In This Issue...                      MAKEUP RULING ISN'T PRETTY

Sign Up For AHI's Free E-Mail Newsletters:

• Employment Law Today
• Benefits Alert
• HR Soapbox

Use This Link To Sign Up.

Share The Knowledge:

Forward this newsletter to a colleague.

I know what it's like to do the "typical" female primping routine — hair, face, nails, the works. I lived in New Jersey in the 80s when big hair was, well, big — literally and figuratively. Luckily we've moved on from that trend. I've also moved on from my makeup-wearing days. There was a time when I wore makeup every day. As I got older, wearing makeup became more of a pain than a priority. Eventually, only special events like weddings — where there are plenty of photo ops — motivated me to put on makeup. Now, if I'm actually in the wedding, I'll consider it.

All you faithful Soapbox readers (thank you!) may remember the last time I got up on the soapbox (in February) and ranted about peculiar workplace rules. If you don't, the rule that irritated me the most was the one in which a casino required female bartenders to make up their faces and do up their hair. Now, I'm even more irritated. Last month, the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, generally considered employee-friendly, agreed with a panel of the 9th Circuit and with a district court and ruled against the female bartender who was fired for refusing to comply.

Harrah's "Personal Best" policy required female bartenders to wear face powder, blush, mascara, and lipstick — after a required meeting with professional makeup consultants who "created a facial template for each woman" and "dictated where and how the makeup had to be applied." It also required the women to tease, curl, or style their hair every day. Male bartenders were prohibited from wearing makeup; the only regular maintenance they had to do was keep their hair short and their nails clean and trimmed.

Why does this get my goat, you wonder. Don't all women love their makeup and nail polish and hair products, you think. No way! I wish I could say the main reason I don't wear makeup is because I don't need to. Don't hate me because I'm beautiful! (Said with tongue firmly planted in my blush-less cheek.) In reality, what I don't need is the "burden" of it…although the 9th Circuit majority disagrees with me that such a policy places an unequal burden on women. What the court actually ruled is that the female bartender who was fired did not provide sufficient evidence of an unequal burden. The court did not want to "speculate" about it.

What's there to "speculate" about? As one dissenting judge wrote: "You don't need an expert witness to figure out that [face powder, mascara, and lipstick] don't grow on trees." As for the time factor, he went on to say that, "Even those of us who don't wear makeup know how long it can take from the hundreds of hours we've spent over the years frantically tapping our toes and pointing to our wrists." And a slapdash job wasn't acceptable to Harrah's; the female bartenders had to do a "careful and thorough job" as dictated by the image consultants.

Now that I think about it, I really don't need to wear makeup. At least not mentally. I believe I look better without my unpracticed hand trying to apply layers of color to my face and with my next-to-impossible-to-style hair unstyled. It's insulting to women everywhere for Harrah's to apply this policy and send the "inescapable message," according to another dissenting judge, that "women's undoctored faces compare unfavorably to men's…because of a cultural assumption — a gender-based stereotype — that women's faces are incomplete, unattractive, or unprofessional without full makeup."

Turns out that maybe Harrah's didn't truly believe that its female bartenders needed to get all dolled up to do their jobs well. (The one who sued had gained accolades from her customers.) A footnote in the court ruling stated that Harrah's "quietly disposed of" the Personal Best policy after she filed suit.

So why rail against a policy that no longer exists? For one, as far as I know, the bartender didn't get her job back. For another, the pro-employer ruling leaves open the possibility that other employers can legally fire their female workers for refusing to comply with their makeup policies. In my last Soapbox, I wrote that I was glad I don't work in the service industry. But neither Harrah's defense nor the court ruling addressed the business necessity of the policy. Therefore, any employer can apply a makeup rule. That's as irritating as feeling hair spray in my hair and makeup in my eyes.

Good luck, stay legal, and embrace natural beauty!

Gloria Ju
Senior Editor

TOP 5 RESOURCES FOR HUMAN RESOURCES PROFESSIONALS