From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Sat Jan 8 2005
Women Can Be Fired for Refusing to Wear Makeup, Court Rules
9th Circuit Court Says Fired Woman Cannot Sue Makeup-Requiring Employer
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. 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. 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 | Skin Deep: A Safety Assessment of Personal Care Products
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. 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. 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 | Skin Deep: A Safety Assessment of Personal Care Products
2025-02-22
Musk and Trump Blasted for Attempting Fascist Takeover
Front Page
| Labor & Workers
| Central Valley
| San Francisco
| South Bay
| East Bay
| Peninsula
| North Bay / Marin
| California
| U.S.
| Government & Elections
| Santa Cruz Indymedia2025-01-14
Healthcare Profiteers Encounter Protest at Investors Gathering
Front Page
| Health, Housing & Public Services
| San Francisco
| Palestine2025-01-01
Photography From Gaza By Journalist Ahmed Younis
Front Page
| Anti-War
| Media Activism & Independent Media
| Arts + Action
| East Bay
| Palestine2024-12-31
Launched 25 Years Ago, Riseup.net Continues Providing Vital Infrastructure
Front Page
| Global Justice & Anti-Capitalism
| Media Activism & Independent Media
| U.S.
| International2024-12-30
After Quick "Hiatus" Editors of IGD Continue Publishing
Front Page
| Global Justice & Anti-Capitalism
| Media Activism & Independent Media
| U.S.2024-12-24
A Shifting Landscape for Autonomous Anti-Capitalist Media
Global Justice & Anti-Capitalism
| Media Activism & Independent Media
| U.S.2024-12-23
Daniel Andreas San Diego Wanted for Questioning in Bay Area Bombings
Front Page
| Police State & Prisons
| East Bay
| U.S.
| International
| Animal Liberation2024-06-11
If Passed, Measure J Will Ban "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations"
North Bay / Marin
| Government & Elections
| Animal Liberation2024-06-11
Activists Stand in Solidarity with Horses Who Lost Their Lives at Race Track
East Bay
| Animal Liberation2024-06-11
Two Years After Shireen Abu Akleh Was Killed, There Still Is No Justice
Media Activism & Independent Media
| San Francisco
| International2024-06-11
Crisis Team Provides Students with Non-Police Response to Mental Health Crises
Police State & Prisons
| Health, Housing & Public Services
| Education & Student Activism
| California
| Santa Cruz Indymedia
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
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