Woman Sues Over Casino's Makeup Policy
Someone please tell me how make up makes a woman "more professional?" Why is it important for women to cover up "flaws" in their features, while it is then prohibited for men to do the same? Why should a bartender of 21 years with a spotless record be fired for not wanting to wear make up?
The CHOICE to wear make up or not is a private one, sometimes even dictated by medical reasons. Most make up contains all kinds of artificial chemicals, additives, preservatives, etc. And if you have a skin condition, sometimes wearing make up is harmful to the condition and would make you look a lot LESS professional. Trust me on this one.
So, Harrah's Entertainment believes that make up is "necessary" for women. Why? There is no question that professionalism and appearance are important. Clean clothing, wearing certain uniforms or designated clothing can be important to the image of any company. But is mandating artificial covering of flaws and/or features for women, but not men discriminatory? I say yes.
Keeping clean clothes and a crisp appearance is professional, for both men and women. Make up, on the other hand, does not enhance professionalism, but only enhances DESIRABILITY. This can even be the opposite of professionalism, and can harm a woman's ability to function in the workplace.
Hopefully the court will agree with me. But I'm not holding my breath.
Woman Sues Over Casino's Makeup Policy: "Woman Sues Over Casino's Makeup Policy
By DAVID KRAVETS Associated Press Writer
(AP) - SAN FRANCISCO-The firing of a woman from her bartending job at a casino for refusing to wear makeup was an affront to female employees, her lawyer told an appeals court Wednesday.
The company's grooming policy gives women employees 'a demeaning message that their faces aren't good enough,' said Jennifer Pizer, Darlene Jespersen's attorney.
Patrick Hicks, an attorney for Harrah's Entertainment, however, argued that the makeup policy is necessary to 'create a professional image.'
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to rehear the closely watched sex-discrimination case after a three-judge panel rejected Jespersen's lawsuit in December, ruling that Harrah's had a right to fire her since the company required male workers to be equally well-groomed."
(Via Findlaw.)