• 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

not that i'm defending this case, but can't the restaurant argue that the makeup is part of the required costume/uniform? it is in las vegas, afterall.
 
Originally posted by: iamme
not that i'm defending this case, but can't the restaurant argue that the makeup is part of the required costume/uniform? it is in las vegas, afterall.
Click to expand...

Still, nobody should/can make you wear something that you don't want to wear/put on.🙂
 
I used to work in a restuarant where the male servers had to be clean shaven, and the females could not wear nail polish, Ive seen both males and females get let go for not following the rules.
 
Yay, 9th Circut fvcks up again...

This sets a presecdent so McDonalds can fire someone for it too.

What a nightmare decision, and it clearly violates the equal protection argument.
 
Read the entire article, not just the headline.

"The distinction created by the majority opinion leaves men and women in services industries, who are more likely to be subject to policies like the Harrah's 'Personal Best' policy, without the protection that white-collar professionals receive,"
Click to expand...

She's in the service industry, where she interacts with customers all day. There is nothing wrong with Harrah wanting her to look her best.
 
Originally posted by: Train
I used to work in a restuarant where the male servers had to be clean shaven, and the females could not wear nail polish, Ive seen both males and females get let go for not following the rules.
Click to expand...

yeah, that's what we're used to though. no big surprise there. the difference here is not that something is banned like piercings, tattoos, nail polish etc, but that you're required to put make up on.
 
Originally posted by: russianpower
Originally posted by: iamme
not that i'm defending this case, but can't the restaurant argue that the makeup is part of the required costume/uniform? it is in las vegas, afterall.
Click to expand...

Still, nobody should/can make you wear something that you don't want to wear/put on.🙂
Click to expand...


Nobody forced her to do anything. It was a choice. Choose to follow the rules of your employer, or choose to find another job.

It's not like the government is forcing women to wear make-up. However, I wish the government would force some women to wear a little LESS makeup (caked-on makeup is gross) and a LOT less perfume (taking a bath in perfume is not cool).
 
I agree with the ruling. I mean if men are forced to be kept clean shaven and have there hair short at work, a woman should wear makeup under the policy. I mean we cant wear earingsand such and ,you dont hear us complaining
 
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Yay, 9th Circut fvcks up again...

This sets a presecdent so McDonalds can fire someone for it too.

What a nightmare decision, and it clearly violates the equal protection argument.
Click to expand...


I don't see McD's firing people for not wearing makeup. Where I live I don't think they make their employee's bath or wash their hands! :shocked:
 
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: Train
I used to work in a restuarant where the male servers had to be clean shaven, and the females could not wear nail polish, Ive seen both males and females get let go for not following the rules.
Click to expand...

yeah, that's what we're used to though. no big surprise there. the difference here is not that something is banned like piercings, tattoos, nail polish etc, but that you're required to put make up on.
Click to expand...
Clothes also fall under that, I have to wear slacks in the office. In some jobs a uniform us required.
 
whoa, the 9th circuit did that? i would have expected them to rule the other way. the way the majority wrote the opinion it doesn't sound like there is any SC decision on the matter. and here i thought they ruled on appearance service-workplace rules a long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top