Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
9th Circuit Court Decision: Employers Can Require Women's Makeup
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals <A href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B2EBFED27F7F762388256F7800008625/$file/0315045.pdf?openelement">ruled on December 28th, 2004 that a <strong>female employee fired for refusing to wear makeup cannot sue her employer for sex discrimination</strong>.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on December 28th, 2004 that a female employee fired for refusing to wear makeup cannot sue her employer for sex discrimination. Darlene Jespersen had been employed by Harrah’s Resorts as a bartender in Reno for over two decades. In 2000 Harrah's put into place a “Personal Best” policy that required female employees to wear their hair "teased, curled or styled," and wear "foundation/concealer and/or face powder, as well as blush and mascara," nail polish, and lipstick.
Male bartenders at Harrah's were only required to wear their hair above the collar and keep their nails clean and neatly trimmed.
Jespersen was fired when she objected that the new standards "forced her to be feminine" and made her feel "dolled up" like a sex object. Jespersen said that when she had worn makeup in the past, she had felt that it interfered with her ability to win the respect of customers that would be necessary or her to deal with them when they were unruly. This sounds like a clear case of discrimination based on sex stereotypes, no? Well, no: the 2-1 decision rejected Jespersen’s suit, saying that she had not shown that feminine standards were significantly more burdensome than those imposed on men. Sounds like these judges had never had to put on makeup or curl their hair. The Court held that sex stereotyping rulings – such as the landmark Supreme Court case decision Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse – did not specifically address the issue of sex-differentiated grooming standards.
In the dissenting opinion, Judge Sidney Thomas stated, "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 (of the US Civil Rights Act)." The decision was largely ignored by the mainstream media and mainstream feminist organizations, perhaps due to the fact that it was announced between the Christmas and New Year holidays.
More about this court case Statement from GenderPAC, the national advocacy organization working to end discrimination and violence caused by gender stereotypes. 2001 Mother Jones Article Barbwire History of the Case 2/5/04: Case is about civil rights and sex bias by Darlene Jespersen
Jespersen was fired when she objected that the new standards "forced her to be feminine" and made her feel "dolled up" like a sex object. Jespersen said that when she had worn makeup in the past, she had felt that it interfered with her ability to win the respect of customers that would be necessary or her to deal with them when they were unruly. This sounds like a clear case of discrimination based on sex stereotypes, no? Well, no: the 2-1 decision rejected Jespersen’s suit, saying that she had not shown that feminine standards were significantly more burdensome than those imposed on men. Sounds like these judges had never had to put on makeup or curl their hair. The Court held that sex stereotyping rulings – such as the landmark Supreme Court case decision Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse – did not specifically address the issue of sex-differentiated grooming standards.
In the dissenting opinion, Judge Sidney Thomas stated, "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 (of the US Civil Rights Act)." The decision was largely ignored by the mainstream media and mainstream feminist organizations, perhaps due to the fact that it was announced between the Christmas and New Year holidays.
More about this court case Statement from GenderPAC, the national advocacy organization working to end discrimination and violence caused by gender stereotypes. 2001 Mother Jones Article Barbwire History of the Case 2/5/04: Case is about civil rights and sex bias by Darlene Jespersen
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
This is no different than men being told they can't have long hair, beards, or whatever. You conform to what the owner wants employees to look like. Dont like it, get another job.
I can assure you that if the attorneys I work for were ever so stupid as to demand makeup, I would quit. Here in San Francisco, the casual routine is a big thing. We even have jeans being worn in all the law offices by attorneys and staff on Fridays. The 9th Circuit sits here, so this decision is especially ludicrous. Considering the casinos are organized, the union should either go on strike or get out of town. This is outrageous and we will not cooperate in any form whatsoever. This is all about contempt for women. Some of us remember the terrible years before the Vietnam War when idiot employers promoted skirts, makeup, etc. This is the same stupidity.
This case is supposed to go to the entire 9th Circuit now, which is about 15 justices. Let us remember these are bourgeois Babbitts of the upper middle class sitting in these courts. Their golfing buddies who are lawyers are making $600,000 to $800,000 in profits alone, not including investments. In that crowd, the women often prance around with some kind of makeup, hairdo, pearls, etc., all of which mask stupidity, and as to the rich, greed. The more crap a women has on her face and does with her hair, the more likely there is nothing inside the head.
Every day I remind myself that I have arrived at my future, and it is utterrly despicable. I cannot imagine why anyone has children. The quality of life keeps going backward in this society. We need a second American Revolution, with all deliberate speed.
This case is supposed to go to the entire 9th Circuit now, which is about 15 justices. Let us remember these are bourgeois Babbitts of the upper middle class sitting in these courts. Their golfing buddies who are lawyers are making $600,000 to $800,000 in profits alone, not including investments. In that crowd, the women often prance around with some kind of makeup, hairdo, pearls, etc., all of which mask stupidity, and as to the rich, greed. The more crap a women has on her face and does with her hair, the more likely there is nothing inside the head.
Every day I remind myself that I have arrived at my future, and it is utterrly despicable. I cannot imagine why anyone has children. The quality of life keeps going backward in this society. We need a second American Revolution, with all deliberate speed.
Localized rebellions wont do the trick. We need a simultaneous mass uprising across the entire globe.
First of all, whatever kind of revolution we need, we don't need it because a damned gambling casino requires its women employees to act "feminine", obnoxious as such a requirement may be. We need it because the earth is being destroyed, over 1,000 children are dying every hour because of malnutrition and preventable diseases, billions of people live at barely subsistence while working their asses off for some rich parasite, etc.
Secondly, to say that "We need a simultaneous mass uprising across the entire globe" is another way of saying that revolution is impossible, because it's never going to be simultaneous. There's going to be (and there already are) localized rebellions of various kinds in various parts of the world, mostly those areas oppressed by imperialism as well as by local capital or, especially, pre-capitalist elites. Our job is primarily to weaken the imperial beast from within its belly, so that it can't be the reserve cop for all those other elites.
After there's enough successful revolutions around the world to cut off the supply of loot to the empire, capitalists and workers here will have to fight over what those workers produce, rather than over the loot. Only then will there be a possibility of workers' revolution in what is now the heartland of the empire.
I'm not, BTW, saying we shouldn't fight over the lesser issues. But let's not act like they are the reasons for world (or even AmeriKKKan) revolution. To do so is an insult to those who really do need a revolution to end their misery.
Secondly, to say that "We need a simultaneous mass uprising across the entire globe" is another way of saying that revolution is impossible, because it's never going to be simultaneous. There's going to be (and there already are) localized rebellions of various kinds in various parts of the world, mostly those areas oppressed by imperialism as well as by local capital or, especially, pre-capitalist elites. Our job is primarily to weaken the imperial beast from within its belly, so that it can't be the reserve cop for all those other elites.
After there's enough successful revolutions around the world to cut off the supply of loot to the empire, capitalists and workers here will have to fight over what those workers produce, rather than over the loot. Only then will there be a possibility of workers' revolution in what is now the heartland of the empire.
I'm not, BTW, saying we shouldn't fight over the lesser issues. But let's not act like they are the reasons for world (or even AmeriKKKan) revolution. To do so is an insult to those who really do need a revolution to end their misery.
You're speculation is premature at best. At one time, it was an pretty good guess. That's no longer true. Communications technology has changed the calculus, For the first time in human history, working people have the ability to communicate horizontally, at a grass roots level, in real time, anywhere on earth. As this technology matures and becomes more widely available, simultaneous actions become ever more possible. This was proven beyond all doubt when tens of millions of people on four continents protested simultaneously the American blitzkrieg on Iraq. It didn’t end the war. It didn’t even prevent the invasion. But it proved the concept.
Yeah, vast numbers of ordinary people can organize ourselves on a mass basis, on a global scale. No, twenty million people walking around with placards cannot stop the global juggernaut of the New World Order. Neither can two hundred million. But two billion? Hell yes. Especially if we throw out the placards and bring pitchforks and torches (or whatever). Two billion people? If that’s not a tipping point, what is? And yeah, that is within our grasp. At last we have the tools. Now we need to learn to use them.
And no, dress codes are not petty concerns. We're talking about the dignity of labor here, we're talking about our very humanity. What defines the boss/worker relationship is not money, but who gives the orders. Class is not about economics. Economics is about class. Class is about dominance and submission.
We will be virtual live as long as we let these parasites act like they own us. It’s time to earn the respect we deserve in the only way possible. Demand it, and enforce that demand with the solidarity of comrades from all nations. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will. So like the man said, buck like thunder, and dump the bosses off our back.
Yeah, vast numbers of ordinary people can organize ourselves on a mass basis, on a global scale. No, twenty million people walking around with placards cannot stop the global juggernaut of the New World Order. Neither can two hundred million. But two billion? Hell yes. Especially if we throw out the placards and bring pitchforks and torches (or whatever). Two billion people? If that’s not a tipping point, what is? And yeah, that is within our grasp. At last we have the tools. Now we need to learn to use them.
And no, dress codes are not petty concerns. We're talking about the dignity of labor here, we're talking about our very humanity. What defines the boss/worker relationship is not money, but who gives the orders. Class is not about economics. Economics is about class. Class is about dominance and submission.
We will be virtual live as long as we let these parasites act like they own us. It’s time to earn the respect we deserve in the only way possible. Demand it, and enforce that demand with the solidarity of comrades from all nations. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will. So like the man said, buck like thunder, and dump the bosses off our back.
Should have read "virtual livestock"
Sorry, two left thumbs
Sorry, two left thumbs
"Their golfing buddies who are lawyers are making $600,000 to $800,000 in profits alone, not including investments. In that crowd, the women often prance around with some kind of makeup, hairdo, pearls, etc., all of which mask stupidity, and as to the rich, greed. The more crap a women has on her face and does with her hair, the more likely there is nothing inside the head."
yeah. This is sort of a tangent, but I was reading this essay by Bertrand Russell yesterday, called "in Praise of Idleness" and I thought it was interesting because he came to the same conclusions, in simple language that most everyone would agree with, that antiauthoritarians today are discussing. He is from the upper class, and was knighted and won a nobel prize (in math?), but the ideas discussed above are obvious to him 70 years ago. Why we collectively still have mental blocks about this stuff, and some lower middle class people can have attitudes like "why not just get another job" , or blaming poor people for not working hard enough, is ridiculous. There is an article in the Chronicle today about how women vs. men with precisely the same education and job still have a pay gap, and the reason for that is that even if 90% of the public doesn't have a sexist or racist attitude, the 10% in the leisure classes at the top make the decisions.
read
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2528/br_idle.htm
yeah. This is sort of a tangent, but I was reading this essay by Bertrand Russell yesterday, called "in Praise of Idleness" and I thought it was interesting because he came to the same conclusions, in simple language that most everyone would agree with, that antiauthoritarians today are discussing. He is from the upper class, and was knighted and won a nobel prize (in math?), but the ideas discussed above are obvious to him 70 years ago. Why we collectively still have mental blocks about this stuff, and some lower middle class people can have attitudes like "why not just get another job" , or blaming poor people for not working hard enough, is ridiculous. There is an article in the Chronicle today about how women vs. men with precisely the same education and job still have a pay gap, and the reason for that is that even if 90% of the public doesn't have a sexist or racist attitude, the 10% in the leisure classes at the top make the decisions.
read
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2528/br_idle.htm
personaly I think that make up should be worn by all workers
and for some it should be mandatory.
and for some it should be mandatory.
And i feel such a strong wave of love and gratitude for her for standing up to the archaic demands placed on her. I have been a wage worker my whole life, and it is difficult. So my heart and love and support to her...she did the right thing, against fairly formidable odds.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network