are made up of people who had the guts to take a chance to make some money and then hired others to help share in his success.  Just because they are helping run the business doesn't mean they are entitled to more than the wage they agreed upon when they started.  Employment opportunities are plentiful and do exist in surplus for the right people.  Those who are undermotivated or need hand-holding for motivation are feeling the pinch.

Learn, adapt, move on.  I have a number of friends who have lost their jobs due to job closings in the area.  They are good people, some are motivated and some are not.  The motivated ones were without work a few weeks.  Some took on new training, and two went back to school.  All have families with kids -but they are managing.  The others are still complaining that everything is the world's fault....likely to be unemployed for a long time. :?


Having a Jobs is a priviledge not a right!

(just my 10 cents)


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 29, 2004)

It sounds like if you find a job, then you must be a good employee, and if you don't, or are frustruated, then clearly you are not a good employee.

This may or may not actually be the case.

If an employer's policy is "you are late after 10 minutes", and someone arrives 5 minutes late, they have not violated the policy, even if others are irritated by it.

And in the case we were discussing, yes, I do think employees who have been hard-working, good at what they do, and loyal to the company should (or at least could in the past) expect some company appreciation/loyalty for their years of service and hard work.  Someone who has worked for you for 20 years has given a great deal of service to the company.  I have no patience for the way long-term, quality employees are tossed aside - a la GM, amazon.com, many other corporations - for cheaper "temps", or taking jobs overseas.  I think we should expect more from corporations who get out of paying the taxes they owe our government, for a start.  And it makes me sad that the reward for staying with a company is getting tossed into the rubbish heap.  Some people devote themselves to a company, work hard, and then are cast aside because a new graduate will do the job cheaper.  

We don't value experience much, it seems.


----------



## Shidan (Dec 29, 2004)

If an employee is frustrated, larger companies have HR departments to deal with these issues.  If the employee isn't happy - Why stay?  Put up or shut up.  Jobs like marriage are filled with ups and downs.  Most are temporary and arrise out of a lack of communication usually by both parties involved.

As for GM or Amazon.com and other companies who have terminated employees.  Keep in mind the good of the many over the good of the few.  The whole company will go under if the company continues to pay out large some monies.  

The employees being terminated agreed to work for xxx pay.  Now the company to stay in business so thousands all employees are not sacrificied must sever some of the higher paid 'jobs' (remembering that jobs are temporary as they are tasks that end).  The employee could be allowed to continue at the same position for yyyy pay.  However, it can be pretty much guessed that FEW people would do this without complaining and without sacrificing performance.  So, the smart business move is to end the relationship alltogether.  Harsh - Maybe.  Necessary, so others are able to continue working and the company can hang on for another year.


(btw-Feisty Mouse, I hope you are enjoying this discussion.  I do completely understand you points!  I am enjoying this discussion as it is rare to find someone who is able to converse without merely repeating their first statement after an opposing point is brought up.  Yes, I could have pm'd this, but I wish for others to be aware this is a healthy discussion, if they maybe thinking otherwise.)


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 30, 2004)

Shidan,

Your profile doesn't say how old you are.  I am in my 50s, and trying to find another job would be nigh onto impossible without going back to school and getting retrained.  That's assuming I couldn't get another position doing what I do.  Point is, I'd be viewed as too old to wait tables in Hooters if I was so inclined or it was necessary [despite my martial arts body. ]  You keep glossing over that point.  The other thing is, if I've been working somewhere for 20 years, I have seniority, I am probably at the top of my pay scale (something most potential employers would see and shudder), and *I like what I do as well as I am good at what I do.*  I highly doubt an employee of 20 years is a marginal one.  Unless you're talking about someone who holds a position which guarantees employment, like civil service, and the person cannot be fired unless there is an egregious offense, I don't think an employer would continue to employ a marginal employee.  

Not wearing make up hardly qualifies as egregious in my book.

You're right.  It is a good discussion, but, like all the others which take place in the Study, it has many facets and cannot be explained away handily.


----------



## Shidan (Dec 30, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Shidan,
> 
> Your profile doesn't say how old you are. I am in my 50s, and trying to find another job would be nigh onto impossible without going back to school and getting retrained. That's assuming I couldn't get another position doing what I do. Point is, I'd be viewed as too old to wait tables in Hooters if I was so inclined or it was necessary [despite my martial arts body. ] You keep glossing over that point. The other thing is, if I've been working somewhere for 20 years, I have seniority, I am probably at the top of my pay scale (something most potential employers would see and shudder), and *I like what I do as well as I am good at what I do.* I highly doubt an employee of 20 years is a marginal one. Unless you're talking about someone who holds a position which guarantees employment, like civil service, and the person cannot be fired unless there is an egregious offense, I don't think an employer would continue to employ a marginal employee.
> 
> ...


Regarding finding a job:
It can be done, but the emotion needs to be taken out of it.  There is such a fear as we get older about 'starting over', 'not getting the same pay/benefits', 'being used to a routine', etc... acknowledge the comments, but go get a job.  It is easier to get a better job when you have a job, then it is to find a job with NO job.  UPS, Pizza delivery, season retail work, fast food - these places seem to ALWAYS have help wanted signs up - it's not likely the most glamorous work - but it is work non-the-less.  SOme of these places reimburse for education, some you can work yourself into management.  It is all about having a paycheck during a time when a person isnt getting one.

AS Martial Artists, hopefully the years of training (or even the first few white belt classes) help the student to see that things are not always as they seem.  Relax, be patient, and let what happens happen, now make the move.

When a career path dies. Retrain, go back to school, move on.  It is this simple.  There are times in our life when we must take jobs we do not like, but can help pay the bills.  Short term loss for the long term gain!

There are plenty of jobs for motivated individuals over the age of 40 (which includes 50, 60, 70 and yes 80).  Self-defense of our welfare begins when we are able to earn for ourselves.  We must safe money for down the road.  We must invest money that we saved to not be a slave to the lender.  We must plan for 'life' to happen (a death of a spouse, loss of job, destroyed home, etc...)

Firing someone over not wearing make-up is a bit strange, however, allowing yourself to be fired for failing to wear make-up is not good self-defense.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 30, 2004)

Shidan said:
			
		

> If an employee is frustrated, larger companies have HR departments to deal with these issues. If the employee isn't happy - Why stay? Put up or shut up. Jobs like marriage are filled with ups and downs. Most are temporary and arrise out of a lack of communication usually by both parties involved.
> 
> As for GM or Amazon.com and other companies who have terminated employees. Keep in mind the good of the many over the good of the few. The whole company will go under if the company continues to pay out large some monies.
> 
> ...


I think that you might find, however, that companies are not always looking out for the "greatest good" of all employees, but "maximum profitability", which does not take employees into account.  GM closed a huge money-making plant in Michigan, not because it was doing poorly, but because cheaper labor, care of NAFTA, could be found in other countries (a la Mexico).  No-one was profited except the corporation, leaving people in a town that was virtually supported by this one industry to realize there was little to no work in town.

I appreciate your "go-get-'em" attitude, and the idea of financial "self-defense", but folks, especially those with kids, don't often have the opportunity to save.  Some folks have medical problems that sucks up all their free funds.  

Being "dumped" by your company (whether you liked them or hated them) means possibly finding a lower-paying job, if you can find one quickly.  For folks I know who *need* their health insurance so they can get their meds, being without funds and without health insurance (or having to pay for COBRA) is terrifying.  

And, I still hold, disloyal and crappy of a corporation to boot a long-time *good* employee, for trivial reasons like make-up.  Next it'll be "your boobs are sagging, pay for a boob job or find a new job."  Way to value women in the workplace.


----------



## Shidan (Dec 30, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I think that you might find, however, that companies are not always looking out for the "greatest good" of all employees, but "maximum profitability", which does not take employees into account. GM closed a huge money-making plant in Michigan, not because it was doing poorly, but because cheaper labor, care of NAFTA, could be found in other countries (a la Mexico). No-one was profited except the corporation, leaving people in a town that was virtually supported by this one industry to realize there was little to no work in town.
> 
> I appreciate your "go-get-'em" attitude, and the idea of financial "self-defense", but folks, especially those with kids, don't often have the opportunity to save. Some folks have medical problems that sucks up all their free funds.
> 
> ...


Companies do NOT need to exist for people to have jobs.  Having a job because of a company is a luxury.  Sometimes that luxury ends.  Relying on someone else for survival is a very risky endevor -which many continue to find out.

Losing a job when while having children is difficult.  However, no one evey said to have 3, 7 or 10 kids.  Birth control is pretty easy to come by in the US.  If its a religious thing - well, abstain and don't be selfish.  Bringing children into this world and not being able to provide for them is poor self-defense.  As debt begins to pile on, a person could be more likely to take up activities they normally wouldn't consider.

Paying for COBRA is better than not having any insurance at all.  Looking for alternatives to being healthy and getting off medication is also an option - There are some diseases that this isn't possible, but many others are taking meds because they think they need them.

So long as people will 'do' anything for work, there will be a market for those people.  There have always been women to 'entertain' men in different centuraries it was called different things, but the gist is - it happened and will continue to happen.

Frankly, working in a bar is still infringing on supporting this type of behavior.  Whether or not the patrons are dressed in suits or flannel just depends upon the cost of the drinks and the size of the tips.

When companies seize to exist - moving may be the answer.  Civilizations have MOVED throughout our history to areas that had 'better opportunity', better soil for planting, better water, better hunting.  Moving because one losses a job need not be so emotional - it is what people have always done to survive.


----------



## auxprix (Dec 30, 2004)

> GM closed a huge money-making plant in Michigan, not because it was doing poorly, but because cheaper labor, care of NAFTA, could be found in other countries (a la Mexico). No-one was profited except the corporation, leaving people in a town that was virtually supported by this one industry to realize there was little to no work in town.



I profited. I think you did too. GM cars are more affordable for us as a result (not that I would, I'm not a huge fan of GM). But this is a discussion for a different board.


We can only make loose assumptions about this case. We can assume that she was a good employee, and followed the qualifications of her job well untill they were changed. We can not assume that she had allergies to makeup, as that probably would have been brought up in the case. Therefore, I think that we can agree that she didn't wear makeup because she didn't want to, or was unhappy with the change.

Shidan is right again. Jobs are not a right, but a privilage. It's always a two way street. Sure, her employers should know that they owe a great deal of gratitude to this woman for her service over twenty years. At the same time, she should owe her employer a certain amount of grattitude for the length of time she was employed.

So I read most of everyone's writings, and one consensis that was reached is that it was a trivial issue. I agree. It was very petty and trivial. But I find it more petty and trivial that she didn't do something so simple as apply a little makeup before work to look a little better (as her employer defines it) for the employees.

So am I a heartless bastard who refuses to see her side? No. I am surprised that there wasn't a better system in place at the company to deal with problems like this (or, perhaps there was, and she refused to go by it. Thus stubbornly refusing the  policy rather than being constuctive). What I think was missing here was a dialog, where she could give her concerns and the management theirs.

-aux


----------



## raedyn (Jan 5, 2005)

I know I'm a little late to the party with these details, but they are pertinent to this discussion and our understanding of this story. 

http://www.workplacefairness.org/pblog.php


> Put simply, Harrah's policy is "women must wear makeup; men can't." The policy requires women to wear foundation, concealer, or powder, blush, mascara, and to make sure that they have lip color on at all times (a challenge which has earned cosmetics manufacturers millions from women tired of constant reapplication after eating or even talking.) Not only do women have to wear all these types of makeup, but they were required to have a "makeover" by an "image consultant." Once the employee and the image consultant had devised the employee's "personal best" look, then the employee's picture would be taken, and the employee's appearance would be expected to conform to the picture each day she or he came to work.





> wearing makeup made her feel sick, degraded, exposed, and violated. Jespersen felt that wearing makeup forced her to be feminine and to become dolled up like a sexual object, and that wearing makeup actually interfered with her ability to be an effective bartender (which sometimes required her to deal with unruly, intoxicated guests) because it took away [her] credibility as an individual and as a person.





> Employers, however, can impose all kind of arcane and senseless requirements on their employees without violating the law ... What made Harrah's conduct illegal, or so Jesperson and her attorneys thought, was the difference between how female employees and male employees were treated under the Personal Best policy.
> 
> While a female employee must spend however long it takes to put on makeup in the morning, men were not required, and in fact forbidden, to wear makeup. While a female employee had to tease, curl, or style her hair every day, men only had to show up with hair trimmed above the shirt collar that was "well-groomed." Women had to paint their fingernails with clear, white, pink or red polish (very practical for employees who handle ice and must frequently wash their hands), while men were not allowed to wear colored polish. The result of Harrah's policy was that women had to spend a significant amount of time, money, and effort to meet the company's standards, while men only had to follow basic grooming and hygiene guidelines without having to "do" anything extra in order to show up for work.


http://www.nevadalabor.com/barbwire/barb00/barb10-8-00.html


> Once you're photographed after your Miss Muffin Makeover, you are expected to remain that way the rest of your life. Your work clothes sizes can only be altered if you've had a boob job.Culinary Union organizer D. Taylor called the new rules "tantamount to saying working mothers need not apply."


http://www.nevadalabor.com/unews/jespersuit.html <-- the text of the federal civil rights complaint


> [The casino's] policy is discriminatory per se, because it discriminates against women by (1) subjecting them to terms and conditions of employment to which men are not similarly subjected, and (2) by requiring that women conform to the sex-based stereotypes as a term and condition of employment.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 5, 2005)

raedyn, I *heart* you.


----------



## Shidan (Jan 6, 2005)

So find a new place of employment that is more suiting to your (her) tastes.

I wouldn't subject myself to this dress code unless I needed to keep my job (i.e. I had no other options).  People can move.  People can go back to school.  People can hire into other companies that have different cliental and do not need this type of image.

It is Las Vegas


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 7, 2005)

Again - point is, why should she have to look for work after twenty years of employment? And, why is Harrah's so darned specific about nail polish color? *One* would think that, after twenty years of employment, this woman knew what was appropriate.

The point about her having to intercede (cut off) a patron who is too intoxicated is also a good one. Credibility tends to be lost if a woman is "stereotypable" -- i.e., she's blonde so she must be dumb; she's got big boobs, so she must be dumb; she's female, so she can't possibly be stronger than a man, etc.

As Eulalie McKechnie Shinn would say -- Balzac.

PS - many thanks to Raedyn.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 7, 2005)

auxprix said:
			
		

> Shidan is right again. Jobs are not a right, but a privilage.



It's funny how people always forget that corporations are granted a charter of limited liability in return for the benefits that they provide to society, through economic stimulus and the employment of citizenry.  

Instead, people now believe that their only obligation is to make profit at any cost.  This is, of course, the inevitable result when capitalists control marketing and education -- who needs to understand history?  It doesn't maximize shareholder value.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 7, 2005)

Shidan said:
			
		

> So find a new place of employment that is more suiting to your (her) tastes.



In these discussions, it's assumed that labor has the same level of mobility and power that employers wield.

Any analysis of the actual history of capitalism and labor should prove that this isn't the case.  The necessity of the labor movement is perfect proof of this.  This would require you to crack open a history book or three, however.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 8, 2005)

Shidan said:
			
		

> So find a new place of employment that is more suiting to your (her) tastes.
> 
> I wouldn't subject myself to this dress code unless I needed to keep my job (i.e. I had no other options).  People can move.  People can go back to school.  People can hire into other companies that have different cliental and do not need this type of image.
> 
> It is Las Vegas



One point some might neglect is that this woman must be near 40.  The older you get, the harder it is to get hired.  If this woman did her job, did it well and was presentable (as opposed to drop-dead gorgeous) and followed health laws and gave good customer service and did not abuse any priveledges and was an otherwise excellent employee, there just is no good reason to fire her.  There is the "grandfather clause" that discretionary administrators could have employed for her.

It's not like she's a stripper or a showgirl - she's tending a bar, NOT a rod.


----------



## Bester (Jan 9, 2005)

Ever notice...

The guys who make these rules about women needing to wear makeup, have a 38DD bust, and killer body....

Are usually fat, need a shave, some serious hair-care tips and some deoderant as well?


----------



## The Prof (Jan 10, 2005)

Ceicei is right, what if a women is allergic to make up?  I guess that it's okay to fire them anyway.  It just seems a bit unfair that after years of working there and not wearing make up she now gets fired.  Obviously she must have been a good worker, she maintained her job for those years. But then, who wants good workers.  It's better to have "cute" according to their standards.  

I wonder what would happen if they decided that all bartenders would look better if they were bald?


----------

