• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

woman fired for not wearing makeup

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Gothgar
hey, if it is required, then she should have worn it, her fault for testing the rules
Click to expand...

"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."


They changed the rules.

She had been there for over 20 years and had gotten great yearly reviews for her job performance.

They "revise" a rule and suddenly she is the worst employee and must be fired??? 😕
 
I'm an employer and if I require you to put makeup on, which is clearly stated when I hire you, then you cannot get hired and then contest it. It is a requirement that I have which you clearly stated you have no problem with, which is why you got the job in the first place. And if you dont't like it then just like Donald Trump would say, "You're fired!" Now if they changed the rules then I can see why she would have a problem with it. <---- My view on it.
 
They (Harrah's) have established a set standard for men's appearance and a set standard for women's appearance, in which, while each is different, neither standard is more burdensome than the other. It's fair and she should have been fired.
 
I agree with the ruling. The policy is pretty stupid, though. But that's their right.

Maybe if she had some medical condition that prevented her from wearing makeup, then at least I would think you could argue about it.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Gothgar
hey, if it is required, then she should have worn it, her fault for testing the rules
Click to expand...

"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."


They changed the rules.

She had been there for over 20 years and had gotten great yearly reviews for her job performance.

They "revise" a rule and suddenly she is the worst employee and must be fired??? 😕
Click to expand...

Any company can reserve the right to change their employment requirements.

If you cannot meet them, you are welcome to find another job.
 
Originally posted by: GrumpyMan
I'm an employer and if I require you to put makeup on, which is clearly stated when I hire you, then you cannot get hired and then contest it. It is a requirement that I have which you clearly stated you have no problem with, which is why you got the job in the first place. And if you dont't like it then just like Donald Trump would say, "You're fired!" Now if they changed the rules then I can see why she would have a problem with it. <---- My view on it.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, since many people keep saying the above and clearly didn't read the article, she worked there for a long time and then they CHANGED the policy.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Gothgar
hey, if it is required, then she should have worn it, her fault for testing the rules
Click to expand...

"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."


They changed the rules.

She had been there for over 20 years and had gotten great yearly reviews for her job performance.

They "revise" a rule and suddenly she is the worst employee and must be fired??? 😕
Click to expand...
No one said she was the worst employee.

 
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: GrumpyMan
I'm an employer and if I require you to put makeup on, which is clearly stated when I hire you, then you cannot get hired and then contest it. It is a requirement that I have which you clearly stated you have no problem with, which is why you got the job in the first place. And if you dont't like it then just like Donald Trump would say, "You're fired!" Now if they changed the rules then I can see why she would have a problem with it. <---- My view on it.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, since many people keep saying the above and clearly didn't read the article, she worked there for a long time and then they CHANGED the policy.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I decided to read the article. Instead of makeup though they should have required her to get a face lift instead....🙂
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674They "revise" a rule and suddenly she is the worst employee and must be fired??? 😕
Click to expand...
If they can't change the job requirements, I guess that job is no longer needed. Fire all people who have that job, create a new jobs title, re-hire those who fit the new job.

Is that better?

Don't be short-sighted, of course you can change job requirements, happens all the time. This year I'm required to get take different classes/certificaitons than last year, or perhaps they should require me to get the same certification again? 😕
 
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: GrumpyMan
I'm an employer and if I require you to put makeup on, which is clearly stated when I hire you, then you cannot get hired and then contest it. It is a requirement that I have which you clearly stated you have no problem with, which is why you got the job in the first place. And if you dont't like it then just like Donald Trump would say, "You're fired!" Now if they changed the rules then I can see why she would have a problem with it. <---- My view on it.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, since many people keep saying the above and clearly didn't read the article, she worked there for a long time and then they CHANGED the policy.
Click to expand...

even then, she still had the choice to abide by the rules or quit when the policy changed, no??
 
think about this. what if at your job right now, your employer required you to get face piercings. (ridiculous, but this is an example). You've worked there for 20 years and have a good comfortable job. you refuse. you're fired. would you be pissed?

also, this can be abused by employers. they can change the rules to force someone out. it can be used to get rid of people easily.
 
Originally posted by: Hammer
think about this. what if at your job right now, your employer required you to get face piercings. (ridiculous, but this is an example). You've worked there for 20 years and have a good comfortable job. you refuse. you're fired. would you be pissed?

also, this can be abused by employers. they can change the rules to force someone out. it can be used to get rid of people easily.
Click to expand...

But the ruling is limited in scope. They are saying that requiring a woman to wear makeup is not unduly burdensome, just as changing the requirment for men to be clean shaven is not burdensome. Your piercing analogy would only work is if facial piercing was a social norm, which it is not, however, women wearing makeup IS a social norm.

Of course companies can change the rules to get rid of someone. I was making a fair amount more than I was worth at my last job (they could hire someone for half as much to do the same work. Also, IM was allowed in our department for quite a while, but then company policy changed, no more IM. Well I CHOSE to disregard company policy and kept using IM and got canned. Was I pissed, well yeah(not anymore as I now have a better, higher paying job 😉), but I knew the rules and didn't follow them, I got what I deserved. Same as is the case with this oogly woman who refused to improve her appearance through the use of unburdonsome means.
 
Originally posted by: ILikeStuff
Originally posted by: Hammer
think about this. what if at your job right now, your employer required you to get face piercings. (ridiculous, but this is an example). You've worked there for 20 years and have a good comfortable job. you refuse. you're fired. would you be pissed?

also, this can be abused by employers. they can change the rules to force someone out. it can be used to get rid of people easily.
Click to expand...

But the ruling is limited in scope. They are saying that requiring a woman to wear makeup is not unduly burdensome, just as changing the requirment for men to be clean shaven is not burdensome. Your piercing analogy would only work is if facial piercing was a social norm, which it is not, however, women wearing makeup IS a social norm.
Click to expand...

true. it was just an example though, although an extreme one. i still think that the potentital for abuse is pretty big though.
 
Originally posted by: Hammer
think about this. what if at your job right now, your employer required you to get face piercings. (ridiculous, but this is an example). You've worked there for 20 years and have a good comfortable job. you refuse. you're fired. would you be pissed?

also, this can be abused by employers. they can change the rules to force someone out. it can be used to get rid of people easily.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair compairson. Piercings can't be washed off, makeup can. A better comparison is clothing. Are clowns required to dress like a clown?
 
Originally posted by: GrumpyMan
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: GrumpyMan
I'm an employer and if I require you to put makeup on, which is clearly stated when I hire you, then you cannot get hired and then contest it. It is a requirement that I have which you clearly stated you have no problem with, which is why you got the job in the first place. And if you dont't like it then just like Donald Trump would say, "You're fired!" Now if they changed the rules then I can see why she would have a problem with it. <---- My view on it.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, since many people keep saying the above and clearly didn't read the article, she worked there for a long time and then they CHANGED the policy.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I decided to read the article. Instead of makeup though they should have required her to get a new face instead....🙂
Click to expand...

fixed

i agree with the ruling, if (s?)he can't follow the regulations they make then (s?)he can get a new job

the article says she but the pictures say otherwise...
 
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Originally posted by: dmcowen674They "revise" a rule and suddenly she is the worst employee and must be fired??? 😕
Click to expand...
If they can't change the job requirements, I guess that job is no longer needed. Fire all people who have that job, create a new jobs title, re-hire those who fit the new job.

Is that better?
Click to expand...

Actually Yes.

Everyone should be fired and re-interviewed for their jobs under the new rules.

Also start all over at the lowest possible pay and no tenure and no vacation or sick time.

That ought to satisfy all the Greedy Corp execs in here.
 
Originally posted by: Zeeky Boogy Doog
Originally posted by: GrumpyMan
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: GrumpyMan
I'm an employer and if I require you to put makeup on, which is clearly stated when I hire you, then you cannot get hired and then contest it. It is a requirement that I have which you clearly stated you have no problem with, which is why you got the job in the first place. And if you dont't like it then just like Donald Trump would say, "You're fired!" Now if they changed the rules then I can see why she would have a problem with it. <---- My view on it.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, since many people keep saying the above and clearly didn't read the article, she worked there for a long time and then they CHANGED the policy.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I decided to read the article. Instead of makeup though they should have required her to get a new face instead....🙂
Click to expand...

fixed

i agree with the ruling, if (s?)he can't follow the regulations they make then (s?)he can get a new job

the article says she but the pictures say otherwise...
Click to expand...



ROFL!!!!!!!!..........yeah that about covers it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top