The policy required women to wear foundation, concealer, or powder, blush, mascara, and to make sure that they have lip color on at all times. Not only did women have to wear makeup, they were required to have a makeover by an image consultant. Once the employee and the image consultant had devised the employee's "personal best" look, then the employee's picture would be taken, and their appearance would be expected to conform to the picture each day he or she came to work. Jespersen refused to comply with the makeup requirements. She was given 30 days to apply for a new position that did not have a makeup requirement, but she refused to apply for a new position and was subsequently terminated. Jespersen filed suit against Harrah's alleging that the policy of requiring female beverage servers to wear makeup constituted disparate sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In granting Harrah's motion for summary judgment, and dismissing the complaint, the district court found that the appearance policy did not violate Title VII because they did not discriminate on the basis of characteristics associated with her sex and imposed equal burdens on both sexes. The 9th Circuit Court agreed with the district court, finding that if they were to take judicial notice of the fact that the application of makeup requires some expenditure of time and money, the plaintiff would still have the burden of producing some evidence that the burdens associated with the makeup requirement are greater than the burdens the policy imposes on male bartenders. "We have previously held that grooming and appearance standards that apply differently to women and men do not constitute discrimination on the basis of sex." In addition, the court held that Harrah's policy did not conflict with the 1989 Supreme ruling in which a female associate, who was perceived as too "macho," successfully challenged her exclusion from an accounting firm's partnership by noting the Supreme Court, "did not address the specific question of whether an employer can impose sex-differentiated appearance and grooming standards...
An employer is allowed to enforce reasonable grooming standards on an employee as long as they do not impose unequal burdens on either sex. Thus, an employer should have a clear appearance and conduct policy in place, especially if the policies have the potential of creating issues regarding an employee's gender. They must avoid grooming standards that are different for men and women, making them as gender-neutral as possible. If the policy requires non-changeable characteristics, they will run into problems, or lawsuits, or both. If there is a necessary difference, the employer must treat the standard as if it is an accountant's ledger in which the requirements for males equal the requirements for females.
Smith et al. v. City of Jackson, MS, et al., No. 03-1160 (2005). In sum, this ruling allows employees to prevail in an ADEA claim against their employers without proving that the employer intended to discriminate based on the employee's age." (2006) In the second caser under review in this study, specifically a case of Dolores Oubre, in Louisiana whose employer, Entergy Operations, Inc., "instituted a new employee evaluation process
Tanglewood Case Study This report is meant to provide a summary and analysis of Tanglewood and its future respective to its hiring requirements, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) concerns and other similar human resources matters. Included in this report is a hiring need analysis, a gap analysis, an assessment of demographic hiring and promotion percentages, what could or should be done to address any inconsistencies or potential compliance problems and how the
Since 100% of the candidates not-selected were over 40, and 100% of the candidates selected were under 40, the evidence shows that while age may not have been the sole favor, it was likely a motivating factor in the decision. WDE Rebuttal Dear Mr. Lincoln: As General Counsel for WDE Insurance, I am writing you regarding the allegations put forward by your client, Mr. Ron Whyme. According to your brief, Mr. Whyme
An appellate court case that found the employer liable for hostile environment sexual harassment is Kunin v. Sears Roebuck & Co. Under this claim, Karen Kunin was sexually harassed by a male employee based upon the abusive and derogatory language that was used. Kunin did not report any abuse to her employer other than to asking if cursing was harassment. The U.S. Court of Appeals found that an employer must
Racial Equality Like other forms of discrimination and bigotry in the United States, racism has thankfully started to tail off and reduce over the years and generations. However, this is happening at a pace that is frustratingly slow and plodding. Court decisions and new laws passed throughout the 20th and 21st centuries have led to more inclusion and less institutional racism and other bigotry. However, de facto racism and other forms
Information Technology on the Healthcare sector Healthcare systems serve to perform the very important function of preserving human capital. In modern society, health care assumes significance not just in terms of the expenditure it generates, but also because it is a large-scale consumer of goods and services, important employer and contributes in research and development. From the perspective of countries, maintaining and improving health care services require significant investments. Consequently
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now