Court Backs Firing of Waitress Without Makeup

[spinbaby]

U.S. National - Reuters
Court Backs Firing of Waitress Without Makeup

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.

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.

(snip)

"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.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&e=2&u=/nm/life_makeup_dc

[Cerridwen]

1. The little drops of water that gradually wear away any

progress made over the past 40-50 years.

;(

After this (mis)administration is finished, it will take us another 50 years to get back to where we were in the late 80's early 90's.

[barb162]

299. you expressed my feelings quite well. We are going backward

[Florida_Geek]

2. Call me strange but I would

like all my food handlers not to have makeup on.

[BadGimp]

217. ok

you are strange :)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

281. ditto

[jman0]

3. freaky

That whole "precedent" idea freaks me out..

[R Hickey]

4. I think the judge made a fair decision.

Women and men are sexually differentiated in this society. I personally don't like makeup on women, or men, but if a casino wants its employees to observe a dress code, then I don't see a problem.

So flame me if you want, I'm not doing anything this morning.

[Dr Batsen D Belfry]

11. I respectfully disagree

A dress code is one thing, assuming the intent is to readily identify employees of the organization and help differentiate them from guests. This is pretty typical.

The imposition of makeup is clearly as discriminatory as when airlines decided they could not employ flight attendants ove the age of 45. The argument was the older flight attendants could not perform the duties of a younger employee, but it was clearly a thinly veiled attempt at prettifying the cabin. The airlines were successfully sued.

I would argue that the beautification of female bartenders is an attempt to similarly beautify the employer's environment with obvious disregard to the performanvce of duties required.

I am also stating I am not a lawyer, I do not play one on TV, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express recently.

DBDB

[AliciaKeyedUp]

14. Where do you stand on the Hooters issue?

Can companies choose to hire women (or men) because that is the nature of their business?

[MadHound]

81. Well, there is not only the issue of sexual discrimination,

There is also an issue of discrimination based on what could be considered a disability. For instance, my wife and sister both cannot where makeup, they're extremely allergic to it, my sister to the point of going into anaphalactic shock if she even so much as gets a good whiff of it. Many other people are likewise allergic to makeup, a number that is well into the tens of millions. Should these people not be allowed to work in an establishment that has a dress code requiring makeup? Should a woman be fired because her employer decides to initiate a "dress code" that would physically endanger her?

Then there is another issue, one of health. Makeup winding up in the food. People who are serious chefs, who work in the kitchen don't wear makeup, because it winds up in the food, which is not only a disgusting little thought, but also a potential health hazard. Yet now this establishment is wishing to put it's clientele at risk by requiring the waitstaff and bartenders to wear makeup. What if some of that makeup falls off into the drink of somebody such as my sister, and you have either a major health incident or death resulting from this inane "dress code". Don't you think that the person who initiated this code should be held legally responsible?

Then there is the whole issue of women and makeup to begin with. It is one more example of our societys' double standard when it comes to women, that they have to match this model of beauty that is damn near unreachable by anyone excepting a supermodel, and only then through plastic surgery, professional preparation, and serious airbrushing. Rather than buy into this beauty myth, why not celebrate the natural beauty of all women? Makeup is such a fake, plastic medium, and in the vast majority of cases, unless professionly applied, it takes away from a woman's appearance rather than enhancing it. Besides, not only does it look bad, it tastes nasty when you kiss a woman, even if its just a casual peck on the cheek.

Rather than requiring women to wear makeup, why doesn't the company do something rather unique in the world, celebrating the natural beauty of women, rather than forcing them to live up to an artificial image? That would get more of my business than an establishment employing bleached blonde, silicon enhanced wait staff you have put on their face with a trowel.

[tx_dem41]

20. What if one of the job duties of a bartender is also....

to attract (passively) more customers (the vast majority of which are males)?

Can a strip club be sued for not hiring overweight dancers?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

21. Can a strip club be sued

Because it doesn't hire men?

[tx_dem41]

23. Exactly. n/t

[Eloriel]

87. tx_dem

The argument you pose is itself sexist.

The job description of a bartender is to make and serve drinks and do it in an efficient and pleasant way. Anything that "requires" her to trade on her sexuality or physical attractiveness is NOT a viable part of the job description. Edited to add: the airline case mentioned elsewhere in this thread saerved as precedent for that.

As for Hooters (which someone else brought up) -- the entire premise of the "restaurant" chain is itslef discrimination and sexual harassment, and they should've been put out of business a long time ago.

Can a strip club be sued for not hiring overweight dancers?

Wrong question. Again, the entire premise of such a business is anti-woman, sexist, etc. Their very existence helps keep ALL women, all around the world, lesser class citizens. Period. Their existence helps keep YOUR wives, sisters, mothers, daughters disrciminated against in ways both would annoy and anger you and also ways that would escape your notice because sexism is still so firmly ingrained in our society that much of it goes simply unnoticed (and unchallenged).

Because of the secondary status of women, any woman you care about stands a greater chance of being physically assaulted in her life -- all the way from sexual harrassment (which can be verbal and ust as devastating even if NOT physical) to rape to domestic violence and murder. Everyone who supports the sex trade in any way, supports and helps anchor ALL discrimination against women. Women can NEVER be full and equal participants in this culture, this society, as long as some women --even those who purportedly "choose" it -- are treated and can be regarded primarily as sexual objects.

So many DUers are or have become keenly sensitized to the dehumanization that's taken place against Muslims and especially Iraqis, our "enemy," and how that dehumanization allows and contributes to our disregard for civilian lives in our "war," to our humiliation and even our torture of them in prisons. Yet somehow few people get it about how the dehumanization of women contributes to their discriminatory treatment and even violence against us. There IS NO DIFFERENCE. You dehumanize a portion of some population, and you can't help but generate discriminatory and humiliating treatment of members of that group.

[tx_dem41]

88. When I mentioned strip clubs....

where did I delineate between women and men? Its interesting that your post jumped on the dehumanization of women in that industry, but did not mention men in the industry.

As for your first point, I was sexist when I stereotyped the entire male gender's feelings to attractive (physically and mentally) females. I should have also stereotyped the female gender's feelings to attractive (physically and mentally) males. And also all the permuations in the gay/lesbian community. I apologize.

[Megahurtz]

227. No offense tx_dem41, but...

BE SERIOUS DUDE!

Male/Female is just not equal in this society no matter how much you wish!

Eloriel does have a good point there.:thumbsup:

[tx_dem41]

228. No offense, but...

where did I say it was equal??????

[Megahurtz]

230. Okay, now I'm really stumped,

are you "gaslighting" us? :shrug:

[tx_dem41]

231. Let me make it easy then....

point out the quote where you think I alluded to equality in male/female issues (I think that is paraphrasing what you said that I said in the earlier post).

Post the quote and we can talk about it.

[Megahurtz]

249. I wasn't going on any quotes,

I was going on the basis of your argument.

Are you by any chance a lawyer? ;)

[tx_dem41]

250. So you made a statement about how you thought I felt.....

based on no statement from me?!? :crazy:

[Megahurtz]

298. Well it's pretty obvious!!!

:think:

[tx_dem41]

310. If you can't find a quote to back your assertion....

than it's NOT pretty obvious.

Please have the decency to stop putting words in my mouth and fabricating statements I never made. Thank you.

[CTLawGuy]

109. The New York Yankees

force their ballplayers to wear absolutely no facial hair.

What do you think of that policy?

[Ripley]

111. Is it for the viewing pleasure of female baseball fans?

I think not.

Is it legal or appropriate... I don't know. If baseball players know this is the policy when they decide to try out for the Yankees, then that's their choice. This woman is not given a choice. After 20 years in her job they have decided she needs to put on lipstick. Why?

[CTLawGuy]

121. Im sure the viewing pleasure

of fans, female and male, is part of it.

the Red Sox allow their players to wear any crazy hairstyle they want, which was of course the subject of a lot of comment which reflects on the image of the team as a whole and which the ownership and management has a right to control. The Red Sox got the image of a bunch of undisciplined free-spirits, while the Yankees got the image of clean-cut preppiness.

And how do you know the yankees didn't recently institute this policy either, catching certain players off guard?

The point is, the make-up policy is reasonable, even if it just started. In our culture, whether it is a bad or good thing, women wear make-up when they need to look professional and classy. Men wear clean, well pressed clothing with functionless neckties and a mobility-restricting coat. I'm sure the casino also has a policy against either facial hair at all, or against unsightly facial hair, like stubble. Perhaps they reqiure short hair for men.

The casino probably wants to project an image of classiness and professionality, and they feel that have to take that step to accomplish that goal, a step they never felt they had to take before.

If the woman cannot wear the make-up due to health reasons, it is unreasonable then to force her to wear the make-up, since the harm to their image does not suffer if one woman doesnt wear make-up out of medical necessity.

If she doesn't want to wear makeup on principle, she should have quit and went to work for another casino without such a policy.

[Ripley]

122. That is the most sexist post I've read on DU>

Unfreakingbelievable.

The woman has worked there for 20 years and now all of the sudden when what?...her age lines show around her eyes, she is NO LONGER CLASSY OR PROFESSIONAL?

Why should she quit because the Casino is trying to dump her on sexist grounds?

Thanks for your sexist remarks insulting millions of women in the world calling them classless and unprofessional because they don't live up to your unreasonable standard of fake beauty in your fantasy world of how women are supposed to look.

[CTLawGuy]

222. thanks for the melodrama

i'm sure you've read posts that are more sexist on this board... since EVERYTHING is sexist to some people.

I only said that in our culture, women (obviously, generally and not in every case) wear make-up when they want to dress up.

When did I endorse this as a good thing? I only observed that this is a cultural practice in our country.

There would have been a time when I would have cared that I was being called sexist, but that charge is thrown around so much that it has become meaningless.

In the future please READ the posts CAREFULLY before going into attack mode. Thanks.

[Cheswick2.0]

180. darboy, come on

women are no classier with make-up on and they aren't any more inherently ugly then men. Why should they have to wear make-up?

Have you ever worn it? Do you have any idea of how expensive it is, how often is must be replaced and how bad it is for your health?

[CTLawGuy]

225. no

I guess you are denying that is a practice of women in this culture to put on makeup when they dress up. I guess I must have been mistaken in thinking it was.


if you dont want to wear makeup then don't. I won't stop you.

[phylny]

315. Proper grooming for women should include

being clean, having clean hair, and wearing clean clothes. End of discussion.

I've seen plenty of women in professional positions, in large cities and small towns, who do not wear make-up, but who are professional and well-groomed.

I think forcing someone to wear make-up is a stupid policy. If it were me, I'd come into work the next day looking like Tammy Faye Baker - 3" false eyelashes complete with three layers of mascara, garish rouge, blue eye shadow, and lipstick extending far beyond the lipline.

Professional indeed.

[Cheswick2.0]

177. Do they Yankees allow their female players to grow beards?

If so the men would have a right to complain wouldn't they?

[CTLawGuy]

226. Im

not going to diginify that with a response.

[okieinpain]

173. hey check this out. my daughter works for hooters as a waitress,

and just graduated from ou with a bachelors degree in journalism. but check this out sometimes her and girls go to one of the local strip clubs for a girls night out.

I asked her why a strip club for a girls night out, she says they don't get harassed by the fellows. hmmm!!!

[Megahurtz]

229. LOL!!!

[eowyn_of_rohan]

221. You go Eloriel!!

Thank you from those of us who feel just as passionate about this, but have a hard time putting it so eloquently

[tx_dem41]

224. Of course the one problem with the eloquence was that...

she attacked me on a statement that mentioned neither men nor women. Kind of hard to be sexist when you don't even talk about gender.

[theboss]

259. You can take my Hooters....

When you pry it from my cold dead...chicken wings...or something...The analogy fell apart.

[Vektor]

280. A weighty issue indeed.

"Can a strip club be sued for not hiring overweight dancers?"

Eeehhh..actually...

A lot of them do.

[vs the introvore]

321. the plumpers do just fine in the strip clubs

the arena of nude dancing provides ample fetishism to provide employ for any willing specimine.

[jdj]

98. I would sue them to pay for the makeup and hair products then.

Fair is fair. The companies usually pay for the uniforms, and if this is part of the uniform for women then it should be included in the paycheck or at least tax deductible.

That shit is expensive. I get my Mary Kay free from my mother, but makeup is a tremendous rip off.

[Bono71]

160. You wouldn't win...there is nothing requiring this woman to take

a job that requires a certain dress code.

[Cheswick2.0]

178. wrong

she already had the job for 20 years and since there are male employees who don't have to incure that expense, she certainly would win.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

282. sounds to me like what they want to do is get rid of her because of

age and are using this as a legal way to replace her with fresh meat...age disgrimanation is against the law but make=up requirement is not...just my $0.02

[Boosterman]

213. Actually companies arent required

to provide uniforms unless it has the company Logo on it. I THINK thats federal but its definetly that way in Tn and Ms.

[LiberalFighter]

308. If I recall my teenage years... waitresses paid for the uniforms

at the establishment that I worked.

[October]

300. My husband is a pilot

He is required to wear his hair short -- above the collar -- though he'd prefer to wear it longer.

Also, no beards.

There was a lawsuit years back because airlines mandated pilots pass a physical before they were interviewed...I think aspects of that have changed, but not the physical appearance thing.

I'm not saying I agree with this judge's ruling. In fact, I was initially going to rant about its unfairness to women. Then, I though about my husband's job.

Thoughts?

[Puglover]

312. Your husband can't have a beard because

in case of an emergency a beard could interfere with the seal on the oxygen mask.

[tx_dem41]

313. So why does his hair need to be cut short? n/t

[October]

318. According to his Company's Flight Ops. Manual

"Personal appearance and grooming are closely linked with professional pride and attitude. As professional pilots, crewmembers must present a meticulously groomed public appearance. Hair should be neatly trimmed with no exaggerated styles, long sideburns, etc. All pilots must be clean-shaven, however, moustaches are acceptable, but must be kept neat and trimmed to the corners of the mouth."

[tx_dem41]

326. So, in other words, much the same reasoning as Harrah's is using..

not that I'm defending it!

[October]

327. Yes

Same here. He wants his hair longer, but feels it's not worth losing his job over it. It's complicated, but because of seniority, etc., it's not easy to leave one airline job and get another. (Especially in today's economy -- airlines are failing left and right, but that's another thread.)

He doesn't agree with the policy, but goes along. Essentially, he was hired knowing their expectations. He has a contract with the Company (he's a union pilot), so it is 'agreed upon.'

We always believed if someone wanted to challenge this, they could and win. I guess we were wrong.

[October]

317. That's right!

And when I was a flight attendant, the first thing I had to do was before giving mouth-to-mouth, was wipe off that REQUIRED lipstick because we were told it could burn someone's face in the event oxygen was used.

[Hekate]

13. Perhaps it was a BFOQ, perhaps not--but after 20 years?

Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications include running ads for airport greeters in the Honolulu Star Bulletin that specify "Polynesian in appearance," which while pretty flexible doesn't include blue-eyed blonds.

Makeup might be considered part of a costume or uniform for people (women people) serving the public -- I can't imagine a Playboy Bunny without a painted-on mask any more than without her bunny ears. The folks I've known who serve liquor try to project a certain aura of superficial friendliness and sexuality. It's an illusion that helps sell drinks and increase tips.

But if a female bartender wants to dispense with make-up or button her blouse to the neck, it really seems like her own business. It's a minor matter...

Hekate

[R Hickey]

73. I would think the "after 20 years" arguement would have done better

Maybe this employee would have been better off arguing that the casino unilaterally changed the employment requirements, and that that was unfair.

But, getting off the subject, I will say that I have seen some mighty peculiar attire worn by employees in the casinos in Vegas. I have observed women-employees who appear to be seventy-five, dressed in skimpy, black-lacy atire that you would expect to see covering a women in her twenties.

All this sex or age discrimination has to be judged on a case by case basis.

If I travel to a strip club, I wouldn't be there to oggle some seventy-five year-old, adorned in black lace, dancing around the pole.

[HereSince1628]

78. I am guessing 20 years of employment is also a hint at the real

issue.

Call me cynical but I suspect the casino wanted someone younger looking. Refusal to wear make up was simply an act of insubordination (one might argue human dignity) that the employer couldn't tolerate.

[jdj]

99. yes, that is kind of strange.

it may be the boss now has a younger piece of butt, too. Anything is possible, but this woman has definitely earned her stripes after 20 years. Of course a man working there after 20 years would not still be a bartender, he would probably be an owner or manager by now, and there would be a public outcry were he fired for appearance.

[Boosterman]

215. Not likely the bartender would be a manager unless he was stupid

Bartenders in casinos make about twice what management does.

[Boosterman]

214. Thats possible but more likely is the fact

she made too much money. I worked for the casinos here and my wife still does. They are all trying to cut benefits and long term employees seem to be fired more often than newer people. Hmm could be the fact one gets payed 4.75 and the other ones make 9.00 per hour????

[MADem]

257. I think you hit the nail on the head

And I think the casino management is a bunch of sexist bastards. They should be ashamed of themselves. Bottom line, if some drunken, gambling clown wants to try to get laid, he's not gonna hit up the bartender, and if he does, he's gonna expect to get slapped down, unless he is totally stupid. He's going to head for a sex worker, especially if he's on holiday and feeling daring. Of course, when he sees the price tag at those ranches, he may well wish he spent the cash at the blackjack table.

I do think the real issue here is not just the sexism, but age discrimination as well. For shame.

[ronnykmarshall]

142. I agree.

They changed their policy, however they have a long term GOOD employee and it all ended up in court.

Stupid, just plain stupid.

They (the Casino) have now offered to re-hire her and not require her to wear makeup.

What a waste of time and money for all those involved.

[KamaAina]

185. What is "Polynesian appearance"? I know a Hawaiian who is blonde

she may even be blue-eyed. She is mostly haole (Caucasian) but has some Hawaiian ancestry and, in fact, is an alumna of Kamehameha Schools.

And yet, at the airport (where she won't be applying, 'cause she's a bank executive), she wouldn't be considered "Polynesian-appearing"? How bizarre.

edit: bank

[Hekate]

278. Well, KamaAina, you know the answer as well as I do!

I grew up on O'ahu and went from elementary school on through UH Manoa. Married a coast haole, had our kids at Kaiser Hospital when it was next door to the Ilikai Hotel... About broke my heart when I really had to move away, like many thousands of other economic ex-pats. Working in the tourist industry was never my ambition, but as I noticed when I read the want-ads it's where most of the jobs were.

I was born with a face so Irish a Dubliner I met a few years ago told me I could walk through any village on THAT island and not be taken for anything else. Wrong Island. I could always count on someone in Hawai'i asking me if I was a military dependent. "Your fatha een da military?" morphed into "Your husban' een da military?" No, and No. The Irish often don't tan very well if at all, and get skin cancer at alarming rates if they try.

Tourists from Nebraska expect to see someone brown handing out leis at the airport, ditto doing the hula or whirling those fiery batons at a luau. They think they want something authentic, but mostly they are expecting a theme park. Doesn't matter if a local could look at those same young workers and see ancestry ranging from Hawaii to hapa-haole to Japan to Korea to Samoa plus bits of Europe and everything else.

Nothing bizarre about it, really. People wear their hearts on their sleeves. People use ethnicity and language as badges of belonging. Your blonde Hawaiian friend is probably fluently bilingual in da-kine and English, maybe also uses her Hawaiian middle name on her business cards, since being Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian is a big deal in that small state.

Hekate
still with aloha after all these years

[leesa]

60. Make-up is NOT dress. Many women don't like to paint their faces

why should they be forced to in order to have a job?

[Bono71]

166. They could simply take a job that doesn't require make-up?

[Ms_Mary]

184. Imagine you just said that to a man. Would that be acceptable?

She had the job for 20 years.

[lcbart]

72. How is makeup part of a dress code ?

A dress code outlines what is acceptable or not as far as your clothing goes....

Make-up which either can enhance or hide your natural face seems to be a bit outside the lines a dress code covers.

This - to me - would be like an employer telling me I could not wear glasses - or I have to grow a beard.

Personally - I don't think women should wear make-up at all. But thats just my opinion.

[mcscajun]

117. Bless you!

"Personally - I don't think women should wear make-up at all. But thats just my opinion."

I've rarely, if ever, worn makeup -- I loathe it. I've put it on (reluctantly) for family weddings and when on television -- that's it.

It makes me nuts to hear some woman say "I have to put my face on." Funny, I thought she had one when she woke up that morning. :)

It's refreshing to hear a guy say he prefers no make-up.

[abelenkpe]

296. I never wear makeup

well, just lip gloss. But I have nice skin so why hide it? I think most women look better without makeup, too. Most of the men I work with prefer women with no makeup too. I always considered it an LA thing though. Whenever I travel to visit friends and family on the east coast all the women wear makeup and actually feel naked without it.

I think it is sad to hear of cases like this, but I agree with earlier posts. This is probably a case of veiled ageism. The casino wanted a younger employee who would cost less and look prettier.

[slor]

5. So long as we are not...

letting gays get married, we might as well make the womenfolk more subservient too, and mandate that they prettify themselves for us.

[renaissanceguy]

17. You also might as well mandate

that men can't shave their chests. Manly men are neanderthals, after all.

----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14744156

[Dr Batsen D Belfry]

6. From what I recall of my Employment Law coursework

this would not pass the BFOQ regs. How is wearing makeup a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/D40C5F9D-1FF7-4B2E-B727A7927B7E1689

I don't understand how a bartender not wearing makeup prevented her from performing the mixing and serving of drinks, nor do I understand how the imposition of new regulation long after her hiring could be held up as a requirement for employment.

I could *almost* understand new hires being subject to new regs, but this is ridiculous.

DBDB

[tx_dem41]

22. Well the job duties of a bartender are more than you describe.

Not only mixing and serving drinks. The job also includes attracting customers to the bar and keeping them there.

[Child_Of_Isis]

55. Attracting customers?

Which customers would that be?

[Ripley]

89. Then why didn't they fire her in the last 20 years?

Oh, I guess she was performing her job fine without makeup for 20 years.

This is SEXISM, plain and simple. Why do you promote such a non-liberal agenda?

[tx_dem41]

90. Where on this thread have I made any statement about the ....

....specific case? Since my only exposure to it is one article, I don't really feel I have the information to make a judgment. It could very well be sexism. I would like us all to learn more about the particular case.

[Ripley]

94. What more do you need to know?

Are males ever required to wear make-up for bartending jobs? If not, then it is sexism. Duh.

[tx_dem41]

96. I know very little about the bartender or management from this article....

...and again, I have stated that it could be sexism in this case. I have been addressing the bar industry in general in this thread, and have not delineated between female and male.

[ronnykmarshall]

130. From what I read

they (men) can NOT wear makeup.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20041229/ts_latimes/courtrulesbartenderwasjustlyfiredforrefusingtowearmakeup


<<Harrah's grooming policy that requires women to wear makeup requires men to have neatly trimmed hair that does not extend below the shirt collar and prohibits men from wearing makeup or having long fingernails.>>

Isn't that sexism for men? What if a man wanted to wear some make up to cover up bags or crows feet?

[Ripley]

131. Yes, let's all cry for the men who want to wear Maybelline, but can't.

Give me a link for a man being fired after 20 years on the job as a bartender because he covered his crow's feet.

[ronnykmarshall]

137. You've never lived in LA have you?

Please, there are more men around here that were makeup than at a cometics counter at Macy's.

[Kire]

314. you are a hypocrite, aren't you?

strong women should be held accountable if they're wrong, just like anyone else

[CTLawGuy]

237. of course not

it is not possible to be sexist agaisnt men because they are all part of the conspiracy to subjugate and enslave women because they all hate them, and men are evil demonic beings :eyes:

The fact that insurance companies charge men more for being men is ok. the radical feminists do not care, even though they claim to be forwarding the high moral prinicple of gender equality.

Men are also executed at a much higher rate than women. But this is ok to the radical feminists. A simple gender disparity in something is only overwhelming evidence of discrimination when women are on the short end of it. When men are on the short end, then there is a reasonable explanation for it.

[MercutioATC]

139. What about a woman who refused to wear a bra in a conservative

establishment? Do her employers have no right to demand that she dress more conservatively simply because male employees are not required to wear bras?

[Cheswick2.0]

182. There is no comparison

[MercutioATC]

202. Why not? It's an inequal requirement.

My point is that certain employees have a purpose other than simply slinging drinks and I believe the employer has the right to require appearance standards that meet these expanded requirements.

Whether that be a certain level of attractiveness, dress codes or makeup requirements, a private employer has the right to demand certain things.

[jbnow]

275. Men are the ones that should

be wearing make up if anyone "should". The male is the "pretty" one in other species, why not humans?
Can I make that a requirement in a comapny I own?

I recall a talk when my kids were in single digits after a trip to the zoo...they wanted me to explain why it wasn't men who wore make up, why in humans it was the women who are supposed to be prettier. That led to further questions about why women and not men shave their legs...they eventually decided it must be that women were meant to be like children (smooth skinned, larger eyes and so on) only with breasts. They found it all odd. I had to agree.

[ronnykmarshall]

145. Perhaps you should go back and read the article ...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20041229/ts_latimes/courtrulesbartenderwasjustlyfiredforrefusingtowearmakeup

<<So Jespersen stopped wearing makeup. But in February 2000, Harrah's Entertainment Inc. implemented a "Beverage Department Image Transformation" program at 20 locations, including its casino in Reno.


The program's "Personal Best" standards required all beverage servers to be "well groomed, appealing to the eye, be firm and body toned, and be comfortable with maintaining this look." Female beverage servers were required to wear stockings and colored nail polish, and they were required to wear their hair "teased, curled or styled.">>

[Eloriel]

104. Nonsense

You're on the verge of confusing bartending with pimping and whoring. Or perhaps you already are confusing them. Your argument is DEGRADING, do you realize that?

[tx_dem41]

What is degrading about saying..

... "The job also includes attracting customers to the bar and keeping them there." I'm truly confused by your statement.

[Eloriel]

112. I'm not at all surprised you can't see it

In CONTEXT, which you've conveniently stripped from your repetion of your remark, you implied that a female bartender is supposed to use her body and sexuality, her sexual appeal and attractiveness, in order to "attract customers and keep them there." This reduces the employee to a sex object. That is by definition dehumanizing and degrading. It ignores their basic humanity -- who they are as a human being -- in favor of their physicality alone. It's degrading -- as I said, by definition.

[tx_dem41]

113. Where in my post did I even mention female vs. male?

So I'm not sure why you are couching my statement as a male/female thing.

And, where are you getting any implication of "body and sexuality" in my statement. I tend to go to bars where I like the bartenders as well as the patrons period.

[MercutioATC]

143. Female AND male servers are supposed to generate sales.

It's a fact that physical attractiveness is a factor...not a fun fact, but a fact nonetheless.

I believe that a private business has the right to hire whomever it wishes to fit their business model. If that model entails using servers to generate sales, they have the right to hire the people whom they think will generate those sales.

Just my personal opinion.

[ronnykmarshall]

146. Ever been to The Rio in Las Vegas?

Now there's some good lookin' beverage servers there! :evilgrin:










Before I get my ass nailed for being neo-con, freeper, anti-feminist, sextist pig ....... I'm talking about the MEN!

[MercutioATC]

148. That's exactly my point.

The Rio uses male and female servers in attire designed to generate sales. How many 40-year-old makeupless women or 40-year-old ill-dressed men did you see working there?

[ronnykmarshall]

156. They also are singers and dancers.

It's part of the theme of the casino and it's wonderful. Every 10 or 15 minutes one of them take to a small stage and sing or dance.

I love it. The machines SUCK, but I like the entertainment.

[MercutioATC]

159. I never really got into the entertainment, but I'll agree that they make

fantistic window dressing, at the very least.

Do you enjoy the shows? Do you frequent the Rio because of this? Do you spend money there?

See? The cute dancers ARE revenue-generators - not just entertainers or servers.

[ronnykmarshall]

165. Many reasons

1. Love the rooms

2. Love the "bevertainers"

3. My nephew is a manager of above mentioned "bevertainers"

4. We get GREAT offers from them.


You are correct, they (the dancer/singer/servers) DO bring in revenue. I might add that a lot of gay men are starting to go to the Rio.

And if WE don't get our way .... we'll shut that place down <snap> like that!

[VegasWolf]

162. I've had much better luck with the machines downtown! n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

164. Me too.

or at The Palms.

[VegasWolf]

167. Oscar Goodman was trying to promote a Transvestite Club downtown,

I wonder if they will be required to wear makeup, I definitely
hope so.

[ronnykmarshall]

169. Well I hope NOT!

How can the corporate facisist be allowed to dictate WHAT kind of Drag Queen the said Drag Queen wishes to be???

I mean, yes this is proposed Drag Queen bar, but if she (the DQ in question) wishes NOT to wear makeup, then she should not be forced to.

Why there is nothing more beautiful than a man in a dress with a five o'clock shaddow.

[VegasWolf]

171. LOL. Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder! n/t

[tx_dem41]

149. That's okay, Ronny

Gays can be sexist pigs too, can't they?;-)

[ronnykmarshall]

158. Yup!

Pass me the hog feed! :silly:


That's why I LOVE the Rio, I get to check out all the hot guys that work there.

Lose money?? Who gives a rats ass when you got a hottie giving you "free" drinks.

[theboss]

260. Ever been to Taj in AC...

They haven't rotated the cocktail waitresses since the place opened. It's like Dawn of the Dead in there. Not a fun place to be.

It's also one of the last poker rooms where you can find a fair number of players with missing fingers. That part I like.

[pauliedangerously]

322. What you talkin' 'bout 'loriel?

YOU say sex appeal is dehumanizing. Well, SEX is a core component of the human experience, if not THE core component. You say reducing an employee to a sex object; some would use the term ELEVATE.

Hell, if wearing makeup would make women drool all over me I'd wear it every day...same thing with perfume, mini skirts, and high heels. Just about every guy that walks into a casino wants to win big and either impress the babe he's with or score the hottest chick in the place; that's reality.

When I take my sweet little bundle of love out to a nice restaurant, I want to be served by someone young and attractive...I don't care if it's a man or a woman. Casinos are glitzy; people expect to be served by sexy people. Roadside diners are not glitzy; patrons of these establishments don't expect the same level of sex appeal in the wait staff.

What's not to get here? What's the deal with sex appeal being dehumanizing or degrading? Who says that? Who is the "authority" here? "It ignores their basic humaity?" What does THAT mean? What could be more basic than sex appeal? WHAT? It doesn't GET any more basic than that.

[Boosterman]

241. Welll

As a bartender and server for 15 years I am actually not offended by that. And actually in the casino industry some "pimping and whoring" does occur. Its fairly rare though. Its actually a long running joke among the people in the industry. The bartenders claim they want their 20 % and the cocktails say "Fine but you have to fluff em".

[Union Thug]

126. Oh pleeeeezzzz... Attracting customers?

So employers can discriminate on appearance. What if Harrah's didn't find black women attractive?

[sandnsea]

129. Then she really ought to be topless or bottomless

Or both. Because the only thing a woman possibly has to attract a man is her looks.

[tx_dem41]

132. Isn't that a sexist statement in itself?

I'm attracted to a fun personality and sharp wit myself.

It seems like everyone is stuck on a very sexist definition of attraction.

[ronnykmarshall]

147. Oh you LIAR!!

You know damn good and well you were talking about T&A!!!! :silly:

[tx_dem41]

152. Can I plead the fifth on DU....

no, actually I am talking about how fun the person is to be with. Sharp wit and a genuine smile goes a long, long way.

[sandnsea]

155. Are you really?

Funny you didn't recognize sarcasm when you saw it, since you like a sharp wit and all.

YOU are the one who said she had to wear make-up because attraction is part of her job. That's YOUR definition of attraction. I figure if that's all a female bartender has to offer, drinks and attraction, she ought to just stand there naked and really haul 'em in.

[tx_dem41]

157. Please point out where I said that....

"she had to wear makeup because attraction is part of her job"?

[ronnykmarshall]

161. Is that crickets I hear?

:+

[Cheswick2.0]

183. admit it

SandNsea got cha on that one. You have officially had your ass kicked in this debate.

You said it in post 22

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[InvisibleBallots]

193. heh, ouch!

I don't think you're allowed to say that!

[tx_dem41]

197. Please point out where I edited my posts more than a minute or two...

after posting? I made that post at 6:50 AM this morning and edited grammar at 6:52AM. Sandnsea responded to my post at 12:30PM. How does one edit posts 5.5 hours after posting it?

Why didn't you check this out before the personal attack?

[ronnykmarshall]

204. Oh tx,

now ain't it time for us pigs to get off the net?

[ronnykmarshall]

203. Pigs, trolls and gay men?

Madam, I do believe your homophobic slip is showing.

Ironic for someone that is so quick to fight sexism, you sure don't hesitate to throw out some good ol' fashion homophobia.

[ronnykmarshall]

236. Still waiting for a resonse to the pig, troll and gay men comment.

Hmmmm. No one wants to defend THAT comment, eh?

My, my, my how the homophobic comments tend to go challenged.

Well, that's is sure telling isn't it?

[tx_dem41]

194. No.....in that post, I said the following...

"The job also includes attracting customers to the bar and keeping them there."

Please point out where I said "she had to wear makeup because attraction is part of her job"?

The earlier poster (#6) stated that the job duties of a bartender were mixing and serving drinks. My post also mentioned that there were other duties (as the title of post #22 stated).

Where in post #22 did I say anything about makeup? Where in post #22 did I say anything about male and female instead of a generic job of bartender? Where in post #22 did I address the case in the original post?

[Boosterman]

218. If the casinos could get away with

nude cocktails and bartenders they would. The irony in this situation is that everyone is crying discrimination in the casino server industry when men have been discriminated against in this field since the creation of casinos.

[tx_dem41]

219. Very interesting.....please tell us more about how the casino industry...

works in this area. It sounds like you know the industry and we could all learn something.

[Boosterman]

234. Well I can try and remember you did ask (extremely long)

I worked for a couple of years in the beverage department here in MS. I was a swing bartender. My wife has been a cocktail there for about 8 years. I also bartended a bar for 4 years where all the casino people came. So I know a little about the industry.

First thing to understand is that beverage people tend to be a little more whiny than your average employee. They make extremely good money. Most of them rip off the federal government by underreporting their tips.

Now on the other hand you have their management. In most industries the managers are somewhat more qualified than their employees (well thats the goal anyway). In almost all industries managers make more than their employees. In the beverage industry this isn't true until your at least the GM of the department and some people will still make more. In beverage they tend to either hire restaurant people who know nothing of the casino industry or take the people who don't want to cocktail or bartend anymore. Oddly enough these are sometimes people who aren't even good at serving drinks :)

Now you add these elements together and there is some animosity between management and their little "spoiled" employees. So they really have no defense from their management at all. Beverage management is one of the highest turnover jobs in the profession. This includes up to the VP rank(highest level guys I knew two from Vegas)

Now to really understand this you have to understand the casino industry has become extremely competitive due to the legalization of gambling across the US and on line gambling. One of the first areas they will try to cut expenses is in the beverage department. Some casinos will even sub out well liquors for premium liquors and lie about it (extremely illegal). They also want to fire long term employees because they make too much per hour. Anyone who is qualified will leap at a bartending or cocktail position in even the worst casinos usually. Boom you can cut your payroll by a 1/3 at least. They change insurance plans on a regular basis around here...and each plan is slightly more expensive and slightly worse overall.

I have talked to a lot of people in the industry and thats my take on the overall work environment. This will vary some from location to location but not that much. To me her case would boil down to what was the employee uniform requirements before the plan changed. I haven't seen that info yet. Hope this helps and I haven't bored you too much.

[tx_dem41]

238. Thank you...it didn't bore me at all....

I appreciate the time that you took to compose it.

It seems like you feel that this woman was very possibly a target because of her tenure with the casino and was looking for a way to fire her. Am I correct?

[Boosterman]

240. Its possible

I know thats a trend here and this place tends to follow about 5 years or so behind Vegas. Vegas is still the Mecca of gambling. Its an awesome place to visit...but my advice is dont go unless you want to blow money.

[Boosterman]

239. Doh I did an overview and didn't back up what I said

Umm casinos are extremely interested in the appearance of their cocktails. In fact its all extremely discriminatory. I am not saying that they will only hire pretty girls...but some casinos don't offer uniforms in certain sizes and those aren't the small sizes. Theres only certain women picked for special events (my wife is one of them:)). Notice no men or women with in the plus sizes. The reason they don't make them nude is simply there are laws governing uniforms. IE certain "decency" requirements that are part of their gambling license. Men aren't allowed to cocktail in most casinos (my casino was an exception) and women are actually preferred for bartending positions in many cases but most of the women prefer to cocktail. Thats some heavy generalization on my part but it seems to be true when I talked to those VPs. Who oddly enough seemed to be pleased enough with me as a bartender they told me all kinds of stuff they shouldn't. :shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

179. so you are saying she should be forced to prostitute herself

even if it is only for the viewing pleasure of men.

[tx_dem41]

198. How do you infer that from a post...

about the job duties of a bartender?

[amazona]

206. in Reno? NAH!

The job also includes attracting customers to the bar and keeping them there.

The women working at Harrah's are not there to attract customers to the bar ala Hooter's babes or something. I've been to Harrah's Reno. It is a hole, albeit a large hole, where the old and desperate go to feed their gambling addiction. No one cares if a bartender has make-up or not.

[ronnykmarshall]

207. Not that I agree with the women being fired

but the policy was set for every Harrah's hotel.

[amazona]

292. the policy has not been enforced

What it may say in a manual no one but a lawyer ever reads...and what really happens on the floor at Harrah's...are two different things.

Come on, people. Harrah's is open to the public. There are all kinds of women working on the floor there -- fat women, old women, women either without make-up or it must be on so thin you can't see it, women with awful bouffant do's leftover from the sixties, women with "soft butch" short cuts, you know, the full range of women!

I've been to many Harrah's all over the country, not just Reno.

No way this make-up thing is anything but a mask for something else.

[LizW]

46. I agree, Dr. B

This is a stretch, and it opens the door for employers to impose other ridiculous requirements. The court is saying it's okay for a company to require employees to do certain things to pretty themselves up after working there 20 years.

If a female bartender in a casino has an implied duty to "attract" male customers, and what is considered "attractive" is at the sole discretion of the employer, where are the limits?

For instance, can they suddenly require their female employees to go braless?

[Ripley]

92. Or get breast implants?

Or lose weight? Or dye her hair blonde? And is this bar for Males only?

[tx_dem41]

93. From what I understand, its in a casino....

so I would think that the clientele is pretty mixed gender-wise.

[Ripley]

95. Then who is she wearing makeup for?

If her job description has not changed and the bar is still that...a BAR where she has the same duties for 20 years, what changed? Oh yeah, our society is becoming more sexist.

[tx_dem41]

97. I would say that our society has always been sexist.

Which is wrong.

[ronnykmarshall]

134. and I think that is the point.

It's a CASINO!

Anyone that has been to a casino knows that there is a certain "look" or "theme" that goes along with the job.

What the article doesn't answer is WHEN she was fired. Considering how long it takes for a lawsuit to reach this point, I'd like to that.

Also, in another article Harrah's offered to re-hire her and not require her to ware make-up. :wtf:

>>Harrah's spokesman Gary Thompson said the company was pleased with the decision. The company had offered to rehire Jespersen and not require her to wear makeup, but she rejected the offer, he said.<<


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20041229/ts_latimes/courtrulesbartenderwasjustlyfiredforrefusingtowearmakeup

[TahitiNut]

200. Well, how else can they get away with replacing her with a younger ...

... and "sexier" bartendress? :eyes: (It's an obvious subterfuge.)

[The Zanti Regent]

7. Your liberal 9th Circuit in action!

Any doubt that the Jesusistas have overthrown America remaining?

[InvisibleBallots]

67. Funny, lots of Fundies disapprove of makeup on women

So you probably mean "Corportista" - then again, maybe not.

[VegasWolf]

163. I think the "Corportista" are the real brains behind the "jesusistias"n/t

[InvisibleBallots]

211. yeah, and it's the Jesusistas behind the CASINOs?

I thought the fundies wanted to ban gambling? These fundies seem to be the cause of all the problems! :eyes:

[Boosterman]

220. Well I think you are right

but you would be shocked how often I saw people there that would "disapprove" of me working in such a sinful place.

[VegasWolf]

247. LOL. Really, I haven't seen many disgusted faces in the casinos,

mostly their faces reflect the look of greed!

[freeplessinseattle]

8. If I was her I'd put on clown make-up just to see hwt they'd do, or KISS

style. I wonder if they have guidelines for what products and how much to wear? I wear just some face powder and a light lipstick or gloss when I do wear make-up, would I be required to wear "full" make-up, foundation, mascara, eyeshadow, blush, eyeliner, etc.? what a fucking pain, and an expensive one at that! It takes me 2 minutes to do my make-up, while some friedns can take an hour or more, what a waste of time! I think what galls me is the implication that make-up enhances a woman's appearance, which is not necessarily true, for one thing, which implies that the women need make-up, and men don't need anything to help them look good.

and someone explian the reasoning behind my long ago job's policy, at Sunglass Hut-they required females to wear pantyhose with shorts on their designated "beach" days, but the guys didn't have to. I refused to wear pantyhose, they make my skin itch and I felt ridiculous, like I was auditioning for a Three's Company remake.

[slor]

10. LOL...

that is brilliant...I hope she does it, gets fired, and wins millions in the lawsuit.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

15. Millions over makeup?

I hope no one wins millions over this case.

[slor]

26. She would win because

of the casino trying to enforce a ridiculous policy. And I stand by the amount I suggested. Far be it from me to feel sympathy for a casino, that probably takes in quite a bit of money, cashing in on people's lives everyday. I am glad you are in a position in life that they can garner your sympathy, but they will not find any from this person.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

29. Ah, the ridiculous policy defense

That should be worth millions of dollars?

It's attitudes like that one that force companies to go out of business. Be reasonable. If my boss tells me to wear makeup, I can sue him and win millions? Come on.

[slor]

45. Yep, that explains why...

companies go belly up in this country: frivolous lawsuits. Not exorbitant CEO salaries or crappy products, it is all due to stupid lawsuits. It is that kind of attitude, this overreaching concern for business interests, that is, in part, the reason why our economy is in the shape that it is in. Care to give me some numbers proving how many companies close because of lawsuits? Hey, if you are right I may concede the point, and I do agree, that many lawsuits are silly. But I also believe that the rights of workers need to be defended, and a clear message will be sent to all employers if they stand to lose millions over a case like this.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

48. They are ALL reasons companies go under

Lawsuits, poor management, bad products, too much money spent on the wrong things (and CEOs fall into this category).

As long as you stand that millions should be won on this case, it is THAT position that will be silly.

[slor]

This falls under "poor management"

and just like you would not get worked up by a company that markets and produces a product that ends up losing millions, you should not be too sympathetic for a company that tries to enforce a dumb policy, and loses millions.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

195. The policy wouldn't LOSE millions without a judgment

And I think millions of dollars for a make-up battle is silly.

[Eloriel]

114. Nuh huh. You were asked for stats on how many companies

have been shut down because of lawsuits -- frivolous lawsuits. YOU were the one who made the claim, now back it up OR take it back, and you don't get to "dilute" your original claim by pulling in the other reasons companies fail. It was YOUR original claim, now back it up.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

196. I don't know of any organization that tracks such things

Do you?

But I have indeed seen articles on it. So you would end up with anecdotal results, not statistical ones.

[annabanana]

85. let's get those reforms, you know the court control

corporate coddling rules up and running....the ones that hamstring juries.... Yup, that'll fix it.

[ronnykmarshall]

168. Oh damn those evil casinos!

Cashing in on people's lives like they do!

SHUT 'EM DOWN! ALL OF 'EM!!

Praise Jesus that some of you DEMONcrats can see the light.

Gambling leads to Homosexuality, ya know??


Them casinos have a laser beam that FORCES people to spend their hard earned CHRISTIAN money on the evils of sin.

Oh LORD! I about to have a Baptist BLOWOUT right now!


Zeal bola boo boo paludal penny cacao!

WHOA! I'm talking' in tongues!!

PRAISE!! GLORY!!!

[illflem]

12. Good idea!

[0007]

38. There is definitely more to this story than meets the eye

Because the club couldn't control this feisty saucy little women, they had no choice but to butt heads with the Culinary Union. The good 0' boys won. I hope the Local 226 takes it to a higher court. The good 0' boys will book a looser.

Kind of like the way junior runs things.

[jmowreader]

140. I read the article; they have guidelines

Harrah's has a "Personal Best" policy for its servers:

All: well groomed, appealing to the eye, be firm and body toned, and be comfortable with maintaining this look. Associates will be issued a tailored uniform and will not alter this uniform once it is tailored.

Females: stockings, colored nail polish, pumps, "teased, curled or styled" hair, and the following four makeup items: foundation, mascara, blush and lipstick.

Males: neatly trimmed hair not extending below the collar, no makeup, no long fingernails.

They claim it's part of the "entertainment."

I don't know...it seems to me that there are plenty of "back of house" jobs that pay as well as bartending (even when tips are counted) that don't require customer contact and that, therefore, wouldn't require makeup that Harrah's could have moved her into.

[Samurai_Writer]

176. And do you see how females are required to do more for "Personal Best"

"Females: stockings, colored nail polish, pumps, "teased, curled or styled" hair, and the following four makeup items: foundation, mascara, blush and lipstick.

Males: neatly trimmed hair not extending below the collar, no makeup, no long fingernails."

Ok, let's count them:

Females -- 5 criteria (9 if you count each article of makeup separately)
Males -- 3 criteria

Colored nail polish?!? Pumps?!? Teased, curled or styled hair?!? Makeup?!?

What are they, bartenders or whores?

[jmowreader]

188. Now let's translate this part...

All: well groomed, appealing to the eye, be firm and body toned, and be comfortable with maintaining this look. Associates will be issued a tailored uniform and will not alter this uniform once it is tailored.

IOW:

* We won't hire you if you're not thin, buff and beautiful
* We will fire you if you gain ten pounds
* We will make you wear a skintight uniform and fire you if you alter it to make it less skintight

In other words, this is Hooters with slot machines.

I would also imagine, from working in hospitality, that males are required to wear black pants, a white shirt, a company-issued necktie, spitshined shoes, no facial hair, no earrings...

I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about the "you will not be hired if you're not thin and beautiful, and you won't be retained if you don't stay thin and beautiful" part than I am about "you have to wear lipstick to work."

[amazona]

209. but it isn't Hooter's with slot machines

I've been in this casino several times. If they fired this woman over her looks, there is something else going on -- a boss she wouldn't sleep with, a personality clash, who knows. But there are plenty of physically un-appealing women working there on the floor to put it mildly. Being older and not-so-toned is so not a problem at a Harrah's Reno.

I'm thinking she was singled out because some one in power just plain didn't like her for whatever reason.

They looked for any little excuse to get rid of her, and apparently because she had done a good job for 20 years, the make-up thing was the best they could do.

But I'm confident there HAS to be more to this story.

[Child_Of_Isis]

289. Good god!

How can they get by with that? Not being able to gain weight?

[amazona]

291. fat women work at Harrahs for pity's sake

How can they get by with that? Not being able to gain weight?


I can't be the only person on DU who has been inside many Harrah's casinos including the one in Reno.

They have fat women working there. They even have "soft butch" women working there.

Whatever it may say in the handbook, Harrahs' does not have a policy of running around firing/not hiring fat women or women who don't wear caked-on visible make-up.

I assure you, there is something else we don't know going on. I have to assume that a supervisor or manager was picking on this particular woman for some personal reason we'll never know. I hope the woman gets her job back, because clearly the ruling by the court is just insanely unfair and the whole story makes no sense with the little part of it we've been told.

[Boosterman]

223. You would have to be a suit to make

what bartenders make in all likelihood. And I dont mean even a pit boss. They usually make slightly less. Every other job in the place will pay less. Unless you head up a department. From what I know most vegas bartenders will make between 80 to 120 K depending on shifts.

Edited to add- a lot of them make most of that about 2/3s tax freee :)

[pauliedangerously]

323. "make-up enhances a woman's appearance"

Uh, yeah, that's exactly what it does....women don't wear it to diminish their appearance, do they?


"and someone explian (I think you meant explain) the reasoning behind my long ago job's policy, at Sunglass Hut-they required females to wear pantyhose with shorts on their designated "beach" days, but the guys didn't have to."

Uh, yeah, that's because pantyhose make a woman's legs look tanned and sexy. Do you like looking at men with pantyhose? Me neither. Me personally, I prefer a woman in white stockings, the kind that go halfway up the thigh with lace on top, but that's just me. :boring:

[no_hypocrisy]

9. The problem is how much cosmetic appeal employers will demand in

order for women to keep their jobs.

Almost 20 years ago, there was a female co-anchor on the local news in New York City. Her employers wanted to do something like get her teeth capped or get a nose job. She refused, saying, "Why don't they lift my boobs while they're at it?" She isn't seen on any of the local channels to this day. When push comes to shove . . .

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Lambda's involved so the plot thickens...

and if she's been working there over 20 years... she's how old?

There is more to this story than meets the eye.

[renaissanceguy]

18. Is the woman a lesbian?

I wonder if this might become a "gender expression" or a gay discrimination case, then.

------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14744156

[Nikepallas]

19. Her sexual orientation should not be the issue at all I am a married

female who very rarely wear make up due to my sink being so sensitive! Make up should not be a requirement!

I am not surprised that it happened in Nevada. I have family who live their and I can see how working for some casinos have made them that shallow.

This woman should appeal and I for one will be boycotting that place until this changes.

[Mad_Dem_X]

37. I, too, am married and makeup-free

most of the time. I've never liked wearing makeup; it always made me feel like I had a mask on.

I think that after being an employee of that casino for 20 years, that woman should not have to wear makeup if she doesn't want to.

[Ms_Mary]

115. Exactly. I do wear some natural makeup, but I've quit wearing it for the

most part. What I do use is Burt's Bees, which is a much more natural look and lacks the nasty chemicals I'm too sensitive to.

[TreasonousBastard]

51. I have no idea, and...

there could be other reasons why Lambda is involved.

But, I'm just guessing here, they want a hottie behind the bar. Methinks they also want hot guys bartending somewhere in the place, too, but that hasn't made the news.

Let's just say, for the moment, that she's a 50ish fat lesbian and maybe that's not grounds for firing her, but it's not bringing in any business to the bar. Maybe they offered her the service bar and she told them to shove it.

Or, maybe she just gets into fights with other employees, pisses off the bosses, or for some other reason they don't want her around, and this is the easiest way to dump her.

Or, they're simply just a bunch of assholes running the place and she has a case.

Or, all of the above or something else. Point is, we don't know the whole story, so who are we to make rash judgments about it.

[ronnykmarshall]

150. She's 49

which adds to age discrimination as well.

[ET Awful]

24. Some religions forbid women to wear makeup, if she were refusing

to wear makeup for religious reasons, would we be having this discussion? Especially if say, she was a member of a fundie church who considered makeup immodest?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

27. So let me ask you

Could she sue if she was Muslim and got turned down for a job as a stripped but refused to wear anything but the burqa?

I think what most people want in this situation is everyone to be reasonable. Where that line is drawn is pretty darn tough.

[ET Awful]

32. If she were a Muslim, she wouldn't apply for a job as a stripper, and yes

she could be turned down because a stripper STRIPS. It's in the job description, hell, it's the job title.

In this case, wearing make-up is NOT part of the job, the title, or anything but a random set of rules made up after she'd already been there 20 years.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

33. Job description

So if wearing makeup is in the job description or looking attractive or something like that it's OK.

And at places I've worked, they can change the work rules over night.

[ET Awful]

39. Do you not realize that you are arguing against yourself?

Let's try and clarify this for you since you apparently didn't quite catch it the first time.

A woman was fired after 20 years because of an overnight change in dress code. This is WRONG, regardless of the reason for the change. She sued, the Court reached an improper decision.

Had she sued on other grounds (such as religious grounds in the example I gave, or medical grounds - perhaps a skin condition that didn't allow her to wear makeup), we would most likely not be having this conversation because she would have won the case.

Now you, in your never-ending mission to attack anyone (you've done it several times in previous threads as well), ignore that and instead choose to go on the offensive.

So NO, using looks is not acceptable, nor is demanding the wearing of makeup.

However, your ludicrous analogy to a muslim woman refusing to strip for a stripping job is just that, ludicrous. That's like asking of a truck driver could sue if he was refused a job after saying he wouldn't drive a truck. Or an accountant being refused a job after saying he refused to use computer and calculator. It's not just part of the job, it IS THE JOB.

[tx_dem41]

41. How is she arguing against herself?

She is saying that attracting customers is part of being a bartender, and that physical experience is part of that equation. Cutting through all of the vitriole in your post, I just don't get your point.

[ET Awful]

47. Read the phrasing of her question, read what she said. . .

She attacks me by asking a ludicrous question trying to reverse what I said.

Of course, you have shown yourself already to approve of objectifying women.

[tx_dem41]

68. Please point out which of my posts "approved of objectifying...

women"?

[ronnykmarshall]

170. Once again ........... here come them crickets.

[Cheswick2.0]

187. every single one of them

[oldcoot]

123. This bartender was able to attract customers for 20 years

If she was so hideous that she drove customers away she probably would not have lasted in the business for 20 years. Since bartenders and other individuals in the service industry rely heavily on tips, she would not have been able to survive if her customers ran screaming every time they saw her.

[tx_dem41]

133. I agree with you. That's why I have clearly stated ....

....throughout this thread that I am not addressing the referenced case.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

42. I am not attacking anyone

Far from it. I am arguing for a reasonable solution here. It's obvious some jobs require women to look nice -- strippers, models, TV, Hollywood, etc. -- waitress and bartender seem likely as well to me. So looks DO matter.

Yes, if she had a medical condition, this wouldn't be a debate. It appears she doesn't, so we are arguing how far a company can go to make its employees look nice to draw customers. Hooters won saying it can only limit itself to female servers. This court claims they can mandate makeup.

The Muslim woman example was used to prove a point. If you didnt' get it, oh well.

[ET Awful]

49. No, it was used to make an illogical argument that had nothing to

do with the case at hand.

Sorry, but a bartenders job is to tend bar. That's all. She wasn't a cocktail waitress, she wasn't a showgirl, she wasn't a stripper (and, by the way, I've seen some godawful ugly strippers before). Wearing makeup does not make one a better bartender.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

52. Bartenders are supposed to serve customers

If a bartender is too ill-mannered, too scary or, yes, too unattractive to draw customers, then the bar goes out of business.

[ET Awful]

56. BULLSHIT!

Please show me a bar anywhere in the world that went out of business because the bartender didn't wear makeup.

What a load of horseshit.

[tx_dem41]

57. Is it possible to be more respectful in the debate?

It was informative at first. Now its degenerated.

[ET Awful]

61. In other words, you can't provide an example.

Thanks.

When someone makes an obviously bullshit statement, I'm going to call it bullshit. I don't look at bullshit and call it chocolate.

[tx_dem41]

64. Ummm...since you didn't address the question to me,

I didn't answer it. And I can list you three bars in the Dallas/Lower Greenville area that have closed within the last 18 months due to poor bartenders that couldn't maintain a customer base. These were mainly beer and shot establishments so the serving skills of the bartender had nothing to do with it. I know the owner of one of the closed establishments and know managers that worked at the other two.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PaulaFarrell]

80. due to poor bartenders

or crap entertainment, high prices, too much competition? No, the bartenders just weren't pretty enough....

[tx_dem41]

82. Where did I say that it was due to the bartenders ....

not being "pretty enough"?

Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth. Thank. you

[PaulaFarrell]

107. your words

"She is saying that attracting customers is part of being a bartender, and that physical experience is part of that equation."

"And I can list you three bars in the Dallas/Lower Greenville area that have closed within the last 18 months due to poor bartenders that couldn't maintain a customer base. These were mainly beer and shot establishments so the serving skills of the bartender had nothing to do with it."

I just put 2 & 2 together - it certainly sounds to me like you're saying that 3 bars failed due to the bartenders losing customers, but not due to their serving skill. As this discussion is about makeup/attractiveness, etc.. I took your words to mean just what I said. Maybe you were actually saying something else, but I don't think my assumption was invalid.

[tx_dem41]

108. Your assumption that I am talking about the specific case...

...is incorrect. I came on this board when I felt people were making assumptions about the bar industry in general.

[Cobalt Violet]

136. All because the female bartenders didn't wear make-up?

But were good bartenders for 20 yrs? That's a load of crap.

[tx_dem41]

141. Where did I say that in my post....in fact,

where did I even talk about female bartenders in my post?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

199. That is one component

For the want of a shoe, a battle is lost. When a company goes bankrupt or out of business (and I've worked at a couple), there are MANY reasons. It is IMPOSSIBLE to claim one did it in when all contributed.

[Ms_Mary]

116. You are really reaching here

She worked there for 20 years. Obviously, she's not so hideous that people run screaming. And who gets to dictate what I have to do to pass muster? If she reeked and refused to shower, THEN they would have an issue.

I take issue with the whole idea that women are not sufficiently presentable without makeup. A lot of women I see would look better without it. If she wanted to be an actress or news anchor, I can see makeup being an issue. For tending a bar? No.

[InvisibleBallots]

120. why bother to defend this company anyway, AliciaKeyedUp?

Do these companies need to be defended for imposing arbitrary rules on their employees? It seems like the employee is the one that's the underdog here. Why stand up for the "rights" of casinos anyway?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

251. Honestly, I don't think it's a big requirement

And certainly not one worth millions of dollars as one poster wishes.

Companies need to have some rights and employees need some rights. I don't think asking employees to look reasonably nice is over-reaching.

[bloom]

254. I think telling someone they don't look reasonably nice without

makeup is over-reaching.



If anything I would tell people to stop wearing make-up unless it was Halloween.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

256. If she really doesn't like it, she should quit

But I still think they have a good business reason to request it.

[bloom]

290. So you like and support sexism?

If people did not support sexism - there would be no reason for the business to demand makeup on women.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

302. It's not sexism to be expected to try and look nice

nt

[tx_dem41]

34. I would contend that attracting customers is definitely part of the

job description and physical appearance falls under that equation.

[ET Awful]

40. Nonsense. What attracts customers to a bar is alcohol, not the bartender

If people only bought alcohol based on the appearance of the bartender, most of the bars in the country would go out of business.

[tx_dem41]

43. Well, I guess that's why you never see attractive people in

the bartending industry. :eyes:

If what attracts customers to a bar is alcohol, why wouldn't you just go to a liquor store and get it cheaper? Clearly, it isn't just alcohol.

[ET Awful]

54. So tell me, when you go to a bar, do you spend more time checking out

the person slinging the drinks, or the other patrons in the bar?

If you spend more time looking at the bartender, you're in the extreme minority.

People don't go to bars for the people making the drink, they go for the drinks themselves and the other people swilling the drinks.

[tx_dem41]

59. I go for the atmosphere which includes everything you ..

mentioned. I promise you there are many bars that I go to that their business varies greatly depending on who is behind the bar (and everyone can pour a beer and a shot).

[jdj]

103. Wow. I have seen some butt-ugly ass 40ish male bartenders in my day.

It seems to be the industry standard, yet no one is firing them...

It's such a double standard.

The other night, I just watched Annie Duke win $2 million dollars when she won the World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions, beating all the men contenders. She has supported herself and her children playing professionally for years this way, and she took home the biggest prize this time, yet the first thing my Dad said when she won was "maybe she can get a hairstyle now and look more glamorous." Of course none of the men she beat the pants off of looked the least bit glamorous while they were losing to her, but he missed that.

[tx_dem41]

105. The bars I go to have a couple...

of those older male bartenders too. They tend to get limited shifts working the service bar where they don't directly get tips from customers. I guess that's sexism or "lookism".

[ronnykmarshall]

181. When the bartenders look this .........

........I'd ignore my own mother!

[pauliedangerously]

324. I'm going to have to disagree with you there...

"People don't go to bars for the people making the drink."

I worked in a hotel for five years and we had a really hot bartender. She was six feet tall, buxom, flirtatious, and she wore very sexy clothes. She also made a lot of money in tips. That place was always WAY busier when she worked. People would come in and when they saw that she wasn't working they'd ask me where she was and when she'd be back. I'd tell them, and they'd leave.

Of course, I can only speak from my own experience...perhaps this is an extremely rare case. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

44. What attracts customers to bars is alcohol

What attracts them to a particular bar over another is any number of things from food to staff to entertainment.

[tx_dem41]

50. Exactly right Alicia....

Just an anecdote I realize, but I had a choice to go to two bars last night. I consciously went to the one where I liked the bartender better. Oh, and she's attractive...and I'm shallow. ;-)

[AliciaKeyedUp]

53. You're only human

And it seems like that is what people are missing here.

[Ms_Mary]

118. Perhaps we get it and disagree with it. nt

[tx_dem41]

119. Why is saying that I went to a bar because I liked

the bartender something to disagree with? My statement has nothing at all to do with the reference case in the OP, which I believe could be (and probably is) sexism.

BTW, the bartender I said is attractive was wearing a sweatshirt, no makeup and a ball cap. She's attractive because she is always in a great mood is a genuinely fun person. I am not going to apologize for calling a woman attractive. Is that a bad thing these days?

[Ms_Mary]

154. Not at all, maybe I was reading too much into Alicia's statement

I'm still on the make up-required vent. Need more coffee.

[Child_Of_Isis]

58. Okay.

I think I get it. A female bartender's job is to attract lonely unattached men while serving drinks.

[tx_dem41]

62. No....its to provide an atmosphere where people want to congregate

and enjoy the company of other people, men and women. One of those contributors is certainly the appearance of the bar staff.

And, where have I said that the attractiveness of a bartender is a factor in the equation for females only?

Your post is like saying that a messageboard is for lonely people who can't communicate face-to-face with others, possibly due to lack of self-esteem. Now, we know that's silly, don't we?

[Child_Of_Isis]

66. So, you select bars that only have

attractive men and women serving?

[tx_dem41]

70. Where did I say that?

Please stop putting words in my mouth. Its not an intellectually honest form of discussion.

[ET Awful]

63. That would appear to be their argument.

20 years worth of experience doesn't count for anything if you can't make yourself look like a prostitute to "attract" customers.

[Cobalt Violet]

138. Well I went to one with a 350 lb. bald ass middle aged man.

And he didn't wear make up but he makes the best Screaming Orgasm in town.

[tx_dem41]

144. Lol....well you can't argue with that!

My fave bartender makes a mean Jager Bomb. And, I am regretting that this morning.

[MadHound]

83. Sorry, but that arguement falls apart when you look at many bars

Where males are the primary waitstaff, and the clientele is also primarily male. Alcohol is what draws people to bars, the looks of a waitresse are perk, one that shows up in the amount of tips she could take in, not in the bottom line of the establishment. There are exceptions to this, in clubs such as Hooters, etc., but these are simply exceptions that prove the rule.

[tx_dem41]

86. Well, since I never said that the "looks of the waitresses,etc" were

THE reason to go to a bar, I am not sure whom you are addressing. I have contended that the atmosphere that a bar provides is what attracts people to a bar. There are many, many things that go into that equation. If it was just alcohol, people would just go to a liquor store and drink at home all the time.

[Boosterman]

274. You have a point

in they MAY have changed the rules on her. We dont really know what the policy was beforehand. It may have been laxly enforced. If I remember correctly Harrahs was bought out somewhere in there. However appearance is usually one of the requirements for the server industry in some fashion or another. The question is...too far?


BTW my personal suspicion is she was fired because she made too much hourly.

[havocmom]

110. She has done the job as she is for 20 years. She did not just sign on

and then fight with them about rules. THEY changed the rules and disregarded her years of service. She seems not to have done anything to warrant firing in 20 years! Jeeze, employers are screaming that they can't find reliable, loyal employees! Well, here is one and they shit on her via changing the rules LATE in the game.

Hey, anybody know if she is getting close to owning a pension from the bastards? The frivolous firing of employees getting close to being vested in pension programs is not unknown in the US. Look for more of it to happen, and to men & women, if employers get away with changing rules so they can fire long term employees who have not given any legitimate reasons to be fired!

The only thing about her that changed is her age. She did not suddenly take a hard line. She did not just apply for a job she didn't agree with the parameters of. She has held the position, with the casino's approval for 20 years!. She didn't show up at a strip club wearing a burqa just yesterday. THEY changed the rules which have nothing to do with her job performance. THEY are asking for trouble and it is a poor management decision.

People, we have states where they make laws to protect the jobs of pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills to women holding legitimate prescriptions! The Pill was part of the gig before just about ANY of the current pharmacists got licensed. The Pill has been part of their job for over 40 years! And this woman gets canned for refusing to follow an new rule about makeup?

Gee, when does makeup become tax deductible for all women who are required by employers to wear it (while making 79 cents on the male dollar?) How about we get a tax credit for the cost of all those panty hose we go have to wear with skirts and that don't last as long as the sox men wear protected by long pants?





I hope she nails them.

[Moloch]

25. That is horribly sexist...

I do, however, believe that people should be fired for wearing too much makeup.

[Theres-a]

75. yee ha!

:bounce:

[despairing optimist]

190. Sometimes fine couture is just not enough

Would she get a pink slip in Reno?

[RazzleCat]

28. Only one job requires makeup

The only job where a woman should "have" to wear makeup is the woman who works behind the counter selling it. I wear makeup, mostly because I have very dry skin and it helps keep is moist. But if someone told me I had to wear it to work I would show up with out a drop on. Matter of fact if my job asked me to do anything to "pretty" up I would throw a fit. I was hired to admin a server and clients, not to be attractive. FYI I did tend bar for a while, and did not wear much in the way of makeup, mostly just gloss and some blush, no eye, or foundation.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

30. Only one job?

How about models, actresses, TV personalities (male and female) and spokespeople just for starters.

[ET Awful]

35. Agreed for the most part (though there are other jobs that require it).

I've always approached similar issues from a different angle (never having been in the exact situation, since I'm a male). One time an attorney I worked for said he wanted me to start wearing suits regularly to impress the clients. Since I never really saw the clients, I didn't think it was necessary, besides I only owned one worn out suit. So I told him if he wanted me to wear suits, he'd have to buy them (thinking it would shut him up). Unfortunately the bastard gave me a corporate Amex card and told me to buy 4 suits.

So it backfired on me :)

[genieroze]

101. How did it backfire, you got 4 free suits unless he docked your pay

for them.

[ET Awful]

128. It backfired because I had to wear the damned things :)

I expected him to back down and not make me :)

[genieroze]

307. I would have picked out the most expensive ones I could find. lol

:evilgrin:

[strobetoad]

69. Why should anybody do what the boss asks?

Screw the bosses, that's what I say. Sure, they hired you, but you don't owe them anything. Businessmen are just rich bloodsuckers, living high on the hog through the unappreciated and unrewarded labor of their downtrodden employee-victims and the stupidity of their customer-victims.

Don't obey your employer's wishes! Sue everybody! Power to the people!

[PROUDNWLIBERAL]

31. I'll pass on this company

I will not be taking my business to Harrahs anymore. I used to hit their buffet at Lake Tahoe, but no more. Just a couple of years ago I interviewed for a boiler operators job a Mammouth Mountain---they were going to give me the job, but they said I had to shave off my mustache---I( said no---they said no job. Their pay and benefits were really poor. They still have this not facial hair policy and poor wages and benefits. Screw Mammouth Mountain.

[amazona]

212. good for you but not easy to do this any more

There is casino consolidation now, and Harrahs/Caesar's is the largest employer in the industry. You can no longer afford to write them off if you want to work in this industry.

[Calvinist Basset]

36. What about "natural" beauty?

Frankly, I like it when women wear no or little make-up. Why obscure the natural beauty God gave?

Likely, this was a move by the casino to make the woman look younger and prettier since, as a 20-year employee, they thought she had lost some of her charm. And this is clearly a sexist policy. Plus, the different grooming and appearance standards cited by the court are also rooted in sexist ideals.

Still, this should be a situation where employees have the right to wear or not wear makeup as personally desired. As long as she doesn't show up dirty, smelly and disheveled, they should be happy. After all, requiring certain hair lengths is one thing--something as subjective as determining appropriate makeup application is another. That is to say, now that they've employed a makeup policy, they will need to define exact standards of what is acceptable or not acceptable (specific colors of rouge allowed/prohibited, precise amounts that should/shouldn't be applied, whether eye shadow is optional/mandated, etc.); she could dab a little lipstick and say she complied, which is probably not what they intended by the rule. Likewise, she could don war paint or something else ridiculous and make the same claim. They may have opened a real can of worms . . .

[LostinVA]

71. Two Things

1.) Didn't a flight attendant win a case about 20 years ago on this very thing? I need to google...

2.) I got fired from a ratty KFC job when I was in college over this very thing. It was 1983, and the owner of the franchise told me I had to wear makeup or be fired. I was like WTF? And told him no -- one, because I don't LIKE makeup or the way I look in it, and two, I have very, very sensitive skin. So, I was fired. From a frigging FAST FOOD job, for not painting my face like a whore. (The owner said I needed to "pretty " myself up, to bring in more customers.) I was 19-years-old. I called up the ACLU, EEO, and NOW, and no one would help.

Gosh, we've come a long way, baby.

[tx_dem41]

74. I agree definitely with your #2.

In the fast food industry it is clearly a stupid "requirement".

[LostinVA]

76. He's Still Doing It

I was in the area a few months back and went into that KFC. The store is still owned by the same guy, and all the girls in there had on makeup an inch thick...

[Calvinist Basset]

261. I think you're right

I do recall something about flight attendant winning a lawsuit. If you find anything on it, let me know.

In my case, I was refused employment by a KFC because of my beard and mustache (which were and always are very neatly and closely trimmed). Oh well, I found a better job, so I wasn't too bummed.

[jmowreader]

208. Oh, they've got one...

First, the regulation states what is the "minimal makeup"--foundation, mascara, blush and lipstick in shades that compliment your complexion, hair color and eye color. I'm positive that if you wanted to use more than just these four items, you could.

Next, they have an "image consultant" on retainer. Each affected employee was consulted and an image created, the employee was trained on how to apply it, and a photograph of the employee was taken for the files.

Then comes the fun part: you have to come in looking like your file photo every day.

[Calvinist Basset]

258. What a load of crap!

:puke:

[beam me up scottie]

77. In the 90's I worked for a national restaurant chain that had a strict

dress code for all servers. We convinced our manager to let us wear shorts and he agreed providing they were only an inch or less above the knee. At the end of the first week, the female servers were called into the office and told we had to wear pantyhose with our shorts (which was ridiculous considering the heat in the kitchen was what inspired us to ask to wear shorts to begin with). I asked him why we had to wear hose and he said it was because of hygienic reasons. I then told him if that was the case then I would expect to see all the male servers wearing pantyhose as well. I also told him I would be contacting the home office to file a discrimination complaint. He let us go and never mentioned pantyhose again.

[Samurai_Writer]

79. As a former bartender and a current model...

I call bullshit on this employment policy. I've worked in bars ranging from night clubs to biker bars to family restaurants to first-class continental cuisine restaurants. NONE of them required I wear makeup! A bartender is supposed to attract customers, but 99% of that is done through PERSONALITY. This casino is clearly being discriminatory because of this woman's age. Also, after working there 20 years, union, she's probably pulling in some great pay. How much better for the company if they hire a 21 year old right out of bartending school.

The ONLY time I wear make up now is when I'm working as a model (which is not my primary job). If I'm in front of the camera, on a runway, or at a meet and greet, I wear it. All other times, you would not catch me dead in make up. And that includes at my office where I'm a department manager for a medical supply company.

I say she should go in with the most horrid makeup job she can muster (like Mimi on Drew Carey).

[lonestarnot]

84. eww we could fix her up real cute....

Some big lips, some big eyelashers, some rougie...rat up her hair..
This ruling is absolutely ridiculous! What does this judge know about makeup? Does he wear it on the bench? Have a ring around his robe collar? What a fool. Disparate treatment is disparate treatment is disparate treatment.

[ronnykmarshall]

153. Good ol Mimi!

[prayin4rain]

172. Ahhh wear horrible looking make-up, great solution, I like that.

That is what I would do.

[Boosterman]

273. 2 things I disagree with

The manuals I have seen say tastefully applied or some such thing. Also do they require you to wear make up when you model? Would they hire you without make up?

[Samurai_Writer]

286. Make up required for modelling

Make up is required for modelling. However, that is because the main job of modelling is to have a certain look depending on the product you're selling. Make up is different for every photo shoot, every run-way show, every meet and greet. I don't wear the same type of makeup when I am being photographed in casual clothes as I do when I am walking down a runway in an evening gown, or being photographed in lingerie.

However, a bartender's job is to mix drinks and serve customers. I don't think the type of makeup a bartender does or does not wear makes a bit of difference whether she is serving a beer or a martini, or her customers are truck drivers or CEOs. Two totally different industries with two totally different standards.

To get a modelling job, you have to have a portfolio of several different types of photographs,and yes, make up is always required for photography.

Peace,
Bella

[tx_dem41]

287. You model lingerie.....

and you're a "RadFem". ummmm.....cool!

From reading others' posts in this thread who have experience in the casino industry, there seems to be some belief that casion beverage service is more of a "show" (much like your runways) where an atmosphere is being sold.

That being said, I don't know where I fall on this one.

[genieroze]

91. What's next. corsets, breast or fanny pads, How about we are going

to harass you so you will quit so the establishment can hire some twenty something. "All three judges are males appointed by Democratic presidents." Our party is dead.

[JPace]

100. Makeup ingredients are often toxic....

If you do a search you can find all kinds of information showing that most personal care products are loaded with toxins. Seems to me the bartender would have a fair case to sue her employer for making her apply poisons to her body.

Here is some information http://www.safe2use.com/health/cosmetics.htm
UNDISCLOSED CARCINOGENS IN COSMETICS AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS POSE AVOIDABLE RISKS OF CANCER WARNS SAMUEL EPSTEIN, M.D.

CHICAGO, 01/15/01/PRNewswire/ - - The following was released by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and emeritus Professor of Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago

Government scientists recently identified a group of toxic chemicals known as phthalates in urine of adults, with highest levels in premenopausal women, resulting from inhalation and skin exposure to volatile parent ingredients used extensively as solvents and plasticizers in personal care and cosmetic (PCC) products. These include perfumes, shampoos, hair sprays and nail polishes. These findings raise major concerns in view of documented evidence, dating back to 1985, that these phthalates induce birth defects, low sperm counts, and other reproductive toxicity in experimental animals. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), authorized by the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act to ban unsafe PCC products, responded that it will now “consider” this longstanding information. While obviously important, the phthalate findings merely reflect the tip of an iceberg of more fundamental problems which have received minimal, if any, attention, from Congress, the media and the public.

The FDA’s relaxed response reflects reckless regulatory abdication matched by unresponsiveness of mainstream industries. A 1990 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office charging that the FDA commits no resources for assessing PCC safety had no impact on the agency’s policies. The agency’s sole requirement is restricted to ingredient labeling of PCC products, with the exception of fragrances and perfumes. With rare exceptions, such as children’s bubble baths, the FDA has never required industry to label PCC products with any warning of well-documented toxic or cancer risks, nor has it banned the sale of unsafe products to an unsuspecting public.

· Black and dark brown permanent hair dyes contain numerous ingredients, such as diaminoanisole and FD&C Red 33, recognized as carcinogens in experimental animals. This evidence is supported by studies establishing that regular use of these dyes poses major risks of relatively rare cancers--non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease and multiple myeloma.

· Cosmetic grade talc is carcinogenic in experimental animals. Also, frequent genital dusting with talc, routinely practiced by some 17% of women, increases risks of ovarian cancer.

· A group of widely used preservatives, such as quaternium15 and bronopol, widely used in baby products, though not carcinogenic themselves, break down to release formaldehyde, a potent irritant and carcinogen.

· Lanolin, widely used on babies’ skin and nipples of nursing mothers, is commonly contaminated with DDT and other carcinogenic pesticides.

· Commonly used PCC detergents and foaming agents, such as polysorbates and PEG, are usually contaminated with the volatile carcinogen dioxane, although this could be easily removed by vacuum stripping during manufacture.

· DEA, another widely used chemical detergent, has been known since 1975 to combine with nitrite preservatives or contaminants in PCC products to form a highly carcinogenic nitrosamine. Furthermore, recent government studies showed that DEA itself is also carcinogenic following application to mouse skin.

Citizen petitions to the FDA by the Cancer Prevention Coalition in 1994 and 1996 detailing evidence on the cancer risks of talc and DEA-containing products, respectively, and “Seeking Carcinogenic Labeling “ on these products, met with no substantive response.

Concerns on cancer risks from PCC products are emphasized by: lifelong use of multiple products by the majority of the U.S. population; the ready skin absorption of carcinogenic ingredients, further increased by detergents, especially when left on the skin for prolonged periods; and by decades-long suppression of information by the FDA and industry, abetted by a roll-over media, in flagrant denial of consumers’ right-to-know. Mainstream industry products thus pose major risks of avoidable cancer. Their role in the escalating incidence of cancer, now striking one in two men and one in three women in their lifetimes, remains largely unrecognized by our apparently health conscious society. Armed with such information, consumers should protect themselves by shopping for safe alternative products available from the growing non-mainstream industry.

NOTE: Information on carcinogenic PCC products and on safe alternatives is detailed in: Epstein, “The Politics of Cancer Revisited” (Appendix 14), 1998, East Ridge Press, Hankins, NY [phone]; Cancer Prevention Coalition’s website www.preventcancer.com; and Steinman & Epstein, “The Safe Shoppers’ Bible”, 1995, Macmillan/IDG, New York [phone].

SOURCE CANCER PREVENTION COALITION

- 0 -

/CONTACT: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and emeritus Professor of Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago, 312-996-2297, [e-mail]

[jdj]

106. thanks, I wasn't gonna, but you did...

yet another reason to keep this shit off your face.

there are companies that make natural products, and "old-timey" recipes for blotting powder and lip balm...

My favorite carcinogenic ingredient is in all shampoo, including all the natural shampoos I have checked except Dr. Bronner's soap, and that is sodium lauryl and laureth sulfate, which apparently has to be handled with care in production, in fact workers have to wear protection around it. Amazing.

[harpboy_ak]

325. it's a lie: sodium lauryl sulfate is safe

> My favorite carcinogenic ingredient is in all shampoo, including all
> the natural shampoos I have checked except Dr. Bronner's soap, and
> that is sodium lauryl and laureth sulfate,

NO. WRONG. IT'S AN URBAN LEGEND.

From the Tom's of Maine website http://www.tomsofmaine.com/toms/ifs/sls.asp :

'Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) is a foaming agent naturally derived from coconut oil. SLS has a long history of safe use in a variety of consumer personal care products.
<snip>
We are well aware of the widespread Internet rumors regarding SLS and its use in shampoos, toothpaste, and other products. At Tom's we are concerned about the safety and efficacy of our products, so we take these rumors seriously. Specifically, we have heard claims that SLS is linked to cancer, cataracts, liver or kidney damage, and other maladies. These widespread rumors have recently been investigated by respected publications such as The Washington Post and The Berkeley Wellness Newsletter, both of which have called them a "sham" and a "hoax." So rampant are these rumors that they are even addressed on the "Urban Legends" website (www.snopes.com) under the "toxins du jour "heading, which provides additional reputable sources of information about SLS research.'

Next thing you'll be telling us is that dihydrogen monoxide is a great killer, too.

[Child_Of_Isis]

192. Thank you for posting this.

This is the very reason that I will not wear makeup.

[Supersedeas]

102. Define 'grooming and appearance standards' -- breast implants, blonds

need only apply?

[Union Thug]

125. exactly. thanks for making the point. /eom

[Boosterman]

272. Heh. There are a lot of cocktails that get breast augmentation

Pity its not a business expense.

[Union Thug]

124. Guess I won't EVER frequent Harrah's...

Fuck them. I'll never visit one of their bullshit establishments and I'll tell recommend that everyone I know stay away as well.

[VegasWolf]

127. Well, here at the strip it's mostly black leather. n/t

[tx_dem41]

135. Vegaswolf....why are you so cruel to put that visual image...

in my mind (you in black leather)? ;-)

[VegasWolf]

151. LOL. No, but my wife does occasionally. n/t

[arikara]

174. I remember talking once with a waitress in Reno

who was wearing flat shoes, every other woman waitperson that I'd seen was killing themselves tripping around on 3 inch heels. I told her that I thought that she was very smart to wear the flats to be on her feet all day and she said that the bosses didn't like it but that there was nothing that they could do about it. This was about 15 years ago, I don't know what it is like now.

I always figured that if the fellas like high heels so much, they can bloody wear them. These poor women develop so many health problems after having to work long days with their feet in these ridiculous shoes.

There are certain things that shouldn't be able to be dictated, makeup being one of them.

[David Zephyr]

175. Courts Forcing Women to Paint Their Faces Soon Will Force Childbirth.

It coming. All of you "pro-lifers" here at the DU should take notice about what your "cause" will soon require girls and women to suffer.

[Bucknut213]

189. Hmmm....

I'd love to comment but I feel like I don't have enough posts...
Maybe next time...

[SemperEadem]

191. do they give a makeup allowance in addition to their paycheck?

to me, that would be fair.

Perhaps reading and fully understanding the requirements of the job before agreeing to work there would have enabled this woman to find employment with another business that wasn't so strict on appearances.

I think it's akin to a vegan working at Outback Steakhouse...

[Boosterman]

244. Nope and they dont have too legally

She was there for 20 years btw.

[roguevalley]

201. I could never work there. I am severely allergic to make up.

[BrightKnight]

306. Some people have religious objections to wearing makeup. - n/t

[amazona]

205. Ok I've been to Harrah's Reno anyone else?

These ladies are not exactly Hooter's babes. Some of them are almost old enough to be flight attendants on Northwest Airlines. The young girls maybe can look OK with tons of make-up piled on, but we older gals look better with very little or none, because all make-up does is crinkle up in the wrinkles. The judge is crazy. Harrah's Reno is crazy. And the world is crazy.

I hope Jespersen appeals because this ruling just doesn't make a bit of sense. This is not a place where beauty queens work. And the average age of the clientele is about 80 anyway, so eyesight is too poor to tell if the bartenders are wearing make-up or not.

Insane to steal someone's job over this...

[VegasWolf]

216. They sound like the waitresses at the old downtown casinos. n/t

[Digit]

210. Wonder if they require the men to get rid of stray eyebrows?

Makeup is not part of personal grooming or "dress".

[KansDem]

232. I can't believe we are even having this argument...??!!!

I feel like I'm back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. There were numerous discussions organized by schools, churches, social and community groups and the like that addressed the issue of dress on the job (among other issues). I attended a few of these and witnessed the back and forth argument about whether an employer had or didn't have the right to restrict the appearance of an employee. Then it was mostly about hair length and facial hair. But now we are concerned about makeup?

I just hope the old "If the 'man' is paying you, then you do what the 'man' wants" argument doesn't raise its ugly head again...

But makeup? Horrors! I just hope we don't go back to the era of bouffant or beehive hairdos!!!

[tx_dem41]

235. Is it ok to wear shorts, t-shirt, and flip-flops....

to my office even though my boss frowns on it and it would tend to put a damper on several business meetings we have with customers throughout the week?

[KansDem]

243. So what are you saying? Is this true about your place of employment?

Or is this just a hypothetical situation?

You wear the attire you believe to be appropriate for your work. Painting your face (unless you are a clown) should not be required to hold your job. If you want to show up at business meetings in shorts, t-shirt, and flip-flops, then go ahead. No doubt you'll be let go when your sales fall off...

But bartending and makeup is another matter. I worked as a bartender for a couple of years. I worked with female bartenders and NEVER did the employer demand they where makeup. They did their job and did it well. That's what matters! If the female bartenders thought their tips would increase if they painted themselves up, then perhaps they would have done that. But they didn't so I can only surmise they knew better than I.

And since when did "grooming standards" require makeup? What if the woman had come in to work with blue eye shadow, rouge, and ruby-red lips? What if she were wearing false eyelashes and wig? Would Harrah's find this unacceptable? As a customer I know I would! It all boils down to what is appropriate, and common sense dictates that...not some Corporate Clown.

While were on the subject, this bullshit about Barbie-izing the barmaids in order to increase profits is pure bullshit... For once, I'd like to see scientific studies to back up this claim, not some peckerhead manager who THINKS makeup will mean more $$$.

What the f*ck is wrong with natural beauty anyway? I'm so sick and tired of marketers and promoters pushing "beauty" as something that comes out of a bottle, jar, tube or canister. That's the f*cking MEDIA's idea of beauty, not mine or the people I know...

[Boosterman]

245. Heh I like your attitude about the managers

Worked regular bars and casinos for 15 years and I got so sick of the "if we put a hot girl in here we can build up business line". In my experience those "hot girls" were usually not very good at bartending. It wasnt necessarily a lack of ability as it was the lack of a sense of urgency that is absolutely neccesary to be a good bartender. IOWs they flirted too much and didnt make drinks fast enough so they were constantly in the "weeds" (way behind in their work). In the long run I saw two bars go down that tried that philosophy. Most guys want the drink first then the eye candy.

[tx_dem41]

252. Its not a hypothetical and I don't do sales....

I was strictly responding to this statement of yours:

"I just hope the old "If the 'man' is paying you, then you do what the 'man' wants" argument doesn't raise its ugly head again..."

No where did I bring up the case in the OP. I was addressing my personal experience against your general statement.

[Megahurtz]

233. You know what really sucks about this story?

Isn't there some kind of Federal law (that the GOP signed in the last four years, of course) that says that an employer can fire an employee for ANY reason???

This may have had a bad, bad, legal influence.

Any one else heard of this???

Thank you again, der fuher and cohorts!!! (sarcasm)

:argh:

[theboss]

271. That's the definition of an at-will employee

Which has been the law forever. Though I do wonder if the bartender was part of a union, which would establish its own process in the CBA.

[Boosterman]

242. Ya know forget all this makeup stuff

You want to be outraged? They force these cocktails to carry 20 pound trays while wearing high heels for 7 hours a shift usually. This despite all the medical evidence of how friggin bad that is for your back and feet.

Edited to add- Like guys are even looking at their shoes. Morans. 2-3 inch heels btw ladies. How would you like that?

[VegasWolf]

248. That's one of the many reasons that I tip them so generously. n/t

[stanwyck]

246. This reminds me of The Handmaid's Tale

and the very secret, private men's club where the women dressed like whores and wore lots of makeup for the oh so pious fundamentalist men. If they didn't, they'd lose more than their jobs. It was a matter of life and death. This is a kind of reverse Taliban. Be "sexy" according to what we deem is "sexy" or perish. How can anyone on this board support mandating the wearing of makeup for a bartender as a legitimate employer concern? The women is a bartender. Not a model. Who's next? Teachers? RNs?

[tx_dem41]

253. This was at a casino bar....if this bar was like casino bars I have been..

to, around half the patrons were female (oddly enough, from the post of someone experienced in the casino industry, it appears the casinos discriminate against men as well by not putting them into these positions), so I don't think the "private men's club" analogy holds, since it was neither private or exclusively (at all) male.

[Boosterman]

255. Whats really odd is that

generally women tend to play the slots. Men tend to play the table games. Like I said my casino was one of the few to allow men to work as a cocktail. The men tended to make better average money in slots. Wonder why? ;)

Edit oh and to be on topic most open bars ie accessible to the public have video poker or some such to play. It tends to be a fairly even mix and a lot of off work casino employees here at least.

[stanwyck]

277. I was making a comparison

about the mentality. It's the expectation that women should wear makeup in order to do their job. How can you explain this expectation, or requirement, as legitimate? The woman had apparently done her job sufficiently to be employed for 20 years...now she can't appear at work as herself. She needs enhancement. The men do not. There is no rational explanation that is not inherently sexist and discrimatory. This is absurd. She's not a showgirl. She's not on stage. She's mixing drinks. And management has decided mixing drinks requires lipstick...eye shadow...what else? Can you not realize how inane this is?

[tx_dem41]

284. Actually, if you read some of the posts by Boosterman and others...

you'll find out that basically they are on stage. Its a pretty weird policy, and you won't find it any less inane.

[Boosterman]

295. Well like I said

I have a feeling that was just their excuse to fire her. Read some of my other posts.

[Child_Of_Isis]

288. This is what happens when Freepers take over.

Eventually, freeper thought spreads out into the populace and even some Dems begin to think like them.

[silvermachine]

293. Or in this thread....

....people who claim to be Dems but are not.

[Child_Of_Isis]

301. Anymore, there is at least

one in every thread that I open in DU. They must not care for free(k)republic anymore.

[NYC]

262. SEXIST.

Totally sexist. No woman should be required to wear makeup.

[Boosterman]

263. Hmm then how do you feel about

women being forced to wear high heels while many of the guys get to wear dress tennis shoes?

[NYC]

264. Equally sexist.

[theboss]

265. How about men being forced to wear ties?

While women can wear open collars?

I really think these dress code arguments always degenerate into matters of taste. There are federal guidelines to protect employees if the rules unduly impact their religious beliefs but in general, these discussions end up with a guy in a skirt or a woman in a tie. The law has to be able to deal with the fact that men and woman are fundamentally different (you know...with different parts) and that employers have the right to present a certain image if they want. I think the real issue here is when this policy went into affect. I am also curious if she is part of a Union and how this complies with the CBA.

Now enough with intelligence... here is a totally tasteless story. My buddy used to manage a sports bar when he was in college. This place was ripping of Hooters pretty badly in the dress of the waitstaff. Basically the waitresses wore tight, cut-off referee shirts and tight short shorts. So one day, I asked my buddy - who was no skinny minny himself - what happens if a heavy girl applied for the job. He said it only happened once and after showing her the required uniform, she removed herself from consideration. Should this be illegal? I dunno. But I do know that one of the waitresses there was one of the most gorgeous women I have ever seen in my life. And now I feel old. I wish I were 21 again. Damn kids.

[NYC]

266. Makeup is not clothing.

It should not be part of a dress code.

[theboss]

267. How about grooming?

Should hair be part of the dress code?

PS When my cousin worked at Disney World in the 80s, the dress code had some clause about being "freshly scrubbed" or something.

[NYC]

268. Makeup is not grooming.

Washing one's face, combing one's hair = grooming. Makeup is not grooming.

Makeup is sexist. I'm moving on to more important topics.

[theboss]

270. I dunno...It seems like an arbitrary cutting off point

Once you concede that an employer can control your clothes and hair, what's the difference with makeup.

[Skittles]

311. it is MEN forcing men to wear ties

nt

[Name removed]

285. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fleshdancer]

269. and if she goes to work wearing Goth makeup??

To say that a company can force an employee to wear makeup is just asking for a smart ass (like me) to take the concept to a whole new and "interesting" level. I'd come to work looking like a clown. :+

[AliciaKeyedUp]

279. Most companies have handbooks

That urge appropriate, professional dress or some similar wording. Goth makeup is not appropriate professional dress unless you are in the rock business or run some sort of trendy shop, etc.

[NuttyFluffers]

320. i love you!!!!

i'd come in looking like a clown too :+

and i'd probably ask if the management can put in a rule to mandate the male workers to wax their legs and tweeze their eyebrows. let's see how much fun the shoe is on the other foot! :D

[Mike Niendorff]

276. sorry, but this is 100% consistent with existing precedent.

It sucks, but ...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=425&invol=238#247">Kelley v. Johnson (425 U.S. 238 (1976)

As long as that ruling stands then this is the way it is. If the explicit state action in that case was not sufficient to constitute a Constitutional violation, then it's hard to see how the actions of a private employer would cross the line either.


MDN

[ElsewheresDaughter]

283. sounds to me like what they want to do is get rid of her because of

age and are using this make=up issue as a legal way to replace her with fresh meat...age disgrimanation is against the law but make=up requirement is not...just my $0.02

[Liberal In Texas]

303. BINGO, ElsewheresD

Woman works someplace 20 years, all of a suddden she's doesn't wear enough makeup. Bye bye.

Happens more than you all know.

[Boosterman]

305. Well that might be part of it

but honestly I think its because she probably made too much an hour. Her replacement makes half what she did hourly probably. Its a current trend in some casinos.

[Logansquare]

294. I would have come in wearing clown makeup

you know, a Full Bozo with white pancake and big red lips drawn outside my mouth. You want makeup assholes? I'll give you makeup!

[Megahurtz]

297. delete

response to wrong person

[AngryAmish]

304. This also is a very long thread

[Bo]

309. giveme a chinaco

[onecent]

316. If women knew the ingredients in makeup the makeup industry

would GO BANKRUPT

[radio4progressives]

319. Bad Framing of the arguement..

Her lawyers shouldn't have sued on the basis of sex discrimination based on double standards wrt to make up in and of itself. her lawyer should sued for wrongful termination on the false premise that "make up" constitutes good grooming at all.

cleanleness and neat appearance constitutes good grooming. not make up.

based on the report, it appears that she had an unenlightened attorney at best.