Court Backs Firing of Waitress Without Makeup

[episodic]

Link here


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - 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. . . . .

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: episodic
Link here


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - 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. . . . .

isn't this a repost?🙂

 

[yllus]

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling in favor of Harrah's. All three judges are males appointed by Democratic presidents.

"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," Judge Wallace Tashima wrote for the majority.

He cited the precedent of a 1974 case in which the court ruled that a company can require men to have short hair but allow long hair on women.

Huh. An interesting case to keep an eye on in the future. You could say that interviewees are discriminated against by their appearance during their interview if they look sloppy and it's an image-concious position. If the company deems it important to have employees who interact directly with customers look sharp, they should probably have the right to insist on some minimum level of appearance. Details like makeup seem a little much though.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: russianpower

Originally posted by: episodic
Link here


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - 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. . . . .

isn't this a repost?🙂

Not a repost for P&N. I commented in the OT thread and was thinking of making a post here.

I think that Men should be forced to wear Make-up then as well, at least even out the discrimination.

 

[episodic]

Yea it is crazy - a 20 something year old employee - rules change - she is out. Maybe makeup did not do her skin right? Maybe there was religious reasons. Maybe it was just really freaking uncomfortable. Men have oily faces sometimes, lets require them to put on a base and powder down. . .

 

[judasmachine]

makeup isn't healthy for the skin, no one should be forced risk their health for beauty.

 

[alchemize]

Legal forms of discrimination...

These casinos have an image to maintain, it's their business. Perhaps I should file a discrimination lawsuit against the modeling industry cause they won't hire me cause I'm hairy and ugly.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Legal forms of discrimination...

These casinos have an image to maintain, it's their business. Perhaps I should file a discrimination lawsuit against the modeling industry cause they won't hire me cause I'm hairy and ugly.

Similar to the man filing suit against Hooters. Was that you alchemize? That man was hairy and ugly too! :Q

I do have to agree, within limits, that certain positions require certain "looks" or "qualifications". Not going to detail this case one way or another, other than what I said above.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

I guess the judges are more beholden to Harrah's or whatever then a single individual.

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling in favor of Harrah's. All three judges are males appointed by Democratic presidents.

"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," Judge Wallace Tashima wrote for the majority.

What utter bullsh!t.

Originally posted by: alchemize
Legal forms of discrimination...

These casinos have an image to maintain, it's their business. Perhaps I should file a discrimination lawsuit against the modeling industry cause they won't hire me cause I'm hairy and ugly.

Well, she had already been with the company 20 years sans makeup.. so if you're saying this was just your everyday age discrimination firing then you are probably correct.

 

[Centinel]

So people honestly have an issue with an employer asking an employee to present themselves in a certain way to the public?

Next question....do you go into work wearing whatever the hell you want? or do you follow a dress code?

Same thing.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: Centinel
So people honestly have an issue with an employer asking an employee to present themselves in a certain way to the public?

Next question....do you go into work wearing whatever the hell you want? or do you follow a dress code?

Same thing.

Unless the employer is the madame in charge at a whorehouse, I don't see the need requiring face painting. Nice clothes and good grooming, that's fine. Makeup, or lack thereof, is personal.

 

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
Nice clothes and good grooming, that's fine. Makeup, or lack thereof, is personal.

Some would disagree with the former, and the latter.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
Nice clothes and good grooming, that's fine. Makeup, or lack thereof, is personal.

Some would disagree with the former, and the latter.

I am not speaking of personal preferences. I am speaking as an employee, or employer, you wouldn't want your employees to be offensive with bad B.O. or rotten teeth, dirty appendages, etc., or dirty/torn/tattered clothing. This might be thought to reflect poorly on the business. I'm not saying some people wouldn't want to see the wimmens all painted up, or even leave a bigger tip if they have a nice layer applied, but you would have to have a mental defect to be offended by someone just because they are not wearing makeup.