Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Companies that regulate a worker’s appearance—from banning tattoos to mandating makeup—are facing a growing risk of lawsuits, employment lawyers assert. Appearance-based discrimination lawsuits are being filed more frequently, involving everything from eyebrow rings to sexy clothing, employment attorneys say. “It’s not the IBM loose white shirt world anymore,” said attorney Henry Perlowski, who chairs the employment law practice group at Atlanta’s Arnall Golden Gregory. “I think that as more and more people look different and are entering the work force, the tensions between culture and policy are going to escalate.” A cultural shift is taking place in which managers are struggling to control a younger generation of workers who are more culturally and racially diverse than before-and more resistant to rules regulating their personal appearance. Attorneys note that in recent years there’s been a rash of image-based lawsuits, including: In Nevada, a female bartender is challenging a recent court ruling that upheld a casino’s right to fire her for refusing to wear makeup. In Massachusetts, a former Costco employee is challenging the retailer’s prohibition on facial jewelry. Most recently, a jury on April 4 ruled against a Harvard University librarian, Desiree Goodwin, who alleged that she was denied promotions because she was too attractive and did not fit the image of a librarian. Goodwin v. Harvard College, No. 03-11797JLT (D. Mass.). “Our claim was that she was told that she was considered to be just a pretty girl who wore sexy outfits, and that’s why she wasn’t getting promoted,” said the attorney for the librarian, Jonathan Margolis of Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz in Boston. “This was a case where she didn’t fit the stereotype of the librarian.” Margolis said he has not yet decided whether to appeal. Harvard’s lawyer, Judith Malone of Boston’s Palmer & Dodge, could not be reached for comment. Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles, is representing Darlene Jespersen in an ongoing sex-discrimination case against Harrah’s Entertainment Inc. over a “personal best” policy that required women to wear makeup. Jespersen v. Harrah’s, 392 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2004). Jespersen, a 20-year employee and bartender at Harrah’s, was fired in August 2000 for refusing to comply. On Dec. 28, 2004, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Harrah’s “personal best” policy, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the policy imposed unequal burdens on male and female employees. The policy required male bartenders to keep their hair short and their nails trimmed and to appear neatly groomed. Jespersen has requested a rehearing by the entire court. “Our argument here is that the policy is more burdensome on women,” Pizer said. Harrah’s spokesman David Strow noted that Harrah’s personal-best standards no longer exist, and have been replaced by modified standards that require makeup to be tasteful and not excessive-but not mandatory. Strow stressed that Harrah’s did not change its policy because of Jespersen’s lawsuit. The courts have long upheld grooming policies as long as they’re rationally related to business objectives, noted employment law specialist Lynn Kappelman, who is defending Costco in a suit involving an employee’s fight to wear an eyebrow ring to work. Cloutier v. Costco, 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004). On Dec. 1, 2004, the 1st Circuit upheld Costco’s firing of a woman who refused to remove or cover an eyebrow ring on religious grounds. The court held that Costco had a legitimate interest in mandating a professional appearance by workers, and held that it would have created an undue burden for Costco to have accommodated the employee. The plaintiff, Kimberly Cloutier, claimed that one of the tenets of her church, the Church of Body Modification, was to wear piercing. Her lawyer, Mike O. Shea of the Law Office of Michael O. Shea in Wilbraham, Mass., declined comment, saying only that he has filed for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Kappelman, of Boston’s Seyfarth Shaw, would not comment on the suit.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.