« Gender-based grooming code survives Title VII attack | Main | EEOC policy on race and color discrimination »
Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co - a satire
April 18, 2006 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
The 9th Circuit held that the following work rules were legal under Title VII because they did not create "unequal burdens" for men and women, and because they did not involve sex stereotypes:
- Women must wear makeup, stockings, and colored nail polish.
- Males are prohibited from wearing makeup or colored nail polish.
- Women must wear their hair teased, curled, or styled.
- Men must maintain short haircuts and neatly trimmed fingernails.
I offer the following rules, which will not result in "unequal burdens" and will not be sex stereotypes, according to the 9th Circuit's "reasoning" -
- Female judges must wear pink robes.
- Male judges must wear blue robes.
- Female lawyers must wear pointy-toed shoes.
- Male lawyers must wear square-toed shoes.
- Female lawyers must greet the bench with a curtsey.
- Male lawyers must greet the bench with a bow.
- Female lawyers must wear red jackets.
- Male lawyers must wear black jackets.
Perhaps you can think of a few more.
The case: Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co (9th Cir en banc 04/14/2006).
EEOC | NLRB | Supreme Court | Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101
