NEWS: Female Bartender Fired For Not Wearing Makeup Loses Case

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has tossed out a suit by a woman who was fired for refusing to wear makeup. Darlene Jespersen had filed a sex discrimination suit against Harrah's Entertainment following her dismissal after 21 years of employments. Her refusal to wear lipstick was in violation of a company policy. The court cited grooming requirements of male employees as a reason for their decision.

 



story.news.yahoo.com< br /> SAN FRANCISCO - A casino had the right to fire a woman bartender who refused to wear makeup since the company required male workers to be equally well-groomed, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out Darlene Jespersen's sex-discrimination case against Harrah's Entertainment, ruling its requirement that male bartenders keep their hair short, nails trimmed and otherwise appear neatly groomed was roughly equivalent to the grooming demands made of its female workers.

The ruling upheld a lower-court decision.

The Reno casino fired Jespersen in August 2000 after 21 years of service and high-performance marks. She maintained wearing makeup should be a personal choice, and had nothing to do with her job performance.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is an interesting ruling especially coming from the 9th Circuit Court. They tend to side to left with almost anything. Is makeup a grooming device? I my opinion no. Neat presentation, and clean appearance can be required, but makeup? That is more of a beauty enhancement if anything




posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Maybe she didn't look all that "neat" without any?

I've definitely seen women who shouldn't even consider leaving the house without their face on.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   
LOL She must have been a sight to behold....I guess we'd have to see a picture and judge for ourselves, huh?



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Her refusal to wear lipstick was in violation of a company policy. The court cited grooming requirements of male employees as a reason for their decision.


Can I assume from that comment that all male employees have to look like Boy George ?



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I agree that it should be a persons choice to wear make-up as they see fit. However, if it is established as a requirement of a company's dress code, I dont see where the issue leaves any room for debate or quarrel. If you dont like the dress code, get another job! I think she should have obeyed the request of her employer and put the lipstick on, spitefully, in such a hideous way that they may reconsider the guidelines of their dresscode! What are they going to do, fire her for following the rules?



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Is makeup a grooming device? I my opinion no. Neat presentation, and clean appearance can be required, but makeup? That is more of a beauty enhancement if anything


I think a natural shade of lipstick/lip gloss is not only good grooming but also necessary to keep the lips properly hydrated and healthy. Nothing looks worse than chalky and/or chapped lips on a person in customer service.

And, Val is so right...some women should not leave the house with a full face.
Although my foundation looks like I have no makeup, I always wear eye
makeup. I would feel naked without it. When I wanted to fake illness at work, I would not wear eye makeup---I looked plae and, well, sick.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
So what would be next??? Somebody will get fired because she/he didn't want to get face lift?



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I guess we are talking about the 9th circuit here though - go figure.

Since when is using makeup considered to be a part of good grooming? As long as a woman or a man for that matter is well groomed should we really care if they use cosmetics. We all know the saying about putting lipstick on a pig - if she was that ugly I doubt a little lipgloss was going to change that. Tammy Faye pretty much proves that point.

Another decision to be overturned on appeal.

B.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe


And, Val is so right...some women should not leave the house with a full face.
Although my foundation looks like I have no makeup, I always wear eye
makeup. I would feel naked without it. When I wanted to fake illness at work, I would not wear eye makeup---I looked plae and, well, sick.


LOL...that's me! I don't wear heavy make-up, but I'll bet you a 5 spot and a dozen donuts that I could take my make-up off, go to my mom's and she would ask

"Are you feeling okay? You look so pale?"

pffft...my whole face disappears if I don't have on at least eye make-up and lipstick.

Think about it...trying to enjoy a good bourbon and coke with a lip-less zombie person staring at you...

LOL.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
yea I personally find makeup accents a bit sexy, but it would never be a prerequisite! I also find that seeing a woman with no makeup, messed up hair, and little more than a T-shirt walking around the house in the morning a turn on as well -lol. Heck, now that I think of it, women just turn me on period!



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I can go incognito without eyeliner- Without it i lose my looks and my trademark dark haunting eyes...



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Think about it...trying to enjoy a good bourbon and coke with a lip-less zombie person staring at you...

LOL.


You have officially creeped me out. LOL!


come on Valhall it can't be that bad...........can it?



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
I guess we are talking about the 9th circuit here though - go figure.


Yeah thats why I am so surprised cause it was the 9th. She was on the job for 21 years and had stellar evaluations. How bad could she have looked without the lipstick? At any rate if she was "groomed" she should have been okay



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
How bad could she have looked without the lipstick? At any rate if she was "groomed" she should have been okay


I guess she probably looked like something out of Dawn of the Dead if she got fired for that.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Political Correctness Sucks.



Corporate Political Correctness is still A-OK!





posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Make up is an enhancement of beauty. It is not considered grooming.

The people in that court system are heap of dumbass's. Idoits that have no clue.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
This must go deeper then lipstick, as she was employed by them for 20 years before she got the boot. Something else must of happened in combination with not wearing lipstick. I would hope. As I have never been able to fire someone on just there appearance alone. Usually, I need permission from god in order to get rid of someone.
Thats how hard it is to fire someone who has any longevity within your company.

There has to be more information that has not been shared.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by blend56

There has to be more information that has not been shared.

You bring up an interesting point. We never get the whole story.

My knowledge of firings is firings shows me that the most deserving people are not the ones fired. That the most deserving to be fired sometimes get others fired to protect their cozy job set-up. People that make the wrong kind of waves are often gotten rid of--sometimes for reasons not related to their behavior.
Perhaps she stepped on someone's toes. Perhaps she didn't fit into the new corporate image. Perhaps they've been trying to get rid of her for years!

I wonder if she thought this through. Surely she could have gotten another job if she didn't resorted to filing a lawsuit. Now she must be a pariah in the bartender field.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Well, this is what I would have done....
I would have voiced my objection once, with the explanation that hey, my skin's too sensitive, I don't wear makeup....it's easier than trying to figure out just what I'll react to or won't. And, when they argued....
I would have used their danged makeup, and kept using is, then got fired because the blisters on my hands were weeping icky liquid all over the place and my face looked like it came out of a wood chopper......then I would have sued!!



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:39 AM
link   
"Perhaps she stepped on someone's toes. Perhaps she didn't fit into the new corporate image. Perhaps they've been trying to get rid of her for years!

I wonder if she thought this through. Surely she could have gotten another job if she didn't resorted to filing a lawsuit. Now she must be a pariah in the bartender field. "


Yes, I agree. Thats why I feel there is more to this. And that maybe you are correct to assume she felt a "shove" towards the door. Usually, when people are aware your trying to get rid of them, they try harder to stay. It becomes a power struggle, especially when they have years vested with a company. And that is the point when the "boss" gets rid of them on a technicality. Such as not wearing lip stick when your supposed to.

I would've stayed just long enough to find another position as well. She has just alienated herself from ever getting a job in her field. At least within her immediate area of location.
I guess we will never know the full story though. Interesting that with news now a days, your always left wondering...............

B56



[edit on 29-12-2004 by blend56]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join