Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Company Inc. - College of Social ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16. Pizer, Jennifer C. “Facial Discrimination: Darlene Jespersen’s Fight Against the Page | 4 Barbie-fication of Bartenders.” (2007) Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, Vol. 14, No. 285. 17. “Title VII. Gender Discrimination. Ninth Circuit Holds That Women Can Be Fired for Refusing to Wear Makeup.” (2006) Harvard Law Review, Vol. 120 No. 2.
INTEREST OF AMICI Page | 5 The American Civil Liberties Union works “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country” (11). It is the duty of the ACLU to interviene on behalf of those whose Consitutional rights, and civil liberties are encroached upon, especially when the greivenced party is of a traditionally discrimiated gourp such as, “people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities” (11). The question in the case of Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co. Inc. is whether an employment issued, gender specific “uniform” policy is covered as discrimination and a violation of Title VII of the Civil Liberties Act. The employment policy at hand requires all female bartenders to wear makeup to work, this is a perpetuation of a sexual-stereotype that women must wear makeup in order to be viewed as professional and attractive. The matter at hand may appear to be a trivial concern about facial makeup, “but the question arises within a historical continuum of dress and decorum demands that have constrained generations of women” (12). STATEMENT OF THE CASE In February 2000 Harrah’s Operating Company began the implementation of an appearance and grooming policy called the “Personal Best” for all beverage department employees at Harrah’s casino locations. Half of the policy requirements were gender neutral, for instance, “a standard uniform of black pants, white shirt, black vest, and black bow tie” (3). The
Page 1 and 2: POLITICAL SCIENCE 353 MOOT COURT PA
Page 3: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page | 3
Page 7 and 8: Page | 7 case in accordance with th
Page 9 and 10: Page | 9 burden, Jespersen claims o
Page 11 and 12: Page | 11 case at hand the Plaintif
Page 13 and 14: Page | 13 hire an individual becaus
Page 15: Page | 15

Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Company Inc. - College of Social ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?