It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by Bleys
I guess we are talking about the 9th circuit here though - go figure.
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
Originally posted by blend56
There has to be more information that has not been shared.