YOU BE THE JUDGE: Did Harrahs requirement of this dress code for women violate Title VII?
Darlene Jespersen was a bartender at the sports bar in Harrahs Casino in Reno, Nevada. She was an outstanding employee, according to her performance reviews over the 15+ years she worked there. She frequently received praise from both her supervisors and customers.
After Jesperson had worked in that job for almost 20 years, the casino changed its policies and implemented a program that included a dress code for its bartenders. Every bartender was to be well groomed, appealing to the eye. For men, this meant:
Hair must not extend below top of shirt collar. Ponytails are prohibited.
Hands and fingernails must be clean and nails neatly trimmed at all times.
No colored polish is permitted.
Eye and facial makeup is not permitted.
Shoes will be solid black leather or leather type with rubber (non-skid) soles.
The rules for women were:
Hair must be teased, curled, or styled. Hair must be worn down at all times, no exceptions.
Nail polish can be clear, white, pink, or red color only. No exotic nail art or length.
Shoes will be solid black leather or leather type with rubber (non-skid) soles.
Makeup (foundation/concealer and/or face powder, as well as blush and mascara) must be worn and applied neatly in complimentary sic colors, and lip color must be worn at all times.
An expert was brought in to show all of the employees how to dress. The workers were then photographed and told they must look like the photographs every day at work.
Jespersen tried wearing makeup for a short period of time but then refused to do so. She did not like the feel of it and also believed that this new appearance interfered with her ability to deal with unruly, intoxicated guests because it took away her credibility as an individual and as a person. Jespersen was fired.
After Harrahs fired Jespersen, she sued under Title VII.
YOU BE THE JUDGE:Darlene Jespersen was a bartender at the sports bar in Harrahs Casino in Reno, Nevada. She was an outstanding employee, according to her performance reviews over the 15+ years she worked there. She frequently received praise from both her supervisors and customers.
After Jesperson had worked in that job for almost 20 years, the casino changed its policies and implemented a program that included a dress code for its bartenders. Every bartender was to be well groomed, appealing to the eye. For men, this meant:
Hair must not extend below top of shirt collar. Ponytails are prohibited.
Hands and fingernails must be clean and nails neatly trimmed at all times.
No colored polish is permitted.
Eye and facial makeup is not permitted.
Shoes will be solid black leather or leather type with rubber (non-skid) soles.
The rules for women were:
Hair must be teased, curled, or styled. Hair must be worn down at all times, no exceptions.
Nail polish can be clear, white, pink, or red color only. No exotic nail art or length.
Shoes will be solid black leather or leather type with rubber (non-skid) soles.
Makeup (foundation/concealer and/or face powder, as well as blush and mascara) must be worn and applied neatly in complimentary sic colors, and lip color must be worn at all times.
An expert was brought in to show all of the employees how to dress. The workers were then photographed and told they must look like the photographs every day at work.
Jespersen tried wearing makeup for a short period of time but then refused to do so. She did not like the feel of it and also believed that this new appearance interfered with her ability to deal with unruly, intoxicated guests because it took away her credibility as an individual and as a person. Jespersen was fired.
After Harrahs fired Jespersen, she sued under Title VII.
YOU BE THE JUDGE: Did Harrahs requirement of this dress code for women violate Title VII?
Argument for Jespersen: Employers are free to adopt different appearance standards for each sex, but the standards may not impose a greater burden on one sex than the other. Men were not required to wear makeup to be well groomed, but women were. The difference means a savings for men of hundreds of dollars and hours of time. Harrahs does not have the right to fire Jespersen for violating a rule that applies only to women, with no equivalent rule for men.
Argument for Harrahs: Employers are permitted to impose different appearance rules on women than on men, so long as the overall burden on employees is the same. On balance, Harrahs rules do not impose a heavier burden on women than on men.
Discuss how you think the case should be decided. Your discussion should include the reasons why you were persuaded to rule in favor of the party you chose.
Argument for Jespersen: Employers are free to adopt different appearance standards for each sex, but the standards may not impose a greater burden on one sex than the other. Men were not required to wear makeup to be well groomed, but women were. The difference means a savings for men of hundreds of dollars and hours of time. Harrahs does not have the right to fire Jespersen for violating a rule that applies only to women, with no equivalent rule for men.
Argument for Harrahs: Employers are permitted to impose different appearance rules on women than on men, so long as the overall burden on employees is the same. On balance, Harrahs rules do not impose a heavier burden on women than on men.
Discuss how you think the case should be decided. Your discussion should include the reasons why you were persuaded to rule in favor of the party you chose.
