In a class by themselves: the legal status of employee appearance policies under title VII after Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co
This article discusses the status of appearance rules under Title VII after Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co court case. It examines how societal attitudes toward the use of makeup have evolved and how employers use it to screen women into and out of the workplace. Although the Jespersen cour...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Employee Relations Law Journal 2007-03, Vol.32 (4), p.3 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 3 |
container_title | Employee Relations Law Journal |
container_volume | 32 |
creator | Bible, Jon D |
description | This article discusses the status of appearance rules under Title VII after Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co court case. It examines how societal attitudes toward the use of makeup have evolved and how employers use it to screen women into and out of the workplace. Although the Jespersen court gave lip service to the idea that a grooming rule could be voided under the unequal burden and sex stereotyping theories of sex discrimination, the manner in which it decided the case makes it clear that claimants will have a tough row to hoe under either theory. Regarding the stereotyping theory, the court had ample grounds for voiding the makeup rule, for Harrah's obviously wanted to make female bartenders conform to a stereotypical view of how attractive beverage servers should look. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_194227942</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A160106117</galeid><sourcerecordid>A160106117</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g201t-1337bbeb1c861647b5989db771cf81034d40525c169e4887d0ddb03d8e7f6ebe3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptj89LwzAUx3tQcE7_hycePHUkbdek3sZQVxnsol5Lmrx2kaypSTbY2X_cyLwI48H78eXzffC9SCaEVDzlvOJXybX3n4TQvGDlJPmuBxAgjfAe2iOELe48mgP6x98dDPbCgA8i7D3YDnA3GntEBDGOKJwYJMJojZYaPewHhQ6CDgbho65BdCHer-hHdB4HOMxgJZwT2wcPm6iJoIcelvYmueyE8Xj7N6fJ-_PT23KVrjcv9XKxTvuM0JDSPGdtiy2VvKRlwdp5xSvVMkZlxynJC1WQeTaXtKyw4JwpolRLcsWRdSW2mE-Tu9Pf0dmvPfrQOBytC76hVZFlLLbI3J-YmBsbPXQ2OCF32stmQUtCSUkpi1R6hupxiKGMHbDTUf7Hz87wsRTutDxj-AGBh4Xb</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>194227942</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>In a class by themselves: the legal status of employee appearance policies under title VII after Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>Bible, Jon D</creator><creatorcontrib>Bible, Jon D</creatorcontrib><description>This article discusses the status of appearance rules under Title VII after Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co court case. It examines how societal attitudes toward the use of makeup have evolved and how employers use it to screen women into and out of the workplace. Although the Jespersen court gave lip service to the idea that a grooming rule could be voided under the unequal burden and sex stereotyping theories of sex discrimination, the manner in which it decided the case makes it clear that claimants will have a tough row to hoe under either theory. Regarding the stereotyping theory, the court had ample grounds for voiding the makeup rule, for Harrah's obviously wanted to make female bartenders conform to a stereotypical view of how attractive beverage servers should look.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0098-8898</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ERLJDC</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc</publisher><subject>Bars ; Conformity ; Cosmetics ; Court decisions ; Employees ; Employment policies ; Federal court decisions ; Females ; Gender ; Hair ; Hairstyles ; Jewelry ; Labor law ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Personal appearance ; Privacy ; Roles ; Sex discrimination ; Stereotypes ; Women</subject><ispartof>Employee Relations Law Journal, 2007-03, Vol.32 (4), p.3</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2007 Aspen Publishers, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Aspen Publishers, Inc. Spring 2007</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>312,314,780,784,791</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bible, Jon D</creatorcontrib><title>In a class by themselves: the legal status of employee appearance policies under title VII after Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co</title><title>Employee Relations Law Journal</title><description>This article discusses the status of appearance rules under Title VII after Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co court case. It examines how societal attitudes toward the use of makeup have evolved and how employers use it to screen women into and out of the workplace. Although the Jespersen court gave lip service to the idea that a grooming rule could be voided under the unequal burden and sex stereotyping theories of sex discrimination, the manner in which it decided the case makes it clear that claimants will have a tough row to hoe under either theory. Regarding the stereotyping theory, the court had ample grounds for voiding the makeup rule, for Harrah's obviously wanted to make female bartenders conform to a stereotypical view of how attractive beverage servers should look.</description><subject>Bars</subject><subject>Conformity</subject><subject>Cosmetics</subject><subject>Court decisions</subject><subject>Employees</subject><subject>Employment policies</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Hair</subject><subject>Hairstyles</subject><subject>Jewelry</subject><subject>Labor law</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Personal appearance</subject><subject>Privacy</subject><subject>Roles</subject><subject>Sex discrimination</subject><subject>Stereotypes</subject><subject>Women</subject><issn>0098-8898</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptj89LwzAUx3tQcE7_hycePHUkbdek3sZQVxnsol5Lmrx2kaypSTbY2X_cyLwI48H78eXzffC9SCaEVDzlvOJXybX3n4TQvGDlJPmuBxAgjfAe2iOELe48mgP6x98dDPbCgA8i7D3YDnA3GntEBDGOKJwYJMJojZYaPewHhQ6CDgbho65BdCHer-hHdB4HOMxgJZwT2wcPm6iJoIcelvYmueyE8Xj7N6fJ-_PT23KVrjcv9XKxTvuM0JDSPGdtiy2VvKRlwdp5xSvVMkZlxynJC1WQeTaXtKyw4JwpolRLcsWRdSW2mE-Tu9Pf0dmvPfrQOBytC76hVZFlLLbI3J-YmBsbPXQ2OCF32stmQUtCSUkpi1R6hupxiKGMHbDTUf7Hz87wsRTutDxj-AGBh4Xb</recordid><startdate>20070322</startdate><enddate>20070322</enddate><creator>Bible, Jon D</creator><general>Aspen Publishers, Inc</general><scope>ILT</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0F</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070322</creationdate><title>In a class by themselves: the legal status of employee appearance policies under title VII after Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co</title><author>Bible, Jon D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g201t-1337bbeb1c861647b5989db771cf81034d40525c169e4887d0ddb03d8e7f6ebe3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Bars</topic><topic>Conformity</topic><topic>Cosmetics</topic><topic>Court decisions</topic><topic>Employees</topic><topic>Employment policies</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Hair</topic><topic>Hairstyles</topic><topic>Jewelry</topic><topic>Labor law</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Personal appearance</topic><topic>Privacy</topic><topic>Roles</topic><topic>Sex discrimination</topic><topic>Stereotypes</topic><topic>Women</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bible, Jon D</creatorcontrib><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Employee Relations Law Journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bible, Jon D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>In a class by themselves: the legal status of employee appearance policies under title VII after Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co</atitle><jtitle>Employee Relations Law Journal</jtitle><date>2007-03-22</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>3</spage><pages>3-</pages><issn>0098-8898</issn><coden>ERLJDC</coden><abstract>This article discusses the status of appearance rules under Title VII after Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co court case. It examines how societal attitudes toward the use of makeup have evolved and how employers use it to screen women into and out of the workplace. Although the Jespersen court gave lip service to the idea that a grooming rule could be voided under the unequal burden and sex stereotyping theories of sex discrimination, the manner in which it decided the case makes it clear that claimants will have a tough row to hoe under either theory. Regarding the stereotyping theory, the court had ample grounds for voiding the makeup rule, for Harrah's obviously wanted to make female bartenders conform to a stereotypical view of how attractive beverage servers should look.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Aspen Publishers, Inc</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0098-8898 |
ispartof | Employee Relations Law Journal, 2007-03, Vol.32 (4), p.3 |
issn | 0098-8898 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_reports_194227942 |
source | EBSCOhost Business Source Complete |
subjects | Bars Conformity Cosmetics Court decisions Employees Employment policies Federal court decisions Females Gender Hair Hairstyles Jewelry Labor law Laws, regulations and rules Personal appearance Privacy Roles Sex discrimination Stereotypes Women |
title | In a class by themselves: the legal status of employee appearance policies under title VII after Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T23%3A48%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=In%20a%20class%20by%20themselves:%20the%20legal%20status%20of%20employee%20appearance%20policies%20under%20title%20VII%20after%20Jespersen%20v.%20Harrah's%20Operating%20Co&rft.jtitle=Employee%20Relations%20Law%20Journal&rft.au=Bible,%20Jon%20D&rft.date=2007-03-22&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=3&rft.pages=3-&rft.issn=0098-8898&rft.coden=ERLJDC&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA160106117%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=194227942&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A160106117&rfr_iscdi=true |