Jespersen v harrahs. Darlene Jespersen, Plaintiff 2022-12-25
Jespersen v harrahs Rating:
4,2/10
1160
reviews
Jespersen v. Harrah’s: Firing of Woman Who Refused To Wear Make
HARRAH S OPERATING CO. In addition, a showing of severe or extreme emotional distress under the second element requires proof of physical injury or serious emotional distress causing physical injury. But neither was Price Waterhouse, in which the adverse employment action taken against the plaintiff was that she was denied partnership. This case is essen- tially a challenge to one small part of what is an overall apparel, appearance, and grooming policy that applies largely 4134 JESPERSEN v. Lip color must be worn at all times. We need not denounce all makeup as inherently offensive, just as there was no need to denounce all uniforms as inherently offensive in Carroll, to conclude that requiring female bartenders to wear full makeup is an impermissible sex stereotype and is evidence of discrimination because of sex.
Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., 280 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (D. Nev. 2002) :: Justia
The requirement that women spend time and money applying full facial makeup has no corresponding requirement for men, making the overall policy more burdensome for the former than for the latter. In February 2000, Harrah's implemented a "Beverage Department Image Transformation" program at twenty Harrah's locations, including its casino in Reno. We need not denounce all makeup as inherently offensive, just as there was no need to denounce all uniforms as inherently offensive in Carroll, to conclude that requiring female bartenders to wear full makeup is an impermissible sex stereotype and is evidence of discrimination because of sex. Hicks and Veronica Arechederra Hall, Littler Mendelson, P. Jespersen testified that when she wore the makeup she "felt very degraded and very demeaned.
As the non-moving party that bore the ultimate burden of proof at trial, Jespersen had the burden of producing admissible evidence that the "Personal Best" appearance standard imposes a greater burden on female beverage servers than it does on male beverage servers. The program contained certain appearance standards that applied equally to both sexes, including a standard uniform of black pants, white shirt, black vest, and black bow tie. Unfortunately, even if this were a valid argument, Plaintiff presents no evidence to support it. Every requirement that forces men to spend time or money on their appearance has a corresponding requirement that is as, or more, burdensome for women: short hair v. HARRAH S OPERATING CO. Sex-differentiated appearance standards stemming from stereotypes that women are unfit for work, fulfill a different role in the workplace, or are incapable of exercising professional judgment systematically impose a burden on women, converting such stereotypes into a stubborn reality.
See Judge Pregerson Dissent at 4139. The Supreme Court determined that once a plaintiff has established that gender played "a motivating part in an employment decision, the defendant may avoid a finding of liability only by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision even if it had not taken the plaintiff's gender into account. HARRAH S OPERATING CO. The policy at issue required women to wear makeup, but prohibited men from doing the same. Jespersen filed suit in the United States District Court of Nevada alleging Harrah's makeup requirement for female beverage servers constituted disparate treatment sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Accordingly, the panel did not agree with the district court that grooming policies could never discriminate as a matter of law. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient.
Quality employees are difficult to find in any industry and I would think an employer would long hesitate before forcing a loyal, long-time employee to quit over an honest and heartfelt difference of opinion about a matter of personal significance to her. Schroeder, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson, Alex Kozinski, Pamela Ann Rymer, Barry G. Harrah's argued that the policy created similar standards for both men and women, and that where the standards differentiated on the basis of sex, as with the face and hair standards, any burdens imposed fell equally on both male and female bartenders. City of Salem, 369 F. Schroeder, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson, Alex Kozinski, Pamela Ann Rymer, Barry G.
392 F3d 1076 Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Company Inc
In her deposition testimony, attached as a response to the motion for summary judgment, Jespersen described the personal indignity she felt as a result of attempting to comply with the makeup policy. As the majority concedes, Harrah s Personal Best policy contains sex-differentiated requirements regarding each employee s hair, hands, and face. Pervasive discrimination often persists within an industry with exceptional tenacity, and the force of law is sometimes required to overcome it. Furthermore, the majority neglects burdens other than time and money that are imposed by the policy. BACKGROUND Plaintiff worked at Harrah's from 1979 until 2000.
She has not met that burden. § 2000e-2 e 1. HARRAH S OPERATING CO. Jewelry, if issued, must be worn. There is no evidence in this record to indicate that the policy was adopted to make women bartenders conform to a commonly-accepted stereotypical image of what women should wear. However, we have held that requiring women to wear contacts while men may wear glasses, Frank, 216 F.
Harrah's Policy Requiring Women to Wear Makeup Upheld by Federal Appeals Court
As a result, we would have to speculate about those issues in order to then guess whether the policy creates unequal burdens for women. Finally, I note with dismay the employer s decision to let go a valued, experienced employee who had gained accolades JESPERSEN v. When a company acts to enforce sexual stereotypes through grooming standards, it is not immune from Price Waterhouse liability; to the contrary, such actions fall precisely within the heartland of Price Waterhouse. In contrast, this case involves an appearance policy that applied to both male and female bartenders, and was aimed at creating a professional and very similar look for all of them. While those individual requirements differ according to gender, none on its face places a greater burden on one gender than the other. Part of the program consisted of new grooming and appearance standards, called the "Personal Best" program.
Darlene Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., 444 F.3d 1104
In Carroll, the defendant bank required women to wear employer-issued uniforms, but permitted men to wear business attire of their own choosing. . Because a fair reading of the policy indicates that it is applied "evenhandedly to employees of both sexes," Gerdom, 692 F. § 2000e-2 e ; see also Dothard v. Harrah's Operating Company, Inc.
