This isn't discrimination???

[kengr]

Court rules that women can be fired for not wearing makeup

And the court ruling (warning PDF file!)

Comments

[badriya.livejournal.com]

Well, I thought today was bad because 4 out of 5 photocopiers are not working in the building and it took me 45 minutes to find one that was and get in the queue to use it. But at least I can wear trainers to work and would never dream of wearing makeup.

Mind you, you don't have to have ID cards in the US.

[kengr]

In *theory* we don't. In practice, if you get stopped by a cop you'd better have some.

Ditto for a lot of transactions. :-(

[ziactrice.livejournal.com]

hmmm, I thought the backslide into a modern Dark Age was purely in my head.

I no longer think it's just in my head.

[freetrav.livejournal.com]

Not to minimize what this decision is saying, but there are a couple of things to be aware of which DO affect perception of this decision:

(1) It was made by a three-judge panel, not by the entire court. It can be appealed to the full court - and to the Supreme Court.

(2) It was made by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. This is the circuit that has had the most decisions overturned, on bases amounting to 'What the hell were you thinking?'.

Definitely, IMO, a bad decision - but I don't think it presages anything for the rest of the country, and I believe that it will be overturned when the Supreme Court eventually rules on the general issue (if not on this specific case).

reposting this

[delayra.livejournal.com]

in my journal so more people see it

[mz-serendipity.livejournal.com]

I am sure it will probably be over turned eventually by some PC court but frankly I kinda agree with it. I mean its vegas after all, the whole town wears a costume and has a certian image. It's also why we will never see a fat hooters girl. Like it or not companies have a right to portray a certain image and require a certain standard in their employees ( as long as it doesn't violete race or handicap laws. What bothers me is they offered her a chance of another job in a less girly costume area. She chose not to take it. If she had been terminated with out that I would have said more power to her. Although I guess they could have grandfathered her in since she had been there so long. Or hell all she had to do was get a doctor to say she was allergic to make-up. They couldn't fire her then. I get the sense she just saw a big pay day at the end of the "I'll sue you"
rainbow.

[freetrav.livejournal.com]

We don't know enough about those other jobs that she could have applied for. We don't know whether acceptance in any of those jobs was guaranteed. We don't know whether she was qualified for any of them. We don't know whether they paid as much as the job she had been working in for twenty years. There are a whole bunch of reasons why that alternative might not be appropriate; Harrah's and the employee are the only ones that can answer that. The issue here seems to be one of a change in standards that (a) seemed to enforce stereotypes that are no longer considered valid, and (b) did in fact (regardless of what the misguided court said) put an undue burden on the female employees.

It's quite frankly more expensive for a woman to meet those image standards than it is for a man; I've seen that women's clothing - even where it appears identical to a men's garment - is more expensive; women pay more for hair styling; women pay more for scents; and women pay through the nose for cosmetics - an expense that simply doesn't apply to most men. The fact that Harrah's had sharp standards for both men and women doesn't mean that they weren't placing an unfair burden on the women - they were, and the court has decided that they can.

As far as your comment about Hooters, I seem to recall that a *man* took them to court, and won.

[mz-serendipity.livejournal.com]

Actually Hooters did not lose the case. They settled to make it go away. The settlement allows Hooters to continue luring customers with an exclusively female staff of Hooters Girls.
The only change Hooters had to make was to create a few additional support jobs, such as bartenders and hosts, that must be filled without regard to gender. So in essense they won.
It was ruled tha under the bona-fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception, restaurants that market themselves as entertainment are allowed to discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex and other protected classifications. Similarly, film directors and amusement park operators are allowed to cast for certain types of people.