Employers can set different dress codes and grooming standards for women than for men, as long as the rules aren't burdensome or based on sex stereotypes, a federal appeals court decided Friday in the case of a female casino bartender who was fired for refusing to wear makeup.
So sayeth the supposedly liberal 9th Circuit in an opinion penned by the Circuit's Chief Judge, Mary Schroeder (well, technically the Chronicle is saying that - summarizing Schroeder's opinion).
Hmmmm. Am I the only person who sees an inconsistency in those two phrases I italicized?
Posted by armand at April 15, 2006 11:17 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Law and the CourtsObviously the people who made the decision have never worn makeup, which is extremely burdensome, and quite expensive. Essentially this ruling requires women to shell out a substantial amount of money to keep their jobs (above and beyond that required of men).
Posted by: binky at April 15, 2006 11:36 AM | PERMALINKIndeed.
One thing that strikes me as interesting is that this case - beyond being about existing law - seems so much about common sense as opposed to ideology or jurisprudence or anything like that. And so it's not that surprising that the 4 dissenters (Kozinski, Rymer, Graber and Pregerson) represent quite a variety of places on the ideological spectrum.
Posted by: Armand at April 15, 2006 11:48 AM | PERMALINKAnd, I should add, operates on the assumption that women must not only be neat and tidy, but also girly and pretty. Sounds pretty stereotypical to me.
urgh. Brain firing on half cells today... blinding headache.
Posted by: binky at April 15, 2006 11:54 AM | PERMALINK