| A casino employment
issue that began years ago ended yesterday with a very hairy
decision from a federal appeals court. Darlene Jespersen filed a
suit in 2000 against Harrah’s Entertainment Inc., after her job was
terminated. Jespersen served 21 years as a casino bartender for
Harrah’s in Reno, but was fired when she refused to wear makeup on
the job.
The Harrah’s Entertainment Inc. lawyers say
that the 7-4 ruling further empowers, not only casino employers, but
all businesses to enforce reasonable grooming and dress codes in
their establishments. Jespersen’s lawyers are not remotely as
positive about the ruling in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals. They hold the ruling a gateway to several more
anti-discrimination suits that must see a ruling before sex
stereotyping through dress codes can be properly defined.
According to the court ruling, the Harrah’s
casino, for a few key reasons, was no more discriminatory of female
employees than they were of males. While the casino mandates that
women wear make up to work, it also forbids men to do so. In
addition, male employees are required to keep their hair cut, while
women are in no way obligated to cut their hair.
Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder answered for the
majority in her written statement, “This is not a case where the
dress or appearance requirement is intended to be sexually
provocative and tending to stereotype women as sex objects.”
The opinion of the dissenting judges took into
consideration the time and cost of applying daily makeup. They
considered it a mistake on the part of their colleagues to conclude
that Jespersen failed to offer enough evidence that daily makeup
application required more time and money than a haircut.
This opinion was summarized in the words of
Judge Alex Kozinski, “Is there any doubt that putting on makeup
costs money and takes time? Even those of us who don’t wear makeup
know how long it can take from the hundreds of hours we’ve spent
over the years frantically tapping our toes and pointing to our
wrists.”
In 2004, a three-judge panel stood behind the
similar decision of a federal judge. Jespersen then requested the
full court hear the case.
Patrick Hicks, one of Harrah’s lawyers,
reasserts the definition of the court victory, “The court affirmed
an employer’s right to adopt reasonable dress and grooming
standards.” Hicks saw no evidence the casino’s policy had the
intention or result of sexual discrimination.
Jespersen’s lawyer, Ken McKenna, looks for
redemption in the future, “It is a victory for women of the future.
She has kicked the door wide open for women in the future who feel
being forced to wear layers and layers of makeup is a sexual
stereotype.”
●
Return to News
|
