Court Backs Firing of Waitress Without Makeup

A female bartender who refused to wear makeup at a Reno, Nevada, casino was NOT unfairly dismissed from her job, a U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

reuters.com...

Darlene Jespersen, who had worked for nearly 20 years at a Harrah's Entertainment Inc casino bar in Reno, Nevada, objected to the company's revised policy that required female bartenders, but not men, to wear makeup.

Interesting!

So the grooming and appearance standards do apply differently to men and women on the job, which discrimination based on sex is somewhat ok.

Tidy pony tails on men are ok ( ), but a women's refusal to wear makeup, not so ok ( )

A similar court case came up in the UK not so long ago. He refused to wear a tie and was fired for it. The court said the employer was right to fire him.

I don't think that's right. You shouldn't be required to wear make-up if you don't want to.

What if her religious convictions said she couldn't (of course, what would she be doing in a bar)? What if she's allergic--I know that cheap make-up makes me break out big-time.

My mother always told me that wearing make-up constantly can make your skin age more quickly. I wear it only occasionally myself--and even then, it's just a little--only to enhance. I don't shovel it on.

Well the make-up case surely isn't all that clear. If it's about wearing a tie, it's different. If your employer has guidelines for clothing and you don't follow them it is your problem since you most likely knew them at the time you signed the contract.

Back to the make-up case. If she knew it from the beginning that she was expected to wear make-up at work i have to admit that her employer has all rights to fire her. There still is the chance that her employer made all that up just to have a chance to fire her.

The point of both stories is that the courts do not consider different grooming standards for men and women to be sex discrimination. Which is fair enough, men and women are not indentical after all.

Too bad she didn't have the foresight in regards to her firing. If I were her I would have done my face up pretty bad - you know, the lipstick smear around the mouth, that kinda stuff. Then they would have had to set an employee standard as to what was acceptable makeup. She coulda' had a whole lot of fun with that one.

Originally posted by Beuford
Too bad she didn't have the foresight in regards to her firing. If I were her I would have done my face up pretty bad - you know, the lipstick smear around the mouth, that kinda stuff. Then they would have had to set an employee standard as to what was acceptable makeup. She coulda' had a whole lot of fun with that one.

..you forgot the red lipstick on the teeth too......Mimi on the Drew Carey show...

This kind of thing makes me sick, really though what right does anyone have to fire someone if they dont want to put a ton of nasty chemicals on their face, one in which contains fish eyes.
Also Zerb, she had worked their along time and the bar did not have a make-up policy when she was hired, it was only recently that the policy was revised to become manditory.

Come on folks, you have to bear in mind where this all took place: San Francisco.
Isn't this the very same place that recently stated and ruled that you can't fire a man for coming to work wearing a dress and make-up?

Amethyst:

What if her religious convictions said she couldn't (of course, what would she be doing in a bar)? What if she's allergic..

Need to read the article. This was not the applied case nor reasons for this bartender. There is no "if' in this particular case.



seekerof

[edit on 31-12-2004 by Seekerof]

lol
The Woman can't follow directions.
The female waitress is just making a scene.

This was reported here a few days ago:

www.abovetopsecret.com...