Post-"Personal Best," (see Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Company, 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir 2006)) it appears that Harrah's has had a change of heart. Once determined to enforce a grooming and appearance standard based on outdated sex stereotypes, now they apparently love the gays.
This is from the HRC mailing list:
We would like to welcome Harrah's Entertainment as a Silver-level corporate sponsor of the Human Rights Campaign. The company has made a long-term commitment to an inclusive and diverse workforce, and this year has achieved an impressive 95 percent score on HRC's Corporate Equality Index. Harrah's was also a presenting sponsor of the first-ever HRC Las Vegas Gala Dinner in September.
Harrah's has been reaching out to GLBT travelers through clever ads in GLBT publications for its Paris Las Vegas resort, and we encourage you to consider staying there the next time you head to Las Vegas. For more information on the company and its Casino Hotel locations in destinations such as Reno/Tahoe, Atlantic City, New Orleans and of course Las Vegas, visit www.harrahs.com.
Diverse workforce? Here is what they required for female employees, including Darlene Jespersen, an openly gay model employee with 20 years experience. They fired her for not wearing makeup:
Females:
. Hair must be teased, curled, or styled every day you work. Hair must be worn down at all times, no exceptions.
. Stockings are to be of nude or natural color consistent with employee's skin tone. No runs.
. Nail polish can be clear, white, pink or red color only. No exotic nail art or length.
. Shoes will be solid black leather or leather type with rubber (non skid) soles.
. Make up (face powder, blush and mascara) must be worn and applied neatly in complimentary colors. Lip color must be worn at all times.
First The Partners, Then The Associates — See Also
10 hours ago
2 comments:
This came up in discussion a little while back. Can you help in coming up with an informed response:
Ms. Jesperson has the choice to work for Harrahs.
Doesn't Harrahs have a choice between types of people it employs?
I really don't have any answer for this except "well, no."
Hi anonymous,
Ms. Jespersen does have the choice of where she works. Harrahs mostly has the choice to pick and choose who they want to hire and fire, but within limits. One limit: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which forbids private employers from making employment decisions based on race, national origin, sex, etc. In Pricewaterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court in 1989 said that the term sex is meant to encompass sex stereotypes-- employers can't force employees to conform to sex stereotypes. They also can't require unequal burdens on the sexes-- so uniforms are fine, but if one sex is required to wear a uniform that takes an extra hour to put on, that is not permitted. I would argue the personal best grooming policy is definitely based on sex stereotypes and definitely places a higher burden on female employees than males (Kozinski explains this really well in his dissent).
Post a Comment