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

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

......
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]

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]

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.]

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]

......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 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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