Today, a man wearing body piercing jewelry is hardly noticed. The standards also included grooming requirements that differed to some extent for men and women, requiring women to wear some facial makeup and not permitting men to wear any. Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the non-moving party must produce some evidence showing that there remains a genuine issue of material fact for trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. When Defendant implemented its Personal Appearance Standards, Plaintiff only felt "extremely uncomfortable.
In order to enforce the "Personal Best" standards, Harrah's required each beverage service employee to attend "Personal Best Image Training" prior to his or her final uniform fitting. Nor have our subsequent cases invalidated the "unequal burdens" test as a means of assessing whether sex-differentiated appearance standards discriminate on the basis of sex. We must decide whether these standards are discriminatory; whether they are "based on a policy which on its face applies less favorably to one gender. Having won the legal battle, I hope that Harrah's will now do the generous and decent thing by offering Jespersen her job back, and letting her give it her personal best-- without the makeup. If you are used to wearing makeup-as most American women are-this may seem like no big deal. . See noting that the basis of sex.
Whether the defendant's policy has disparate impact is an issue of law for the Court. . Jespersen relied solely on evidence that she had been a good bartender, and that she had personal objections to complying with the policy, in order to support her argument that Harrah s sells and exploits its women employees. For more information, visit. The policy does not single out Jespersen.
We respect Jespersen's resolve to be true to herself and to the image that she wishes to project to the world. Reed, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 22, 2005 San Francisco, California Filed April 14, 2006 Before: Mary M. Jespersen also contends that even if Harrah's makeup requirement survives the "unequal burdens" test, that test should be invalidated in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Price Waterhouse plaintiff, offered individualized evidence, describing events in which she was subjected to discriminatory remarks. . BACKGROUND 6 Plaintiff Darlene Jespersen worked successfully as a bartender at Harrah's for twenty years and compiled what by all accounts was an exemplary record. The Court has not yet issued a response to the petition.
The majority holds that Jespersen failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Harrah's policy imposes unequal burdens on men and women. We could—and should—take judicial notice of these incontrovertible facts. Viewed in isolation or, at the very least, as part of a narrower category of requirements affecting employees faces the makeup or facial uniform requirement becomes closely analogous to the uniform policy held to constitute impermissible sex stereotyping in Carroll v. She worked as a bartender for the majority of her time at Harrah's. ©2005 Jackson Lewis P. This presupposes that Jespersen is unreasonable or idiosyncratic in her discomfort.
Those rules apply here. . Accordingly, Jes- persen should be allowed to present her case to a jury. Jespersen refused to comply with the amended policy. The distinction created by the majority opinion leaves men and women in service industries, who are more likely to be subject to policies like the Harrah's "Personal Best" policy, without the protection that white-collar professionals receive. HARRAH'S OPERATING COMPANY, INC.
Accordingly, I dissent from Part III of the majority opinion and from the judgment of the court. It is not entirely clear exactly what this evidence must be, but nothing in Price Waterhouse suggests that a certain type or quantity of evidence is required to prove a prima facie case of discrimination. This policy did not, as the 4138 JESPERSEN v. Because a fair reading of the policy indicates that it is applied "evenhandedly to employees of both sexes," Gerdom, 692 F. 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.
HARRAH S OPERATING CO. Under established equal burdens analysis, when an employer's grooming and appearance policy does not unreasonably burden one gender more than the other, that policy will not violate Title VII. Jespersen acknowledged receipt of the policy containing the new standards and committed to adhere to the standards. We hold that under the "unequal burdens" test, which is this Circuit's test for evaluating whether an employer's sex-differentiated appearance standards constitute sex discrimination in violation of Title VII, Jespersen failed to introduce evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether Harrah's "Personal Best" policy imposes unequal burdens on male and female employees. Air France, 930 F. OPINION SCHROEDER, Chief Judge: We took this sex discrimination case en banc in order to reaffirm our circuit law concerning appearance and grooming standards, and to clarify our evolving law of sex stereotyping claims.