Case Analysis: Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co.
In the case of Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co., Darlene Jespersen, the plaintiff, alleged sex discrimination by her employer, Harrah’s Operating Co., based on the company’s grooming policy that required female bartenders to wear makeup. The case examines whether the policy constitutes sex-based discrimination and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The plaintiff alleges disparate treatment, which refers to intentional discrimination based on a protected characteristic, rather than disparate impact, which refers to practices that have a disproportionately negative impact on a protected group. In this case, Jespersen claims that Harrah’s grooming policy imposes an unequal burden on female employees compared to male employees.
The protected classification that the plaintiff alleges the defendant improperly acted upon is sex. Jespersen argues that Harrah’s requirement for female bartenders to wear makeup is a form of sex-based discrimination because it imposes a different standard on women compared to men by mandating a grooming practice that is not required for male employees.
The defendant argues that the grooming policy is justified by Harrah’s “Beverage Department Image Transformation” program, which aimed to promote a more glamorous and attractive image for the company. They contend that the policy is necessary for business purposes and customer satisfaction, as it enhances the overall experience for patrons. Harrah’s asserts that the policy is a justified business necessity and does not discriminate against female employees.
One of the most persuasive facts presented by the plaintiff is evidence showing that the grooming policy disproportionately affects female employees and places an additional burden on them compared to male employees. Jespersen argues that requiring women to wear makeup enforces traditional gender stereotypes and perpetuates societal expectations of female appearance. On the other hand, the defendant presents evidence of customer preference surveys and testimonials suggesting that the makeup requirement enhances the company’s image and customer satisfaction.
The court rules in favor of the defendant, holding that Harrah’s grooming policy did not constitute sex discrimination under Title VII. The court states that while the policy may impose different requirements on male and female employees, it does not treat women unfavorably or create an unequal burden solely based on their sex. The court acknowledges that grooming standards may differ between genders, but as long as they are reasonable and not unduly burdensome, they do not run afoul of Title VII.
The court’s reasoning is based on their interpretation of VII’s prohibition sex discrimination. find that Harrah’s grooming policy is reasonably related to business needs and customer preferences, and it does not impose an undue burden on female employees. The court emphasizes that employers have some discretion in establishing appearance standards as long as they do not unjustifiably discriminate against employees based on sex.
In conclusion, Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co. is a case involving sex discrimination in employment where the plaintiff alleges disparate treatment due to Harrah’s grooming policy requiring female bartenders to wear makeup. The defendant argues that the policy is justified by business necessity and customer satisfaction. The court rules in favor of the defendant, concluding that the policy does not constitute sex discrimination as it does not treat women unfavorably or impose an undue burden solely based on their sex. The court’s ruling reflects the balancing of employer discretion in setting appearance standards while ensuring fairness and non-discrimination in employment practices.
